which the Romanists now teach nor power of nature to doe the workes of the Lawe according to the substance of the things commanded though not according to the intention of the Law-giuer to loue God aboue all and to do actions morally good or not sinfull without concurrence of speciall grace nor election and reprobation depending on the foresight of some thing in vs positiue or priuatiue nor merit of congruence and condignity nor workes of supererogation nor counsels of perfection as they now teach nor iustification by perfection of inherent qualities nor vncertainty of grace nor seaven Sacraments properly so named nor locall presence nor Transubstantiation nor orall manducation of the body of Christ nor reall sacrificing of it for the quick the dead nor remission of sinnes after this life nor tormenting of the soules of men dying in the state of saluation in a part of hell hundred of yeares by divels in corporall fire out of which prayer should deliver them nor that the Saints heare our prayers know or are acquainted with our particular wants nor the grosse Idolatry in those times committed and intollerable abuses found in the number fashion and worship of their images nor their absolution as now they define it nor treasure of the Church growing out of the superfluitie of Saints merits not rewardable in themselues to be disposed by the Pope for supplie of other mens wants to release them out of Purgatorie by way of indulgence nor the infallibility of the Popes iudgment and plenitude of his power such and so great that he may depose Princes and dispose of their crownes and dignities and that whatsoeuer he doth he may not be brought into order or deposed by authority of the whole Christian world in a generall Councell These are the errours which wee condemne and our adversaries maintaine and defend these wee are well assured were not the doctrines of that Church wherein our Fathers liued and dyed though wee do not deny but they were taught by some in that Church All these we offer to proue to be errour in matter of our Christian faith and that seeing wee could no longer haue peace with our adversaries but by approuing these impieties wee had iust cause to divide our selues from them or to speake more properly to suffer our selues to be accursed anathematized and rejected by them rather than to subscribe to so many errours and heresies contrary to the Christian and Catholike verity CHAP. 8. Of the true Church which and where it was before Luthers time THus then it appeareth which wee thinke to haue beene the true Church of God before Luther or others of that sort were heard of in the world namely that wherein all our Fathers liued and died wherein none of the errours reproued by Luther ever found generall vniforme and full approbation in which all the abuses remoued by him were long before by all good men complained off and a reformation desired And therefore though wee accknowledge Wickliffe Husse Hierome of Prague and the like who with great magnanimity opposed them selues against the Tyranny of the See of Rome and the impiety of those who withheld the trueth of God in vnrighteousnesse who being named Christians serued Antichrist as Bernard complained of some in his time to haue beene the worthy servants of God and holy martyrs and confessours suffering in the cause of Christ against Antichrist yet doe wee not thinke that the Church of God was found onely in them or that there was no other appearance of succession of Church and ministerie as Stapleton and other of that faction falsely impute vnto vs. For wee most firmely beleeue all the Churches in the world wherein our Fathers liued and died to haue beene the true Churches of God in which vndoubtedly salvation was to be found and that they which taught embraced and beleeued those damnable errors which the Romanists now defend against vs were a faction only in the Churches as were they that denied the resurrection vrged circumcision and despised the Apostles of Christ in the Churches of Corinth and Galatia If any of our men deny these Churches to haue beene the true Churches of of God their meaning is limitted in respect of the prevailing faction that was in the Church and including them and all the wicked impieties by any of them defended in which sense their negatiue is to bee vnderstood For howsoever the Church which is not to be charged with the errours and faults of all that in the midst of her did amisse held a sauing profession of the trueth of God yet there were many and they carrying the greatest shew of the Church that erred damnably and held not a sauing profession of diuine trueth wherevpon Gerson sayth that before the councell of Constance the false opinions touching the power of the Pope did fret like a Canker preuailed so far that he would hardly haue escaped the note of heresie that had said but halfe so much as was defined in the Councell of Constance by the vniuersall consent of the whole Christian world Gregorius Ariminensis sheweth that touching the power of nature to doe things morrally good and to fulfill the law without concurrence of speciall grace touching the workes of infidels predestination reprobation and punishments of originall sinne the heresies of Pelagius were taught in the Church and that not by a few or contemptible men but so manie and of soe great place that he almost feared to follow the doctrine of the Fathers and oppose himselfe against them therein The same doth Gerson report concerning sundry lewd assertions preiudiciall to the states of Kings and Princes which the Councell of Constance could not bee induced to condemne by reason of a mighty faction that preuailed in it though many great ones much urged it and though they made no stay to condemne the positions of Wicklife and Hus seeming to derogate from the state of the Clergie though many of them might carry a good and Catholike sense if they might haue found a fauourable construction Whereupon he breaketh into a bitter complaint of the partialities and vnequall courses holden in the Church and protesteth that he hath no hope of a reformation by a councell things standing as they then did The like complaint did Contarenus make in our time that if any man did debase the nature of man deiect the pride of sinnefull flesh magnifie the riches of the grace of God and vrge the necessity of it hee was iudged a Lutheran and pronounced an Hereticke though they that gloried in the name of Catholikes were themselues Pelagian heretickes if not worse then Pelagians Alas saith Occam the time is come the blessed Apostle Saint Paule 2. Timoth. 4 prophecied of When men will not suffer wholesome doctrine but hauing their eares itching after their owne lustes get them a heape of Teachers turning their eares from the trueth and being giuen vnto fables This Prophecie is altogether fullfilled in our
cleering of this point and the answering of this obiection we must remember that whereas the ordinary and set meanes of saluation is Baptisme so that no man carelessely neglecting or wilfully contemning it can be saued The Fathers notwithstanding doe constantly teach that if men be excluded by ineuitable impossibilitie they may be saued without it and that faith and the inward conuersion of the heart flying vnto GOD in Christ through the gracious instinct and sweete motion of the sanctifying spirit may bee reckoned a kind of Baptisme because thereby they obtaine all that which should haue beene sought in the Baptisme of water And because if an ordinary degree of faith doe sometimes obtaine saluation without the Baptisme of water much more that which maketh men willing to suffer death for CHRIST therefore they affirme that Martyrdome and the constant suffering for Christ is also fitly named Baptisme So that there are three kinds of Baptisme Flaminis Fluminis Sanguinis Of water of the spirit and bloud It appeareth by Bernards Epistle to Hugo de sancto victore of this Argument that there were some in his time who though they thought that Martyrdome doth supply the defecte of Baptisme yet would not grant that faith and the inward conuersion of the heart without such suffering doth so and therefore though they confessed that Martyrs not baptised with the Baptisme of water may be saved yet they denyed that others though repenting beleeuing and conuerting vnto God can possiblie obtaine remission of their sinnes without the sacramentall washing Against these Barnarde reasoneth in this sorte If Martyrdome doe supply the defect of Baptisme it is not poena but fides not the suffering but the faith of the sufferer that makes it bee of so great force Nam absque fide quid est Martyrium nisi poena For were it not for faith what were the passions of Martyrs but bitter and vncomfortable torments onely Shall then that which maketh Martyrdome bee esteemed in steade of Baptisme be so infirme and weake that what it giues to another thing it shall be denyed to haue it selfe The sheading of our blood for Christ is an vndoubted proofe and demonstration of a very great constant and vnmoueable faith but it is not God but men that take notice of faith by these proofes For God doth often see and pronounce the faith of a man dying in peace to be as great as the faith of a Martyr for that though it be not proued by Martyrdome it is ready for Martyrdome and animates him that hath it to suffer any thing if neede should require This which Barnarde hath thus deliuered touching this point is the constant doctrine of the Fathers neither doe wee or the Authours of the Centuries dislike any thing in it but wee condemne the vaine and idle disputes of the Romish Schools touching these three kinds of Baptisme especially in that they teach concerning Martyrdome that it giueth grace ex opere operato so that if a man not iustified nor yet in the state of grace come vnto it and do not ponere obicem hee shall by vertue thereof obtaine grace haue the effects of it wrought in him in such sort as in the Baptisme of water This not onely wee condemne but many amongst themselues affirming that Martyrdome hath no force to worke or procure our good farther then the greatnesse of our faith and loue which is therein tried approued and made manifest doth worke it The Centurie writers reproue not the Fathers for any such errour as the Papists doe maintaine touching the force of Martyrdome but they dislike that the Fathers did vse so many Hyperboles and Rhetoricall amplifications in the praysing of Martyrdome though in a good sense that the Romish Sophisters haue from thence taken occasion of their errour touching the merite satisfaction and expiation of sinnes which they fancie to bee in the blood of Martyrs of which impietie the Fathers neuer thought Thus then it doth not appeare by any thing which Bellarmine hath or can alleadge that wee confesse the faith of the Romanists to bee the auncient profession of the primitiue Christians but rather the contrary is constantly defended by all our Diuines in the places produced by him CHAP. 22. Wherein is examined their proofe of the Antiquitie of their doctrine taken from a false supposall that our doctrine is nothing else but heresie long since condemned LEt vs therefore come to his third part wherein hee vndertaketh to proue that the doctrine of the reformed Churches opposite to the faith and profession of Rome is the same with the old heresies long since condemned by the vniuersall consent of the whole Christian world In this part hee is so shamelesse that I blush at the very thought of that hee so doctorally and grauely deliuereth as if it were truer than trueth it selfe whereas in his conscience he knoweth it to be an vntrueth so grosse and apparant that the diuell himselfe will bee ashamed of it Hee reckoneth twenty seuerall heresies of damned Arch-heretickes euery of which he pronounceth that wee silly men defend and imbrace as the sacred trueth of God Let vs for our better satisfaction and refutation of so vile a slaunder take a view of the particulars Hee placeth in the front the heresie of Simon Magus and his disciples which was that the Angels made the world that the Prophets were inspired from them and deliuered their pleasure not the will and pleasure of the high God and that therefore the things commaunded by them were not in themselues good or to bee respected that God was displeased with their gouernment and would exempt his own from it haue them free to doe what they list for that men are saued by his fauour and not in doing those things which though they were commaunded and imposed as good by Moyses and the Prophets mis-ledde by the Angels yet were not naturally so but by accident onely This he saith is the errour of the Protestants for they thinke God made the world and not the Angels that Moyses and the Prophets spake as they were inspired of him that the things they cōmaunded are just and holy that there is no way of saluation but by hauing that righteousnesse the Law of Moses prescribeth which all they that are saued haue First by imputation of that perfect righteousnesse and obedience to Moses Law which was found in Christ to merit our good secondly by the operation infusion of sanctifying grace from him making them to hate sinne to loue righteousnesse walke in the wayes of Gods commaundements so that sinne hath no more dominion ouer them Surely I thinke if the diuell himselfe fate as Iudge in this case hee could not but condemne the impudencie of this his shamelesse disciple But he addeth Eunomius taught that if a man would embrace his profession he should bee saued though he continued without repentance remorse in all maner of most damnable wickednesse
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
of sin the sinner is denominated euill partly by denomination passiue in that he wanteth that orderly disposition that should bee in himselfe partly by actiue in that he depriueth as much as in him is some other of that good which pertaines to him Some not rightly obseruing these things finding that some sinnes are positiue acts whereas the nature of euill is privatiue distinguish that which is materiall in the sins of commission that which is formall the substance of the act the difformity of it making the one positiue the other privatiue consisting in the want of that rectitude which should be in it But these men seeme not rightly to conceiue the things whereof they speake For the sin of omission is formally euill a want of rectitude in that the good act that should be done is omitted But the sin of commission if it be an euill act ex genere obiecto is denominatiuely euill not by passiue denomination as wanting that rectitude that should be in it but by actiue in that by way of contrariety it depriueth the sinner of that orderly disposition that should be found in him others of that good that pertaineth to them That that sin of commission that is an euill act ex genere obiecto is not denominated euill passiuely froÌ„ the want of rectitude due vnto it it is evident in that no rectitude is due to such an act For what rectitude is due to the specifical act of hating God or what rectitude is it capable of Greg. de Valentia finding this to be true yet willing to defend the distinctioÌ„ of that which is formall that which is material of some thing positiue some thing privatiue in the sin of commission saith that euill acts as particularly the act of injustice may be considered 2 wayes First in the proper specificall nature of iniustice so it is no subiect capable of the perfection of vertue neque huius perfectionis negatio est in illo priuatio sed pura negatio neither is the deniall of this perfection in respect of such an act so considered a priuation but a meere pure negation 2l l Secundum communem quandam rationeÌ„ illi actui iustitiae vt versantur circa materiam communem ipsi iusticiae scilicet rem alienam sic subiectum aptum est ad perfectionem iustitiae et huiâ—… perfectionis negatio est in illo priuatio In a generalitatie in respect of that which is common to it the contrary act of iustice as they are both conuersant in things pertaining to other men and in this sort it is a subiect capable of rectitude and the perfection of vertue his meaning is that a morall act conuersant in things pertaining to other men considered in a generality is indifferent either to bee an act of iustice giuing to euery one his own or of iniustice depriuing others of that which pertaineth to them that the omission of the act of iustice is a priuation of such rectitude as might be found in this kind So that wheÌ„soeuer any act of iniustice is don first there is a want of rectitude that is an omissioÌ„ of the good act of iustice which might ought to haue bin donne 2ly the producing of an evill act contrary to that good act that is omitted 2 kinds of sin do allwaies concurre the one of omission the other of commission the one is a meere priuation of rectitude the difformity of it is priuatiue in the other which is a sin of coÌ„missioÌ„ specifically coÌ„sidered there is no priuatiue waÌ„t of rectitude for it is capable of none in it there is nothing but meerly positiue the difformity that is fouÌ„d in it is precisely a positiue repugnance to the Law of God Aluarez saith the sin of commission is a breach of a negatiue law which is not broken but by a positiue act contrary to the prescript of right reason as Tho Aquinas teacheth 2ª 2ae q. 79. ar 2. 3. 4. And the same is further confirmed because the same Thomas elswhere saith that in the sin of omission there is nothing but priuation if we consider it as it is in it selfe but the sin of coÌ„mission is some positiue thing Because saith Caietan sin consisteth aswell of a coÌ„version to an obiect contrary to the obiect of vertue as of an aversion from the Law there is in sin a double nature of euill the one arising from the obiect the other froÌ„ the not obseruing of the law the first is positiue the 2d priuatiue the first inferreth the 2l. For it cannot bee that a man should hate God but that in so doing he must breake the Law For there are some acts simply intrinsecally euill so that to doe them is to sin of which sort is the act of hating God Besides one coÌ„trary depriueth the subiect wherein it is found maketh it vncapable of the other so long as it is in it as the hate of God maketh a man vncapable of the loue of God of the hate of such things as are contrary to God should be hated So that there is a double nature of evill the one positiue the other priuatiue the one of these is the cause of the other Greg. de Valentia saith it is consequent vpon the opinion of Caietan that sin formally as sin is a positiue thing which thing he also expressly affirmeth in 1am 2ae q. 71. ar 6. There are that hold saith Cvmel that the formal nature of sin he meaneth the sin of commission consisteth in some positiue thing to witt in the manner of working freely with positiue repugnance to the rule of reason the Law of God Difformitas in actu coÌ„missionis saith Ockam non est nisi ipsemet actus elicitus contra praeceptum diuinum nihil penitus aliud dicit Qâ—…ando elicit quis actum quem non debet si non teneatur ad oppositum actum difformitas non est careÌ„tia alicuius rectitudinis debitae inesse nec illi actui nec voluntati sed si teneatur tunc est duplex peceatuÌ„ coÌ„missionis omissionis et hoc est carentia alterius actus debiti inesse et it a rectitudinis debitae inesse voluntati that is The difformity in an act of commission is nothing but the very act which is done contrary to the Law of God neither doth it imply any thing else So that when a man produceth an action which he should not do if he be not bound to do the contrary the difformity that accompanieth such an actioÌ„ is not the want of any rectitude that should be either in that action or in the will but if he be bound to do the contrary then there are 2 sins found in him the one of coÌ„missioÌ„ the other of omissioÌ„ this latter is the want of another act that should bee donne consequently of a rectitude
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
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
or take vpon them to prescribe inward actions of the soule or spirit or the performance of outward actions with inward affections whereas none but God that searcheth the heart canne either take knowledge of things of this kind or conuent the offenders and judge and trye them Thus then wee see what it is to binde and that none can binde men to the performance of any thing but by the feare of such punishments as they haue power to inflict CHAP. 33. Of the nature of Conscience and how the Conscience is bound IN the next place wee are to see what the nature of Conscience is and how the Conscience is bound Conscience is the priuity the soule hath to things known to none but to God her selfe Hence it is that conscience hath a fearefull apprehension of punishments for euills done though neither knowne nor possible to be knowne to any but God and the offendour alone The punishments that men can inflict wee neuer feare vnlesse our euill doings be known to them For though we haue conscience of them be priuy to them yet if they bee hidden from them vve knovv they neither vvill nor can punish vs. To binde the conscience then is to bind the soule and spirit of man with the feare of such punishments to bee inflicted by him that so bindeth as the conscience feareth that is as men feare though none but God themselues be privie to their doings Now these are onely such as God alone inflicteth therefore seeing none haue power to binde but by feare of such punishments as they haue power to inflict none can binde the conscience but God alone Neither should the question be proposed whether humane lawes binde the conscience but whether binding the outward man to the performance of outward things by force feare of outward punishments to be inflicted by men the not performance of such things or the not performance of them with such affections as were fit be not a sinne against God of which the conscience will accuse vs hee hauing commaunded vs to obey the Magistrates and Rulers hee hath set ouer vs. For answere whereunto wee say there are three sorts of things commaunded by Magistrates First euill and against God Secondly injurious in respect of them to whom they are prescribed or at least vnprofitable to the Common-wealth in which they are prescribed Thirdly such as are profitable and beneficiall to the societie of men to whom they are prescribed Touching the first sort of things God hath not commaunded vs to obey neither must we obey but rather say to them that cōmand vs such things with the Apostles whether it be fit to obey God or men judge you Yet wee must so refuse to obey that we shew no contempt of their office and authoritie which is of God though they abuse it Touching the second sort of things all that God requireth of vs is that we shew no contempt of sacred authoritie though not rightly vsed that we scandalize not others and that wee be subject to such penalties and punishments as they that commaund such things doe lay vpon vs so that God requireth our willing and ready obedience onely in things of the third sort The breach violation of this kinde of lawes is sin not for that humane lawes haue power to binde the conscience or that it is simply and absolutely sinfull to breake them but because the things they commaund are of that nature that not to performe them is contrary to justice charitie and the desire wee should haue to procure the common good of them with whom wee liue Wee are bound then sometimes to the performance of things prescribed by humane lawes in such sort that the not performance of them is sinne not ex sola legislatoris voluntate sed ex ipsa legum vtilitate as Stapleton rightly obserued But some man will say What doe the lawes then effect seeing it is the Law of Iustice and charitie that doth binde vs and not the particularitie of Lawes newly made To this wee answere that many things are good and profitable if they be generally obserued vvhich vvithout such generall obseruation vvill doe no good as for one man to pay tribute or for one man to stay his goods from transportation is no vvay beneficiall to the Common-vvealth vvhich vvould bee very profitable if all did so Novv the Lavv procureth a generall obseruation vvhence it commeth that a man is bound by the Lavv of charity and justice to that after the making of a Lavv vvhich before he vvas not bound vnto And this is it that Stapleton meaneth vvhen hee sayth that humane Lavves doe binde the conscience not ex voluntate legislatoris sed ex ipsa legum vtilitate ratione Not because they prescribe such things but because the things so prescribed if they bee generally obserued are profitable to the Common-vvealth By this vvhich hath been said it appeareth that they doe impiously vsurpe and assume to themselues that vvhich is proper to God vvho vvill haue all their Lavves taken for diuine Lavves and such as binde the conscience no lesse then the Lavves of GOD vvho publish all their Canons and constitutions in such sorte that they threaten damnation to all offenders Whereas no creature hath power to prescribe commaund or prohibite any thing vnder paine of sinne and eternall punishment vnlesse the partie so commaunded were formerly either expressely or by implication either formally or by force and vertue of some generall dutie bounde vnto it by Gods lawe before because God onely hath power of eternall life or death The soule of man as it receiueth from GOD onely the life of grace so it loseth the same when hee for the transgression of his lawes and precepts forsaketh it For as none but hee can giue this life so none but hee canne take it away hee onely hath the keyes of DAVID hee openeth and no man shutteth hee shutteth and no man openeth Hence it followeth that no law-giver may commaund any thing vnder paine of eternall punishment but God onely because he onely hath power to inflict this kinde of punishment And that no man incurreth the guilt of eternall condemnation but by violating the lawes of God Wherevpon Augustine defineth sinnes to be thoughts words and deedes against the law of God That men doe sinne in not keeping and obseruing the lawes of men it is because being generally bound by Gods lawe to doe those things which set forward the common good many things being commaunded and so generally obserued grow to bee beneficiall which without such generall observation flowing from the prescript of law were not so and so though not formally yet by vertue of generall duety men are tyed to the doing of them vnder paine of sinne and the punishments that deseruedly follow it CHAP. 34 Of their reasons who thinke that humane Law es doe binde the Conscience THe reasons which Bellarmine and other of that faction bring
we were captiues and that spirituall Egypt wherein we were formerly holden in miserable bondage But as there were some of the children of the captiuity that after long continuance abroad forgat Hierusalem and preferred Babylon before Sion neuer desiring to returne into their owne country any more And as many of the Israelites brought out of the house of Pharoahs bondage by God himselfe and conducted by Moses and Aaron to take possession of Canaan the land of promise a land that flowed with milke and honey in their hearts returned backe so are there many that would neuer be induced to come out of the spirituall Babylon and other that are easily perswaded to looke backe and in their hearts to returne into Egypt againe For the winning and gaining of the former and the staying of the latter I haue indeauoured by the true discription of them out of the Scripture the authenticall recordsof antiquity to make it appeare how farre Canaan exceedeth Egypt and Sion Babylon how different the gouernement of Christ is from that of Antichrist how happy the people are that liue vnder the one and how miserable their condition is that are subiect to the other Beseeching God for his mercies sake to enlighten them that sit in darkenes to bring backe them that are gone astray to raise vp them that are fallen to strengthen them that stand to confirme them that are doubtfull to rebuke Sathan to put an end to the manyfold vnhappy contentions of these times to make vp the breaches of Sion to build the walles of Hierusalem and to loue it still R. F. THE FIFT BOOKE OF THE DIVERSE DEGREES ORDERS AND CALLINGS OF THOSE men to vvhom the gouernement of the Church is committed CHAP. 1. Of the Primitiue and first Church of God in the house of Adam the Father of all the liuing and the gouernement of the same ALMIGHTIE GOD the fountaine of all being who to manifest the glory of his power and the riches of his goodnesse made all things of nothing disposed and sorted the things hee made into three seuerall rankes For to some hee gaue being without any apprehension or discerning of it Others hee made to feele and sensibly discerne that particular good hee was pleased to doe vnto them And to a third sort of a more eminent degree and qualitie made after his owne image hee gaue generality of knowledge of all things and extent of desire answerable thereunto causing them without all restraint or limitation to take view of all the variety of things that are in the world and neuer to rest satisfied till they come to see inioy and possesse him that made them all These hee seperated from the rest of his creatures causing them to approach and drawe neere vnto himselfe and to compasse about his sacred throne and called them forth to be a joyfull company of blessed ones praising and worshiping him in the glorious Temple of the world to bee vnto him an holy Church in the midst whereof his greatnesse should be knowne and his name called vpon These are of twoe sorts Angells dwelling in heauenly palaces and Men made out of the earth dwelling in houses of clay whose foundation is in the dust The Angels are immortall immateriall and spirituall substances made all at once and immediately after their creation soe many as turned not from God their Creator corfirmed in grace and perfectly established in the full possession of their vttermest good soe that they neede noe guide to leade them to the attaining of the same howsoeuer in the degrees of their naturall or supernaturall perfections and in the actions of their ministery wherein GOD employeth them they are more great and excellent one then another and are not without their order and gouernement But concerning men made out of the earth and compounded of body and spirit it is farre otherwise For God did not create them all at one time but made onely one man and one woman immediatly with his owne hands appointing that the rest should descend and come of them by naturall generation Whereupon wee shall finde that as in the Creation the tree was first and then the seede but in the naturall propagation of things the seed is first and then the tree So the first man whom God made out of the earth and the first woman whom he made of man were perfect at the first as well in stature of body as in qualities of the minde both because whatsoeuer is immediatly from God is perfect as also for that the first things whence all other haue their being must be perfect but afterwards the beginnings of all the sonnes of men are weake and they grow by degrees to perfection of body and minde hauing need to receiue nourishment support guidance and direction from them from whom they receiue their being So that nothing is more naturall then for children to expect these things from their parents nor for parents then to nourish guide and direct their children This care pertaineth as well to the mother that bare them in whose wombe they were conceiued as to the father that begate them and out of whose loynes they came Yet because the man was not of the woman but the woman of the man the man was not created for the woman but the woman for the man the originall disposition and soveraigne direction of all doth naturally rest in the man who is the glory of God the womans head and euery way fittest to be chiefe commaunder in the whole Family and houshold Heereupon Adam the father of all the liuing was appointed by that God that made him to instruct guide and direct those that should come of him euen in the state of natures integritie though without any forcing with terrours or recalling with punishments while there was yet no pronenesse to euill nor difficultie to doe good And when he had broken the Law of his Creator was called to an account made know his sinne and recomforted with the promise that the seede of the woman should breake the Serpents head he was to teach his children the same things sanctified to be both a King to rule in the litle World of his owne Family and a Priest as well to manifest the will of God to them of the same as to present their desires vowes and sacrifices vnto him then which course what could be devised more fitting For when there were no more in the World but the first man whom GOD made out of the earth the first woman that was made of man and the children which GOD had giuen them who could bee fitter to rule and direct then the man for whose sake the woman was created and out of whose loynes the children came CHAP. 2. Of the dignity of the first-borne amongst the sonnes of Adam and their Kingly and Priestly direction of the rest AND seeing nothing is more naturall then that as the Father is to instruct direct and set forward the children that GOD hath giuen
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
to say That they had no doubt reason to leade them so to doe that forbade the Marriage of Cleargy-men but that there were much greater reason now to leaue it free againe Baptista Mantuanus saith that many thought the Lawes against mariage to bee euill that they which made those Lawes had not sufficiently considered what the nature of man can beare that CHRIST neuer put so vnpleasant a Yoake vpon the neckes of men that this burden too heavie for the shoulders of men to beare hath brought forth many monstrous effects that it was a shew of Piety but indeede too great boldnesse that laide this burthen vpon the shoulders of men that it had beene more safe to haue gone that way wherein the divine Law directeth vs and to haue trode in the steppes of the Auncient Fathers whose life was better in marriage then ours that is single Ioannes Antonius saith in the time of the Primitiue Church it was lawfull for Presbyters and such as were entered into holy Orders to haue wiues so that they refrained from companying with them vpon the dayes wherein they celebrated that afterwardes in the Westerne Church they that were entred into holy Orders were commaunded to containe which commaundement hee sayth yeelded matter to ensnare the soules of many men and therefore hee verily beleeueth that as the Church brought in this precept of continencie so the time will come when the same Church will reverse and revoke it againe which revocation shall be agreeable to that of the Apostle who sayth Concerning Virgins I haue no commaundement but I giue advice With Antonius agreeth Panormitanus who proposing the question whether the Church may giue leaue to Presbyters to cōtract mariage or to liue in mariage as the Graecians doe aunswereth that hee beleeueth it may that he is assured it may in respect of them who are not tyed by vow implyed or expressed Which hee proueth because continencie in secular Cleargy-men is not of the substance of order nor prescribed by the Law of GOD. For that otherwise the Graecians should sinne and no custome could excuse them seeing no custome is of force against the Law of GOD. Neither doth hee onely thinke that the Church hath power thus to doe but professeth hee thinketh it were behoouefull and for the good and saluation of the soules of men that such as are willing to containe and to lead a life of higher perfection should be left to their owne will and that such as are not willing to containe should by the Decree of the Church be set free to contract marriage Alfonsus Veruecius as Andreas Frisius telleth vs discoursing of the words of Paul For the auoyding of fornication let euery one haue his owne wife sayth they containe no precept but a concession or graunt and affirmeth that by vertue of this grant euery one that cannot otherwise auoyde fornication may marry a wife And after certaine remedies prescribed to be obserued vsed by Presbyters that they may auoyde fornication at last confidently giueth counsell to him who hauing tryed all those meanes cannot containe rather to marry a wife and soe to prouide for his owne saluation then to commit fornication and so cast himselfe head-long into eternall death but yet perswadeth such a one to doe nothing without seeking the Popes consent hopeing that he will dispense in such a case seeing the power hee hath was giuen him for edification not for destruction I dare confidently say sayth Polydere Virgill that it hath beene soe farre from beeing true that this inforced Chastity hath excelled that which is in marriage that no sinfull crime hath brought greater disgrace to the order of the Ministery more euill to religion or made a greater and deeper impression of sorrowe in all good men then the staine of the impure lust of Priests And therefore haply it were behoouefull for the Christian common-wealth and for the good of them that are of that sacred order and ranke that at the last a publicke Lawe might bee made to giue leaue to Priestes to contract mariage Wherein rather they might liue honestly and holily without infamy then in most filthy manner defile themselues with this sinne of Nature And Bishoppe Lindan sayth Surely euen at this day it is lawfull to take chast and honest married men into the order of Priesthood which in my judgment might much better bee done in some prouinces of Germany then to set ouer them certaine most impure companions or any longer to endure and tollerate Knaues Apostataes and sacralegious Pastours With these agreeth Erasmus affirming that in his conceipt hee should not ill deserue nor take the worst course for the furthering of humane affaires the right informing of the manners of men which should procure liberty of mariage if it might bee both for Priestes and Monkes And therefore Sigismund the Emperour a lttle before the Councell of Basill began published a reformation of the Cleargy in which among other things this was one that forasmuch as more euill commeth by the forbidding of mariage then good it were better and more safe to permit Cleargy-men to liue in the state of mariage according to the custome of the Orientall Churches then to forbid them so to do In the Councell of Trent the Orator of Bauaria moued to the same purpose And Chemnitius reporteth from George the Prince of Anhault that Adolphus Bishoppe of Mersbergh his vncle would often say before euer Luther began to stirre that if there were a Councell hee would bee a perswader that Cleargy-men might be permitted to marry and professed that hee knew that many for the quiet of their consciences secretly contracted mariage with those women which they kept vnder the name of Concubines And surely euen the Popes themselues were content to winke at things in this kinde Georgius Cassander a man of infinite reading excellent iudgment and singular piety and sincerity and therefore soe much respected and honoured by Ferdinand and Maximilian the second that they held him the fittest man in the world to compose the controuersies in religion sent for him to come vnto them for the same purpose is clearely of opinion that howsoeuer some in ancient times forbad the marriage of Cleargy-men yet now it were fit and necessary that that lawe were abrogated first because it is found by wofull experience to bee the cause of many grieuous euils secondly for that the seuerity of Discipline and strictnesse in all courses of life that was in vse when this Lawe began first to bee vrged is cleane gone or much decayed euen in the opinion of all Soe that that which was fitte in those times may now bee most vnfitte Thirdly for that many godlie and learned men are thereby discouraged from entring into the Ministerie refusing to binde themselues to the obseruation of this lawe of single life whereby the Church looseth the benefitte of their labours fewe young men
must haue faith to beleeue the things revealed vnto vs of God The second that this faith maketh vs see what the estate of mans nature should bee what it was at first and how much we are fallen from that wee were The third that out of this faith must flow a dislike of those sinfull evils into which wee are fallen and a feare of wofull consequents if wee be not freed from them The fourth that hence must grow a desire of remission of that which is past of grace that we may cease to doe evill learne to doe well and of assistance of the same grace that wee may goe on continue and not be turned out of the good way when wee are entered into it The fift that no man obtayneth remission of sinnes without dislike of sin and desire and purpose to leaue off to doe euill The sixt that being thus converted vnto God in longing desires of reconciliation we must not doubt but assure ourselues of the obtayning of it The seaventh that being justified no man canne bee saued without the studie care of well doing and that workes are necessary vnto saluation The eight that when wee haue done all wee must confesse we are vnprofitable servants that in many things we sin all That if God doe marke and obserue our defects we cannot abide it That we must not trust in our workes but in Gods mercy That euen those things which seeme small to vs deserue great punishment if God enter into judgement with vs. And that it is not our well doing but his mercy that maketh vs escape condemnation So that they differ from the Romanists touching the perfection of inherent righteousnesse the merit of congruence and condignity and workes of supererogation 7ly The Romanists teach that sins committed after baptisme are not so remitted for Christs sake but that wee must suffer that extremity of punishment which they deserue and therefore either we must afflict our selues in such sort and degree of extremity as may answere the desert of our sinne or bee punished by God heere or in the world to come in such degree and sort that his justice may be satisfied But they that are Orthodox teach First that it is injustice to require the payment of one debt twice Secondly that Christ suffered the punishment due to all sinnes committed before and after baptisme and therefore so satisfied the justice of God that they that are partakers of the benefit of his satisfaction so farre forth as they are made partakers of it are freed from the guilt of punishment Thirdly that the satisfaction of Christ is applied and communicated vnto vs vpon the condition of our faith and repentance without suffering the punishment that sinne deserveth 4ly That it is no lesse absurd to say as the Papists doe that our satisfaction is required as a condition without which Christs satisfaction is not appliable to vs then to say Peter hath paid the debt of Iohn and hee to whom it was due accepteth of the same payment conditionally if he pay it himselfe also Fiftly that as one man payeth another mans debt and the paiment of it is accepted vpon condition of his dislike of former evill courses and promise of amendment and not otherwise so it may be truely sayd that neither Christ hath payd our debt or God the Father accepted the payment of it for vs but vpon condition of our sorrowfull conversion and repentance Sixtly That the penall and afflictiue courses which the sinner putteth himselfe into may be named satisfactions dispositiuè in that they put vs into an estate wherein wee are capable of the benefit of Christs satisfaction freeing vs from the punishment of sinne In this sort the Greekes vrge the necessitie of satisfactions and not as the Romanists doe which appeareth by the reasons and causes which they deliuer Whereof the first is that correcting our selues amending that which otherwise God by his chastisements must driue vs to doe we may escape punishment The second that wee may pull vp the roote of sinfull evils that is the inordinate desire and pleasure wee had in things which either we should not desire or not so as wee doe The third that this correction may serue vs as a bridle to restraine vs from running into the like or worse evils hereafter The fourth that wee may frame ourselues to labour and a strait course of life vertue being a laborious thing and requiring painefull endeavours The fift that wee may make it appeare to our selues and others that wee hate sinne truely and from the heart These are true reasons why men should put themselues into penitentiall courses and these only are assigned by the Grecians but they neuer giue any such reason thereof as the Romanists fancie And as they receiue not the Romish doctrine of satisfactions so they neuer admitted any vse of such indulgences as are granted in the Roman Church nor euer dreamed of any power in the Church of communicating the ouerplus of one mannes satisfactions sufferings to supply the wāt of another Eightly touching the estate of the departed First they thinke that neither the Saints are already entred into the kingdome prepared for them nor that the sinners are already cast into hell but that both are in an expectation of that lot that remayneth for them and shall so continue till the resurrection and judgement This opinion prevaileth generally amongst all the Easterne Christians and it was the opinion of many of the ancient Fathers Secondly they beeleeue that the soules of such men as excell in vertue are worthy of eternall life and such as meerely embrace this present world of eternall punishment But that they who were in a course of vertue yet not without sundry defects and die in the same are not to bee punished eternally nor yet to bee made partakers of Gods glorie till they haue obtayned remission of those sinfull defects in which they die without particular repentance So that they beleeue there is remission of some sinnes not remitted here obtayned after this life But whether they whose sinnes are so remitted be subject to any punishment after their departing hence or God doe freely without inflicting any punishment remit them out of his mercifull disposition at the entreaty of the Church they doe not so cleerely resolue Though they incline to thinke that this remission is free and amongst many other reasons for proofe of the same alleadge that as some few good things in them that are generally principally euill shall haue no reward in the world to come so some few evill things in them that principally embrace vertue shall not bee punished But if they be subject to any punishment they all agree that it is onely the wanting of the cleere light of Gods countenance that shineth vpon others or the being in a strait or restraint or the sorrowfull dislike of former evills and not any punishment inflicted from without to giue satisfaction to the justice of God
faithfully gathered the opinions of all the Fathers and that his iudgement is their iudgment but he opposeth himself against Augustine therefore against all the Fathers This assumption we deny For Calvin no way dissenteth from Augustine but saith onely it may seeme that there should be some little difference betweene Augustine and vs For that wee affirme concupiscence in the regenerate to be sinne but he is fearefull to call it sinne vnlesse it be consented vnto naming it rather an euill sickenesse infirmity or the like But else-where taking away this doubt he saith that Augustine feareth not sometimes to call it sinne whereby the consent and agreement betweene Augustine and Caluin appeareth It were easie to shew that not onely Augustine but the Fathers generally were of the same opinion that we are of and that the popish opinion is a most dangerous and damnable errour if this were a fit place to enter into the exacte handling of that question But let vs see the rest of his objections Caluin saith he in the matter of satisfaction chargeth all the Fathers with errour This is as true as the rest For Caluin doth not say they erred in this matter of satisfaction for he sheweth plainely they were far from the absurditie of the Popish conceipt but he saith disiunctiuely only that either they erred or at least vsed some phrases and formes of speech that may seeme hard and neede a good and fauourable construction rather than to be wrested to a worse sense then they were vttered in as the manner of the Popish Sophisters is to deale with the writings of the Fathers For the clearing of this matter we must obserue that in sinne there are two things the sinfulnesse the punishment which for it the iustice of God inflicteth Both these are taken away by Christ but in a different sort The sinfulnes by the operatiō working infusion of grace the punishmēt by the imputatiō of Christs sufferings who suffering that he deserued not freeth vs frō that wee were deservedly to haue suffered From one of these wee cannot bee freede vnlesse also wee bee freede from the other and in what degree wee are delivered from the one wee are discharged from the other if wee be freed onely from the dominion of sinne we are onely discharged from the condemnation of eternall death if from all sinnefullnesse wee are discharged from all touch of any puuishment But the Romanists do teach touching sinnes committed after Baptisme that God contenteth not himselfe with the most perfect abolishing and extinguishment of all sinnefullnesse by working of Diuine grace the satisfaction of Christs sufferings but that he doth require that we suffer the extremity of that wee haue deserued onely some little mitigation procured by the bloudshead of Christ and the eternity excepted from which our ceasing from sin doth free vs the punishment of sin being eternall because sinne is eternall Hence it commeth that they teach that if wee will not suffer and endure the extremity of punishment wee haue deserued wee must make some other recompence to Gods iustice for it This is a blasphemous assertion and contrary to the doctrine of all the Fathers who know and teach as wee do that the iustice of God and his wrath against sinne is satisfied in Christ that this satisfaction is imputed to vs not continuing in but ceasing from sinne that according to the degree of our ceasing from sinne this satisfaction is diversly imputed So that if wee cease from sinne onely so that it hath no more dominion over vs it is imputed in such sort as it dischargeth vs only from condemnation but if wee wholy cease from sinne it is so imputed vnto vs as that it freeth vs from all punishment whatsoeuer So that if there were found in any of vs a perfect leauing forsaking of sinne GODS iustice would lay no punishment vppon vs. But the Romanistes thinke it might and would for precedent sinne though now wholly forsaken and quite abolished It is true indeede that the Fathers sometimes vsed the name of satisfaction in their writings but to another purpose than the Romanists doe They knew that euils are cured by contraries and therefore in the curing of sinfull soules they prescribe that which Caluine also doth that men hauing offended in yeelding too much to their owne desires pleasures delights and profits should for the freeing of themselues from the euill of sinne deny something to them selues which otherwise they might lawfully enioy which if they do not they shall in the punishments which God will bring vpon them tast the bitternesse of that that seemed sweete vnto them in sinne This exercise of repentant mortification the Fathers called satisfaction not as if the iustice of God were not satisfied in Christ or wee were tied yea though wee should wholly forsake sinne yet to satisfie for that is past by suffering so much as our sinnes haue deserued or else to doe some painefull thing equiualent to such sufferings which is the popish errour But because wee must doe that in this kind of repentant mortification which may be sufficient for the finding out of the depth of that wound which sinne hath made in the soule for remouing the causes of it the extinguishment of that remaineth of it the taking away the occasions and the preuenting of the reentrance of it againe This if wee do wee shall preuent the hand of GOD which otherwise would smite vs not to be satisfied in the course of his Iustice which at our hands cannot bee looked for and which is aboundantly satisfied in Christ and would not touch vs for any thing past if by perfect forsaking of sinne wee were fully ioyned vnto him but to driue vs by bitter sorrow to purge out that sinfullnesse and those remainders which our precedent sinnes left behind them in respect whereof wee are not yet fully ioyned to Christ. These remainders of sinne if wee dislike cast off and forsake and iudge and condemne our selues as the Apostle speaketh wee shall not bee iudged of the Lord for them This happie course of preventing the hand of God turning away his punishments by bitter and afflictiue recounting of our sinnes the Fathers call Satisfaction Some sayings of the Fathers it may bee there are which are hard and must with a favourable constructiō be reduced to the sense we haue expressed and that is all that Calvin saith for which how justly he is blamed let the Reader judge CHAP. 17. Of Prayer for the dead and Merite THe next calumniation is concerning prayer for the dead Let the Reader obserue what it is that Bellarmine is to proue and he shall find that he doth nothing but trifle For he is to proue that Calvin confesseth that more then a thousand three hundred yeares since the Popish doctrine and custome of prayer for the dead did prevaile and was generally receiued in the whole Church of God throughout the world This if hee will
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
that without which he knew it would not be done But some there be that feare thus to speake chusing rather to say that God onely permitted then that in any sense he decreed the sinne of omission in the first entrance of it Yet these if they rightly vnderstand that permission which they speake of agree with the other in sense and meaning For God may bee said to permit the not doing of a thing three wayes First when he requireth not the doing of it neither will dislike the omission of it and in this sense it is impious to say that God permitteth the sinne of omission For hee requireth the doing and will punish the not doing of that the omission whereof is sin Secondly God may be said to permit a mans not doing of a thing in that hee leaveth him to himselfe to doe or not to doe the same without any particular providence or care in ordering or disposing the motions and resolutions of his will which to thinke is no lesse impious then the former Thirdly hee may bee sayd to permit the not doing of a thing when hee doth not worke vpon a man in such sort as onely hee knoweth hee will be wrought to the doing of the same Deum permittere saith Cumel nihil aliud videtur esse quam subtrahere illam maiorem gratiam quam si tribueret Petrus non peccaret hoc quoad primum peccatum vt servet suavem modum providendi in omnibus vel vt servet multipliciter dispositionem concurrendi cum libero arbitrio vel vt ostendat se dare gratis illam gratiam cuicunque dat When God is said to permit sinne saith Cumel no other thing seemeth to bee meant but that hee deâ—…eth that more potent and prevailing grace which if hee should giue hee that now sinneth would not sinne and this hee doth in respect of the first sinne that hee may hold a sweete course in guiding all things so as to suffer them to worke according to the condition of their nature that in diuerse and different sorts hee may dispose of his concurrence with the liberty of mans will and that hee may make it appeare that to whomsoeuer hee giueth that more potent and prevailing grace hee giueth it freely In this sense God may truely be said to permit the sinne of omission And because hee knoweth infallibly such omission will bee whensoeuer hee doth not so worke vpon a man as hee knoweth hee must be wrought vpon if ever hee bee brought to the doing of that good which is required of him hee may bee sayd priuatiuely to decree it seeing hee may rightly be said in a sort to decree the not doing of a thing when hee decreeth the deniall of that without which he knoweth it will not be done Praefinitio duplex est sayth Rispolis positiua negatiua positiua quâ Deus apud se quasi deliberat velle in tempore determinare physicè per aliquod auxilium voluntatem hominis alicuius negatiua quâ deliberat non confeâ—…re alicuisuum auxilium efficax quia voluntas infallibiliter deficiet circa quamcunque materiam virtutis nisi efficaciter moveatur à diuina voluntate ad bene operandum in materia verbi gratiâ temperantiae cognoscit evidenter voluntatem creatam peccaturam Sic bona cognoscuntur praefinitione positiuâ mala negatiuâ quam potius permissionem appellabimus Et post Nos quando dicimus Deum praefinijsse peccatum hoc non intelligimus quantum ad decretum impositionis malitiae sed quantum ad subtractionem gratiae There is a two fold decree of God the one positiue the other negatiue the positiue is that whereby God determineth with himselfe in such time as he thinketh good to encline the will of man to the doing of a thing by his effectuall working and powerfull helpe the negatiue is when he determineth not so to worke a man to the doing of a thing and because man will not doe the same vnlesse he be so effectually wrought vnto it he seeth it will not be done and that man will sinne in omitting it So that God knoweth future good things because hee hath positiuely decreed them and future euill things because he hath privatiuely decreed them the which wee rather â—…all permission And againe When wee say God hath decreed sinne we speake not of any positiue decree of making a man euill but of a privatiue decree of not working him to doe good So that if there be any difference amongst Divines touching this point it is onely in forme of words The sinne of commission which is the doing of that the creature is bound not to doe is meerely positiue For as the affirmatiue part of Gods Law is broken by the not putting that in being which it requireth or not so as it requireth so the negatiue is violated precisely by putting that in being which it would not haue to bee or by putting it in being in such sort as it would not haue it to bee yet euery sin is an euill the nature of euill is privatiue For the clearing therefore hereof the Divines do note that we speake of euill formally and denominatiuely Formally euill is nothing but the not being of some good in that thing wherein it should be Denominatiuely a thing may be said to be euill either by actiue denomination because it depriueth some thing of that good it should haue in which sort poison is saide to be euill or by passiue denomination as those things are said to be euill that want and are depriued of that good they should haue The sin of omission is formally euill because it is negatio boni debiti inesse the not doing of that good act which should be done from it the sinner is denominated euill by passiue denomination as wanting that good which he should haue Sin of commission is an euill act Euill acts are of 2 sorts for either they are euill onely ex fine circumstantiis in that they are not done to a right end rightly or ex genere obiecto the former are denominated euill by passiue denomination as wanting some circumstances that should make them good the latter are such as no circumstances can make good neither are they denominated euil froÌ„ the want of circumstances which they should or might haue but by actiue denomination because by way of contrariety they depriue the sinner of that orderly disposition that should be found in him some other of that good which pertaineth to him As it appeareth in the acts of injustice spoyling men of that which is their owne and in the acts of blasphemie against God or the hate of God in which the sinner as much as in him lieth by attributing vnto God that which is contrary to his nature or denying that which agreeth vnto the same maketh him not to be that which he is hating him wisheth he were not endeavoureth to hinder what he would haue done From this kind
vertue of their owne proper for me Caietan confesseth that God doth not so produce them as an immediat agent but that the 2d causes doe mediate between him and them as secondary principal agents bring forth their effects Yet are not these that is the first the 2d causes partiall but totall causes of all those effects which they produce For the cleering whereof we must obserue that a cause may bee said to be totall either totalitate effectus that is because it bringeth forth the whole effect though some other cause haue such efficiencie also in respect of the same that without the helpe of it it cannot bring forth any such effect as when 2 men draw a ship either of them produceth the whole effect and moueth the whole ship but yet not so wholly but that either hath need of the others helpe and concurrence Or secondly a cause may bee said to bee totall totalitate causoe and that in 2 sorts either so as to produce the whole effect without any concurrence of any other cause in which sense neither God nor the creature neither the first nor the 2d cause must be said to be a totall cause or so as that though some other do concurre yet the being power of working and actuall cooperation of it is wholy from the agent with which it doth concurre and so God is a totall cause of all those effects that he produceth by and together with the 2d causes So that the opinion of them who thinke that God hath no immediat influence into the effects of 2d causes nor immediate concurrence with such causes in producing their effects is to be exploded out of all Christian schools Churches as profane heathnish Wherfore there are who finding that this first opiniō is not to be admitted flie to a 2d little better then the former For they acknowledge that God hath an immediate influence into the effects of all 2d causes but they think it to be general indefinit to be ◅ted determined by the different concurse of 2d causes It is true indeed that God worketh all things as an vniversall cause but this may bee vnderstood wayes For first a cause may be sayd to be vniuersall in the vniuersality of predication as opposit to speciall or particular as an artificer in respect of this that speciall kinde of artificers is generall and is an vniuersall cause of all workes of arte and they of such speciall workes as are incident to their seuerall kinds Secondly a cause may bee sayd to bee vniversall in that it extendeth it selfe to effects of all sorts in respect of something common to them all and not in respect of that which is proper to each of them vnlesse the working of it bee limited and directed by something else The fire warmeth the water with which poison is mingled in the same sorte that it doth any other water and without any difference of it own action And the actions of the sun fire are such as that men make vse of thē to vvhat purposes they please accordingly as their vvorking is differently applied bring forth differēt effects Thirdly a cause may be sayd to be vniversall because the efficiencie and vvorking of it extendeth it selfe to many things according to the seuerall differences of them without being limited and determined by any other thing These men suppose that God is an vniversall cause in the second sense and that his concurrence influence is indefinit generall and such as may be taken and applied by second causes in what sort they will So that the actions of free vvill the actions of euery other second cause haue from the freedome of the wil the particular quality of the second causes that they are of this or that sort good or bad not from the concurse or influence of the first cause which is finde◅init as is the concurse influence of the sun vvith other inferiour causes and as one man may make offer of his helpe concurrence to whatsoeuer another vvill make vse of it So they suppose that God offereth his concurse to second causes to be vsed by them to what purpose in what sort they will According to this conceipt they suppose they can easily cleere the doubt and free God from all imputation of being authour of sin though he concurre immediatly with second causes in to the producing of those actions that are sinfull For say they his concurse influence is indefinit and is by them applied in ill sorte to ill purposes But first this conceipt cleereth not God from being authour of sin And secondly it cannot stand with the grounds of Philosophie or diuinity That it cleereth not God from being authour of sin but rather layeth this imputation on him it is euident For if the concurse of God be generall indefinit indifferent and to be determined by the creature to the producing of good or euill it followeth that when the will of the creature determineth it selfe to the specificall act of sin God also determinately concurreth with it in particular to the producing of such an acte in kinde That this consequence is good it is evident because whosoeuer shall offer his help concurrence cooperation to another indifferently for the producing of good or euill the actes of sin or vertue as it shall please him he concurreth in trueth indeede to the producing of the acte of sin in particular as it is such an act if by the will of the other his concurrence cooperation bee determined to such an acte in particular Wherefore if God for his part offer onely a generall concurse such as is indifferent to the producing of actes of vertue or sinne accordingly as the will of the second cause shall determine it it will follow that God concurreth determinately or in particular to the producing of the acte of sin as being determined to the producing of such an act in particular by the will of the creature before he come to actuall cooperation or concurrence Secondly this conceipt cannot stand with the grounds of true Philosophie or diuinitie For if Gods concurse were onely generall and indefinit to bee determined by the will of the creature the will of the creature should bee before the will of God in respect of the particularity of things yea in respect of some reall acte as an acte it should be simply the first agent For according to this fancie because the creature inclineth to such an acte to put a thing in being therefore God cooperateth Whence it will follow that there are 2 beings of things that God is not simply the first cause of all those things that haue being 2ly It pertaineth to diuine prouidence determinately to will aforehand to appoint what afterwards shall be to moue second causes to certaine and determinate effects so to dispose all things that they may attaine the ends for which they were created But this could
not be if his concurse were indefinite generall only 3ly If it were as these men imagine the determination of the will of the creature should not bee within the compasse of things ordered by diuine prouidence and so God should not haue particular prouidence of euery particular thing That this is consequent vpon the fancie of indefinite concurse it is euident For if Gods concurse bee indefinite and in generall only then doth hee not truly and efficiently worke that the will of the creature shall in particular encline to and bring forth such an indiuiduall actiō And if he be not the cause that it so enclineth worketh his prouidence extēdeth not to such working seing his prouidence extēdeth to those things only wherein he hath a working So that if these things were soe as these men imagine Gods prouidence should extend it selfe to contingent things in a generality only in that he hath giuen to intellectual creatures a freedome to what whē how it pleaseth thē in particular in respect ofthings of this nature hee should haue a presidence onely and no prouidence Neither doth that which is alleaged by these men touching the indifferēt cōcurse of the Sunne or that of a man offering his concurrence in a generality only proue that Gods concurse is such For the Sunne is a finite and limited thing hauing something in act somthing in possibility so is man likewise therefore they may be determined to produce such such indiuiduall acts by the concurse of some other cause But God is a cause of infinite perfection and a pure act hauing nothing admixt of possibility so that his action and will cannot bee determined limited by any other Wherefore the resolution of the best diuines is that Gods concurse influence is not into the effects of 2d causes only but into the 2d causes thēselues So that he doth not only by an immediate concurse influence concurre with the 2d causes for the bringing forth of such effects as they determine themselues vnto but he hath an influence into the 2d causes thēselues mouing working thē to bring forth effects such effects as he thinketh good to worke thē vnto This is proued by sundry reasons First as we see 2d causes do not only produce some certaine effects operations as within some certaine kind but they giue vnto thē their last actuall perfection to bee But this they cānot giue vnlesse they be made cōpleate in vertue actiue by the first agent because an agent must be no lesse actuall then the effect or operation it bringeth forth But euery created agent is mixed compounded of actuall being possibility is not so actuall as an execution that is a 2d act therefore before it can bring forth any execution or effect it must be made cōpleate in vertue operatiue by the actuall motion of the first agent 2ly To bee is a most vniuersall act the proper effect of God onely therefore if wee will speak formally properly 2d causes in that they giue being to their own effects are but instruments of God whence it will follow that they must be moved by him in nature before they giue being to any of their effects For an instrument doth nothing towards the producing of the effect of the principall agent vnlesse it be actually moued by the principall agent 3ly Euery such thing as is somtimes an agent in act sometimes but potentially only must be moued by some mouer that is a pure act hath nothing mingled with it of possibility before it eā bring forth any actiō But the will of the creature is somtimes actually in actiō somtimes but potētially only therefore it must be moued by the first act before it can bring forth any action Which must bee granted for that otherwise the will of the creature in respect of some actions should bee the first mouer of it selfe and the first determiner That which is wrought by God in and vpon the second causes to make them actually to bee in action is a thing that hath a kinde of incompleate beeing in such sort as colours haue a being in the aire and the power of the act in the instrument of the artificer and so often as 2◠causes whether of naturall or supernaturall order haue in respect of the forme inherent in them a sufficient actiue power in the nature of the first act to bring forth their effects the helpe or precedent motion of God whereby he moueth and applyeth the same actiue powers to operate is not a qualitie but is more properly named a powerfull motion whereby the first and most vniversall agent so worketh vpon them that the 2d causes are actually in action euery one in sort fitting to the nature condition of it And to this purpose it is that Tho Aquinas hath that habituall grace is a quality but the actuall help whereby God moueth vs to will a thing is not a quality but a certain motion of the mind And surely it will easily appeare that there is a great difference between these For the habite doth perfit the power of the soule as a forme or first act implying possibility in respect of actuall operation because the habite doth not determine the power actually to worke but fitteth it only for action inclineth it thereunto But this actuall helpe mouing putting forth the 2d causes into their actions doth not perfit the power of working but makes thē actually to be in action Lastly the habit in respect of the nature of it may be the cause of diuerse actions but that actuall help mouing whereof we speak determineth the will to one individuall action yet taketh not from it a power of dissenting and doing otherwise Alvarez a great learned Archbishop that hath lately written with good allowance of the Church of Rome layeth downe these propositions First that God by an effectuall will predetermined all such acts of men and Angels as are good and all such as are not euill ex obiecto though in individuo they be euill sins ex malâ circumstantiâ Which he proueth out of the 10th of Esay where Almighty God saith Assur is the rod of my wroth he is my staffe I will send him to a deceiptfull nation against the people of my fury will I giue him a command a litle after Shall the axe boast against him that cutteth with it or shall the saw bee lifted vp against him that draweth it as if a rod should be lifted vp against him that lifteth it the staff which is but wood Here it is evident that Assur sinned ex malâ circumstantiâ in subduing the nations and yet it is cleere that God predetermined that he should waste and destroy the nations that he sent him to that purpose and moued him so to doe His 2d proposition is this that whatsoeuer is positiue of being in an act of sin though intrinsecally
what should the horseman doe hee driueth on the lame horse with the other that are sound they goe well this ill It cannot bee otherwise vnlesse the horse bee freed from his lamenesse Heere wee see by this comparison how that when God worketh in and by them that are euill such things are done as are euill but that God cannot doe euill though hee produce in and by them that are euill such things as are euill because hee being good cannot doe euill Yet doth hee vse ill instruments which cannot but bee moued with the motion of his power nor cannot but doe euill if they bee moued So that the fault is in the instruments which God moueth and will not suffer to be idle that euill things are done when he moueth them no otherwise than if a Carpenter vsing an ill axe should cut or rather teare the timber ill favouredly And hence it commeth that the wicked cannot but alwayes doe amisse and sinne Because being carried on by the motion of diuine power they are not suffered to doe nothing but are forced to will desire and doe that which it fitting to the state wherein they are till they be altered by Gods holy grace and spirit And herevnto agree all the best learned in the Roman Schooles If the name of sinne saith Gregorius Ariminensis be taken improperly for an euill act as for such an acte as whosoeuer doth sinneth for example for the acte of willing something that should not be willed or for some other inward or outward acte which the sinner doth there is some doubt whether God be an immediate efficient cause of such a sinfull acte or not and there are solemne opinions one contrary to another touching that point But without peremptory defence of the one or the other which might argue rashnesse for the present I hold the affirmatiue as more probable and as it seemeth to me more consonant to the sayings of the Saints And hee addeth whereas some speake of the difformity of such a sinfull acte denying God to bee any efficient cause thereof Si per difformitatem intelligatur aliqua entitas quaecunque vbicunque sit illam coagit Deus nec scio oppositum dici à Sanctis Doctores aliqui moderni dicunt quod licet actus difformis sit à Deo difformitas tamen ipsa non est à Deo Quod dictum potest habere bonum intellectum non quidem concipiendo quòd difformitas sit aliqua entitas ab actu distincta quae non causetur à Deo sed intelligendo quod licet actus difformis sit à Deo non tamen est difformis in quantum est à Deo Nam non est difformis nisi in quantum contra rectam rationem fit ab homine non autem à Deo qui nihil agit contra id quod ab eo agendum esse recta ratio indicat Deus non est eiusdem rei secundum idem actor vltor sed est eius actor in quantum entitas quaedam eius verò vltor in quantum est malum Est autem malum in quantum malè fit ideo punit eum à quo male fit pro eâ If by the difformity they vnderstand any being or any thing that is positiue whatsoever and wheresoever it is God is a cause thereof neither doe I know sayth hee that the contrary is deliuered by the Saints Indeede there are certaine moderne Doctours that say that though the acte wherein difformity is bee from God yet the difformity is not which their saying may haue a good sense not conceiving that the difformity is any positiue thing distinct from the acte whereof God should not be an actor but so vnderstanding it that though the act which is done otherwise then it should be done be of God yet it is not done otherwise then it should bee done as it is done by God for God doth nothing in producing such an acte that hee should not doe but the creature onely So that as the Divines doe tell vs God is not an actor and a punisher of the same thing in respect of the same but hee is an actor of the thing in that it is a thing done but a punisher in that it is ill done And therefore he punisheth him that hath done ill in doing ill himselfe hauing done the same thing well Quid mirum saith Anselm si dicamus Deum facere singulas actiones quâ—… fiunt mala voluntate cùm fateamur eum facere singulas substantias quae fiunt iniustâ voluntate inhonestâ actione that is What strange thing is it if wee say that God produceth all those actions which sinfull men doe wickedly seeing we confesse he produceth all those substances which are brought forth by a sinfull desire of the will and an vnhonest action God produceth formeth the same child in the womb which a man begetteth in adulterie yet man only sinneth not God Si verò dicitur saith Hugo de S. Victore Deus vult malum grave est auditu non facilè recipit hoc pia mens de bono quod malumvult Videtur enim hoc solum dici cum dicitur Deus vult malum quia bonus malum diligit approbat quod pravum est amicam sibi reputat iniquitatem gaudet quasi de consimili bonum put at quod malum est ideo refutat hoc menspia non quia quod dicitur non benè dicitur sed quia quod bené dicitur non benè intelligitur Non enim hoc solùm dicitur sed ex eo quod dicitur aliquid intelligitur quod non dicitur Quoniam malum esse vult malum non vult that is If it be said that God willeth the thing that is euill men hardly endure to heare it and a pious and good minde doth not easily admit that he that is good willeth the thing that is euill for wee conceiue nothing else when we say God willeth that which is euill but that hee that is good loueth that which is euill and approueth that which is wicked And therefore a good minde reiecteth such a speech not because it is not right and good but because that which is rightly said is not rightly vnderstood For this speech is not so to be taken as if God loued or approued that which is euill but something is to bee vnderstood which is not expressed And the meaning of this speech is that God willeth the being of euill or that euill shal be and yet willeth not euill that is approueth it not Now when it is said that God willeth the being of euill or that euill shal be the meaning of this saying of Hugo is concerning the sinne of omission that he willeth it no otherwise but onely in that he denieth that grace which onely he knoweth would worke the doing of the contrary good and concerning the sinne of commission that he produceth in and together with them that by falling into the sinne of
omission are become euill such actions as are euill There are saith Cameracensis who hold that God hath an efficiencie and is a cause producing the action that is sinfull and that he may and doth cause will that which is sin as Ockam Bradwardine and sundry other renowned Doctors And elsewhere he saith that according to the opiniō of the master of the sentences God only permitteth those euils which are sinne that he neither willeth their being or not being For if he did will their being hee should be the cause of them which he thinketh must not bee graunted and if hee did will their not being they should not be But Bradwardine and others hold that God willeth those euils that are sinnes that in respect of euery thing he hath an act of will either that it shal be or not be and not a meere negation of such act If wee speake saith Ockam of the sinne of commission wee must not thinke that the will of the creature hath an efficiencie and is so the cause of that act but that God also who as immediately produceth euery act of the creature as the creature doth it selfe hath his efficiencie and is a cause also euen of the difformity that is found in such an act aswell as of the substance of the act Seeing as we haue already shewed the difformity in an act of commission is nothing else but the very act it selfe that is done contrary to the precept Yet doth not God originally moue the creature to doe any such euill act but contrarywise so made it and would haue so continued it if the fault had not beene in it selfe that it should neuer haue done any euill act But finding it by it owne fault averse and turned from him notwithstanding all the gracious meanes he vsed to retain it hee goeth on mouing carrying it forward with restles motions and produceth in and with it thus averse actions fitting to such an estate and such as it must needes bring forth if it bring forth any at all that is such as are euill Thus he doth without all fault of his who must not cease to doe his worke of mouing and carrying forward all things with restlesse motions though by their owne fault being put out of due course they doe not attaine their wished good but runne themselues into endlesse euills Thus then God did onely by substraction and denyall of that grace without which hee saw the creature would not be wonne to continue in that state of good wherein it was to be created decree purpose the entrance of the sinne of omission and auersion but presupposing this purpose and foreseeing that which would follow vpon it by his consequent conditiouall will he positiuely decreed the other which is of commission For seeing man must needes seeke an infinite good loue it infinitly if he seek it not in God must seeke it elsewhere God did decree that man not continuing to adhere to him should seeke his chiefe good in him selfe so consequently fall into selfeloue pride all other euils of that kind This is the opinion of many worthy diuines in the Romane Church and this is that Zuinglius Caluin Beza the rest meant if any where they affirmed that God doth effectually moue impell and incline sinfull creatures to do such things as are euill namely that God hath setled such a course in things that they that wil not do what they should shall do that they should not that hee will not suffer them that fall from him to doe nothing but will effectually moue them to will desire do that which is fitting to the estate into which they put themselues so long as they continue in the same will not be reclaimed wonne to returne to him againe And this is agreable to that of S. Augustine that God enclineth or moueth no man to euill but that hee enclineth such as are euill to this or that euill With whom Anselm writing vpon the epistle to the Romans agreeth where he saith that God may be said to deliuer men vp to their owne harts desires when being prone to euill he stayeth them not addeth that it is also manifest that God doth work in the harts of men to incline their wills whither soeuer he pleaseth either to choose things that are good out of his mercy or to choose things that are euill according to their deserts the reasons of his iudgement being sometimes manifest sometimes hid but alwaies iust For because men haue run into some sins they afterwards fall into many God that long expecteth the sinner looking that hee should returne when he findeth that he returneth not but cōtemneth both his iustice mercy he casteth some thing in his way at which hee may stumble fall yet worse then before Inter primum peccatū apostasiae vltimam poenā ignis media quae sunt peccata sunt poenae peccati Whatsoeuer sins do come between the first sin of apostasie the last punishment which is that of eternall fire they are both sins punnishmēnts therefore God may iustly deliuer vp such as fall from him by the first sin of apostasie depart from him vnto their owne harts desires for the committing of such things as are not seemly Thus then we may resolue touching the entrance of sinne First God purposed eternally to make man a rationall and intellectuall creature indued with knowledge of all things and faculty and power to make choise of what hee would Secondly Man could not be thus made and bee naturally free from possibility and danger of making an euill choise disposing amisse of himselfe offending against the lawes of his righteous Creator Thirdly God wanted not gracious meanes whereby to hold him inseperably to himselfe and to preserue him infallibly from falling away though hee were not nor could not be naturally free from possibility of falling Fourthly God foresaw that if man were so created and left to himselfe as afterwards hee was hee would sinfully depart from him Fifthly hee saw that it was best to create and leaue him so and that if sinne should enter hee could take an occasion thereby of the manifestation of greater good then the world otherwise could ever know Sixtly seeing the determination of mans will that if he should be thus created and left hee would auert from him and sinne would enter hee determined soe to create him and leaue him and to giue way that sinne might enter Thus then wee doe not say that God did absolutely without all prescience of the determination of mans will determine and decree that sinne should enter but that foreseing what would be the determinatiō of his will if he were so created and left to himselfe as in his diuine wisedome he saw it to be fittest he determined so to create and leaue him and purposed by subtraction of grace to giue way vnto the sinne of auersion
doe those things he prescribeth to them in like sorte God seeing that sinne was entred brought in punishments to represse it and seeing that it would be eternall if man did continue immortall he brought in death to make an end of it For saith Epiphanius sin is so deepely rooted in vs that it cannot bee quite killed nor pulled vp by the rootes while the body and soule remaine together Euen as sayth hee when some wilde figge tree groweth in the walles of a Goodly and stately building and defaceth and hideth the beauty and glory of it the boughes and braunches may be cut or broken off but the roote which is wrapped into the stones of the building cannot bee taken away vnlesse the walles bee throwen downe and the stones cast one from another So the sinne vvhich dvvelleth in vs hath the rootes of it so invvrapped into our nature the parts of it that hovvsoeuer the boughs and braunches may be cut and broken off the roote remaineth vvhile vve carry about vs this body of death vvill cause more branches to grovv foorth till by death the parts of our nature to vvit the soule and the body bee sundred and diuided And as the vvall may be raised againe and the stones thereof in due sort laid together when the rootes of the trees which formermerly grew into it be taken forth So when the roote of sin is remoued by death out of mans nature God will bring these parts of his nature together againe and giue him that immortality both of body and soule which he intended to him in his creation and would haue giuen him had not death beene necessary for the rooting out of that sinne hee voluntarily fell into That sinne is soe deepely rooted in the nature of man that it cannot bee plucked vp but by death Epiphanius saith it is euident by that of the Apostle who pronounceth of himselfe that to will was present with him but he found no ability to performe That the good hee would do hee did not and the euill that bee would not doe that hee did And that yet it was not hee that did it but sinne that dwelleth in him By this sayth hee it is proued that sinne is not pulled vp by the rootes that it is not dead but liuing that there is no man but hath euill thoughts and desires which growe from this bitter roote of sinne which neither Baptisme nor faith do wholly remoue or kill that sinne is only repressed resisted and stilled from raging and preuailing in such sort as it did before but not wholly taken away Thus then wee see that Epiphanius most excellently deliuereth that in the defence of the trueth against Origen and such like heretickes which Bellarmine imputeth vnto vs as heresie condemned by Epiphanius Wherein surely he was either grosly abused by others making him beleeu Epiphanius sayth that which most peremptorily hee denyeth or else hee was vvilling to deceiue and abuse others Howsoeuer this aduantage wee haue gotten thereby that our assertion that sinne remaineth after Baptisme and that the roote of it is not taken away nor killed till by death the soule and body be diuided is proued to be the auncient doctrine of the Primitiue Fathers But if Epiphanius faile him Bellarmine hath another author whereon to relye For hee saith Theodoret reporteth that the Messalians were condemned for heretickes because they thought that Baptisme as a Razar shaueth away sinnes past but doth not take away the roote of sinne and that therefore for that purpose wee must flye to the force of prayer This opinion of the Messalians touching the not taking away the roote of sinne in such sort as they vnderstoode it and Theodoret disliked it wee also condemne For wee thinke that Baptisme doth not only take away sinnes past but the very roote of all sinnes which is Originall sinne though not wholly for then wee should dissent from Epiphanius before alleaged yet in such sort as I will deliuer in that which followeth The errour of the Messalians Bellarmine attributeth vnto vs because wee teach that concupiscence in the Regenerate is sinne For the better clearing of this point wee must obserue that the Romanists doe erre most daungerously in the matter of originall sinne and naturall concupiscence For first they teach that the contrariety betwene the spirit and the flesh the pronenesse inordinately to desire things transitory sensible and outward and the difficulty to that which is best are the primitiue conditions of the nature of man And consequently that concupiscence neither after nor before Baptisme in the Regenerate nor vnregenerate is sinne or punishment of sinne but a condition of pure and sole nature For if man had beene created in a state of pure nature that is hauing all that pertaineth to the integrity of nature and nothing else it would haue beene found in him Neither doe they make any doubt but that GOD might haue created man in the beginning with all those defects hee is now subiect vnto and yet without all sinne For the beeing subject to them argueth not sinne but whereas they were restrained bridled and suppressed by addition of supernaturall qualities the hauing of them at libertie by voluntarie losse of those qualities is not without sinne Thus then howsoeuer they talke of concupiscence in the Regenerate and would seeme to deny it to be sinne in them onely yet they doe as well deny it to be sin in men not Regenerate as in the Regenerate and make it onely a punishment of sinne if yet they yeeld so much vnto the truth For indeede according to their erroneous conceit concupiscence is a sequele of nature and not a punishment of sinne so that all that they doe or can say is nothing but this that concupiscence was naturall and such a thing as might bee found in the integrity of nature that it was restrained by supernaturall grace added aboue that nature requireth for the perfecting of her integritie that the hauing it now free and at libertie to prouoke moue and incline vs to sinne is the punishment of that sinne whereby we depriued our selues of supernaturall grace But wee say contrary to this absurd conceite of theirs First that all these defects and euils to wit contrariety betweene the better and meaner faculties of the soule pronenesse to doe euill and difficultie to doe good doe arise and grow out of the want of that originall righteousnesse the property whereof is to subject all vnto God and to leaue nothing voide of him Secondly that this righteousnesse was essentially required to the integrity of nature So that there is no state of sole and pure nature without addition of sinne or grace as the Papists fondly imagine for that the nature of man is such as must either be lifted aboue it selfe by grace or fall below it selfe and be in a state of sinne Thirdly that all declinings and swaruings from that perfect subjection vnto God and entire conjunction with God which grace worketh
are sinnes and decayes of natures integrity and consequently that concupiscence being a declining from that entire subiection to and conjunction with God is truely and properly sin whatsoeuer our adversaries teach to the contrary Fourthly that originall righteousnesse is said to bee a supernaturall quality because it groweth not out of nature and because it raiseth nature aboue it selfe But that it is naturall that is required to the integritie of nature Neither should it seeme strange to any man that a quality not growing out of nature should be required necessarily for the perfecting of natures integrity seeing the end and object of mans desires knowledge and action is an infinite thing and without the compasse bounds of nature And therefore the nature of man cannot as all other things doe by naturall force and things bred within her selfe attaine to her wished end but must either by supernaturall grace bee guided and directed to it or being left to her selfe faile of that perfection shee is capable of and fill her selfe with infinite euills defects and miseries This may suffice for refutation of the vaine and idle conceits of the Papists concerning three estates of man the one of grace the other of nature and the third of sinne Out of which we may obserue that howsoeuer they indeavour to make shew of the contrary yet indeede they thinke that concupiscence is not sinne neither in the regenerate nor vnregenerate Whereupon it is that Bellarmine speaking of the guilt of concupiscence which the Diuines say is taken away in Baptisme though the infirmity remaine saith it must be vnderstood of that guilt which causeth concupiscence not which is caused of it For saith he originall sinne maketh guilty and subjecteth men to concupiscence but concupiscence doth not make them guilty that haue it and therefore it is not sinne neither before nor after Baptisme But we say with Augustin Sicut caecitas cordis quam removet alluminator deus peccatū est quo in deum non creditur poena peccati qua cor superbū dignâ animadversione punitur causa peccati cùm mali aliquid caeci cordis errore cōmittitur ita concupiscentia carnis aduersus quam bonus concupiscit spiritus peccatum est quia inest ei inobedientia contra dominatum mentis poena peccati est quia reddita est meritis inobedientis causa peccati est defectione consentientis vel contagione nascentis As the blindnesse of heart which God remooueth when hee lightneth those that were formerly in darkenesse is a sinne in that by reason of it men beleeue not in GOD and a punishment of sinne wherewith the proude hearts of wicked men are iustly punished and a cause of sinne when erring by reason of this blindnesse of heart they doe those things that are euill so the concupiscence of the flesh against which the good spirit doth striue and couet is a sinne because there is in it disobedience against the dominion of the mind and a punishment of sinne in that it falleth out by the iust iudgment of God that they who are disobedient vnto God shall finde rebellious desires in themselues and it is a cause of sinne in that men either by wicked defection consent vnto it or by reason of the generall infection of humane nature are borne in it Wee thinke therefore there should be no question made of concupiscence and other like defects and euils found in the nature of man but that they are in their owne nature sinfull defects And hereof I am well assured none of the Fathers euer doubted but how farre they are washed away and remitted in Baptisme which is the matter about which Bellarmine wrangleth and taketh exception against vs let vs now consider Alexander of Hales the first and greatest of all the Schoolemen noteth diuers things most fitly to this purpose out of which wee may easily resolue what is to bee thought of this matter First therefore hee obserueth that there are two sortes of sinnes some naturall which are in the person from the generall condition of nature some personall that are acted by the person and so defile the nature as all actuall sinnes Secondly that concupiscence is of the first kind being an euill contracted and cleauing to nature not personally acted or wrought by vs. Thirdly that concupiscence may bee considered either as it hath full dominion and is a prevailing thing in them that haue it or as it is weakened and hath lost that strength dominion and command which formerly it had Fourthly that concupiscence while it hath dominion is a sinne defiling and making guilty both the nature person in which it commaundeth all But if it lose this dominion it cleaueth to the nature only and is not imputed to the person for sinne vnlesse hee some way yeelde vnto it bee drawen by it or suffer himselfe to be weakened in well doing by the force of it Fiftly that the benefits of grace are not generall but speciall of priuiledge not freeing the whole nature of man from sin and punishment as sin corrupted and defiled all but that they extend onely personally to some certaine Sixtly that when men are borne anew in baptisme they are freed from all that sin which maketh their persons guilty before God and consequently from all punishments due to them for any thing their persons were chargeable with But because they still remaine in that nature which is of the masse of malediction therefore sin cleaueth to their nature still and they are subject to the common punishment of hunger thirst death and the like Seauenthly that the dominion of that sin which is of nature is taken away by the benefit of regeneration in Baptisme Whence it commeth that the persons of men baptized are not chargeable with it though they remaine still in that nature wherein it is And consequently that the punishments which they are subject vnto because they remaine in the communion of that nature which is not generally free from sin cease to be vnto them in the nature of destroying euils serue to diverse good purposes and turne to their great benefit So then wee say with the Fathers and best learned of the Schoolemen that concupiscence in men not regenerate is a sinne corrupting and making guilty both the nature and the person wherein it is and that in the Regenerate it cleaueth to nature as a sinne still but hauing lost the dominion it had so that it cannot make the person guilty not prevailing with it nor commaunding ouer it Regnum amittit in terra perit in caelo It is driuen from the kingdome it formerly had in the Saints of God while they yet remaine on earth but it is not vtterly destroyed till they goe from hence to heauen Thus then I hope it appeareth that wee are far from the errour of the Messalians and doe fully accord with the Catholike Church of God and that the Romanists are not far from the heresie
shee had borne CHRIST the second that all sinnes are equall If these were the opinions of Iovinian as it may very well be doubted wee condemne them and his errour therein as much as the Romanists doe For we thinke that Mary continued a Virgine in and after the birth of CHRIST But they will say many of the Protestant Divines doe teach that the doores of Maries wombe were opened when CHRIST was borne and from thence it will follow that shee ceased to bee a Virgine This consequence we deny for otherwise Tertullian Ambrose Hierome and sundry other of the Fathers shall bee proued to haue denied the virginity of Mary after the birth of CHRIST which yet they all most constantly beleeued But they know well that no such thing can be concluded from thence For as Tertullian aptly noteth there is virgo â viro and virgo à partu that is a virgin may be so named because shee hath not beene a mother nor the doores of her wombe opened by bearing a childe or because she hath knowne no man though shee haue borne a childe In this sort a virgine may remaine a virgine and yet be a mother and beare a childe with the opening of the doores of her wombe if this childe thus conceiued in her and borne of her were not begotten by man nor the doores of her wombe opened by the knowledge of a man So that though it be granted that CHRIST when he was borne opened the wombe of Mary his mother yet she remained a Virgine still because that which was conceiued in her was of the Holy Ghost Neither should our adversaries in reason presse this argument so much seeing their owne Schoolmen confesse there may be an opening of the wombe in such as still remaine virgins Thus then we say with the Fathers that CHRIST being Maries first-borne may be said more properly to haue opened the wombe of Mary his mother then any other first-borne doe because he found it shut when he came to the birth which they doe not But that from hence a denyall of Maries virginity will follow we deny And therefore we are wronged in this challenge as in the rest Touching the opinion of the parity of sinnes which is in the second place imputed to Iovinian we hold it to be a Stoicall Paradoxe Their argument to proue that we thinke all sinnes to be equall because as they suppose wee deny the difference of Veniall and Mortall sinnes and thinke all sinnes to be mortall is very weake first because we doe not deny the difference betweene veniall and mortall sinnes as shall appeare in that which followeth and secondly because if we did make all sinnes to bee mortall yet of mortall sinnes one may be and is greater and more grievous then another The opinions that Hierome imputeth to Iovinian are foure the first that there is an equality of ioyes and rewards in heauen This opinion wee do not hold neither can it bee deduced by necessary consequence from the words of Luther where he saith that all Christians are as holy and iust as the mother of God For hee speaketh of imputed righteousnesse which is equall in all men from which no imparity of ioy can flowe but he neuer denieth inherent righteousnesse to be more in one than in another and more in Mary the mother of Christ then in any other Now from this imparity of inherent righteousnesse it is that there are so different degrees of ioy and glory found among the Saints of God that are in heauen The second opinion which Hierom condemneth in Iovinian is that there is no difference betweene abstinence from meates and the sober and due taking of them with thanksgiuing This we iudge not to be so truly deliuered by him as was to be wished For eating with thanksgiuing is a matter of ordinary sobriety and temperance but abstinence is an extraordinary acte of Christian mortification and humiliation and beeing rightly vsed hath those effects the other hath not though neither meat nor abstinence from meate do simply commend vs vnto God fasting being a thing not absolutely and for it selfe but only respectiuely to certaine endes to bee iudged good The third assertion of Iouinian was that they which are baptized with water and the holy Ghost are not subiect to temptation nor sinne This is not only an error but a damnable heresie if it were so deliuered by him as it is reported by Hierome That which Caluin saith that true faith which is found in them that are called according to purpose as Augustine speaketh following blessed Paule cannot be wholly extinguished nor finally lost is most true but hath no agreement with that of Iouinian that the regenerate is neither subiect to temptation nor sin For Caluin denieth not but that the elect and chosen seruāts of God may do oftentimes fall very daungerously but that such is the loue of God towards them whome he hath called according to purpose that he is alwaies with them to raise them vp againe if they fall and that this is the difference betweene them and such as God hath not ordained vnto life that they fall into the hands of God who suffers them not to bee broken or vtterly to perish whereas the hand of God euen his heauy hand falleth vppon the other to crush and breake them to peeces as Hugo de Sancto Victore hath most excellently obserued This therefore is but a calumniation like the rest when Bellarmine doth charge Caluine with the heresie of Iouinian in this respect The fourth and last assertion of Iouinian is that married persons virgins and widowes if they differ not in other workes of vertue and therein excell one another are of equall merite This assertion howsoeuer it pleaseth Hierome to taxe I am well assured the best learned both of the Fathers and Schoolemen do approue For virginity in that it addeth ouer and aboue the ordinary chastity and purity which ought to bee found in married folkes though it be a kind of splendor beauty of vertue yet it is no vertue nor degree of vertue as Gerson proueth For that then married folkes could not haue all vertues nay because all vertues are connexed not hauing this of virginity they could haue none Besides that no vertue is lost but by sinne whereas virginity may be lost by that which is no sinne as by the act of Matrimonie All vertues in their times and places are commanded and not left free and counselled onely but virginity is neuer imposed by precept and therefore it is noe vertue Lastly there is no vertue but being lost by repentance may bee recouered againe but virginity being lost cannot be recouered againe therefore it is no vertue These reasons are laid down by Gerson whereby in his iudgment it is most clearely proued that virginitie in that it addeth ouer and aboue ordinary chastity and purity is no vertue and consequently that the bare and sole hauing
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
not conuince him and force him to bee otherwise minded for that hee might thereby disaduantage his aduersaries of the Romish faction no way proueth that which Bellarmine intendeth For this is all hee sayth Let no man thinke that it is wilfullnesse and a preiudicate opinion that maketh mee dissent from Zuinglius and the rest for in my affection and desire I should rather Wish to consent with them in this point then with the Romanists whose manifolde damnable errours I detest if it were affection and not reason and the cleare euidence of truth that must preuaile in things of this kind Indeede the Romanists are wont to temper their opinions and sway their iudgments accordingly as they finde they may most aduantage their owne cause and disaduantage their aduersaries As appeareth by Bellarmine who in the question whether the eminent degree of Bishoppes aboue Presbyters bee a distinct order of Ministrie doth incline to the opinion of them that thinke it is contrary to the iudgment of the best learned of the Schoolemen for that thereby hee may the more easily impugne the opinion of them that thinke Bishoppes and Presbyters to bee all one iure diuino That which followeth is as little to the purpose as the rest It is true that in the assurance of the truth hee professed and the certaine victorie of the same ouer all the enimies of it of what kinde degree or sort soeuer hee esteemed all the greatenesse of the malicious aduersaries therof as vile as the dirt vnderneath his feete though otherwise out of this comparison with the truth and opposition to it hee respected them as the greatnesse of their place did require That hee saith hee regardeth not a thousand Cyprians a thousand Augustines if they should bee produced proueth not that hee thinketh them to be against him in the cause of religion or that hee contemneth them but that no authority of men or Angells shall euer remoue him from that hee knoweth to be the truth of God as the Apostle requireth the Galathians If an Angell come from heauen and preach otherwise to them then they had beene taught to hold him accursed not as if the holy Angels in heauen now confirmed in grace could either erre themselues from the truth of the Gospell or peruert others or that they should bee vilely esteemed of in the messages they bring vnto vs but that if it were possible for them to erre and misleade others wee should not listen vnto them but hold them accursed That out of his booke of corner masses is as diuellish a slander as the rest For Luther doth not say hee learned of the diuell that the Masse is impious and wicked but that hauing learned that in the schoole of Christ the diuell therevpon tempted him to dispaire for that he had so often sayd such Masses and thereby dishonoured God and misled his people what this can proue against him I see not That hee was of a violent spirit wee deny not nay himselfe gloried in it that hee had an heroicall spirit made to contemne the fury and folly of the Romanists neither had hee beene fitte to oppose against enimies of this kinde if hee had beene of another spirit That he was carried too much with the violent streame of his passions wee impute it to the infirmity of flesh and blood and the perversenesse of the manyfold adversaries hee found in those times Neither was this the peculiar or proper fault of Luther for who knoweth not that Hierome and Chrysostome and diuerse other lights of the World were not without their blemishes in this kinde That the Tigurines Gesnerus and others disliked the distempered passions of Luther is not to bee maruailed at or that there were some differences amongst them seeing the like were in former times betweene Epiphanius and Chrysostome Hierome Ruffinus Augustine and others From Luther the Iesuite commeth to the people of our profession pronouncing that there are many wicked amongst his consorts but that there are none good amongst those that are of the Reformed Religion Thus with the breath of his mouth he thinketh to blow vp all that standeth before him But how proueth he that he saith Our owne confession saith he is proofe enough But against this pretended and imagined confession we protest and professe before God men and Angels that wee neuer thought much lesse spake or wrote any such thing If Luther in his sermons complaine that the world is euery day worse than other who was there euer found that vsed not wordes of the like complaint If hee say that the men of the world abuse the grace of God vnto want onnesse and the more and better meanes they haue bee the worse what strange thing saith hee Did not S. Paul finde that when hee magnified the riches of the grace of God and shewed that where sinne hath abounded grace more abounded many tooke occasion to say It is good to continue in sinne that grace may abound Doth he not charge the Corinthians that there was fornication amongst them and such as was not once named among the Gentiles that they went to law one with another and that vnder Infidels to the slaunder of the Gospell of Christ that there was not a wise man amongst them to interpose himselfe and stay these their proceedings one against another That which is alleaged out of Smidelinus tendeth to the same purpose and requireth no other nor farther answere Touching the judgement of Erasmus it was so variable and vncertaine in things of this kind that neither they nor we can take any advantage by it But for the extraordinary sanctity of the Romish Priests Friars Monkes and other irreligious amongst them whereof they insolently boast and bragge if we should stirre the dunghils of their own histories wherein the liues of these Saints are described vnto vs the stench of them would infect the aire if we should make report of that we reade in Authors not partiall men would stop their eares and pronounce against vs that such things ought not once to be named amongst men This is so euident that Bellarmine in his preface before his bookes of the Pope is not ashamed to make the wickednesse and prodigious villanies of the Popes a proofe and demonstration of the Sanctity of that Chaire in which they sit and of Gods provident care of it Which argument though it seeme strange at the first sight yet it is in his judgement very forcible and vnanswerable For that such and so great hath beene the wickednesse of the Roman Bishops that if God had not strangely vpholden it the Sea and Chaire in which they sit had long since sunk down into hell Thus I hope it appeareth to all not wilfully blinded that this note of the sanctitie of the liues of the Professours of Religion maketh very little for them or against vs. And thus haue wee run through and examined all the notes of the Church by which
blood and the blood without the bodie and so a slaine and a crucified Christ if that naturall concomitance by reason whereof the one of them will not bee absent where the other becommeth present did not hinder their being asunder Thus then they say there is a true reall sacrificing of Christ in that as much as is on the part of the words pronounced and him that pronounceth them Christs bloud is againe powred out and hee consequently slaine This is the conceipt of Gregorius de Valentia and in this sorte hee imagineth Christ is daily newly sacrificed on the altar But besides that it is an impious thing for the priest to endeauour as much as in him lies to slay Christ and to powre out his bloud againe this proueth not a reall sacrificing of Christ but onely an indevour so to doe For his bloud is not powred out neither is hee slaine indeede So that as in the time of the old law if the priest reaching forth his hand to slay the beast that was brought to bee sacrificed had beene so hindred by something interposing it selfe that hee could not slay the same hee had offered no sacrifice but endeavoured onely so to doe so is it here Bellarmine therefore reiecteth this conceipt and hath another of his owne For hee sayth that Christ hath a two fold beeing the one naturall the other sacramentall The Iewes had him present amongst them visibly in his naturall being this beeing they destroyed and so killed and sacrificed him The Romish Priests haue him not so present neither can they destroy his naturall beeing and so kill him but they haue him present in a sacramentall presence and in a sacramentall being this beeing they destroy For consuming the accidents of bread and wine which are there left without substance and with which hee is present they make his presence there to cease and so cause him to loose that beeing which formerly hee there had Thus doe they suppose that they newly sacrifice Christ and destroy him in that being wherein hee is present with them And the Priests eating is not for refection but for consumption that hee may destroy Christ in that beeing wherein hee is present as the fire on the altar was wont to consume and destroy the bodies of those beasts that were put into it But first it is impious to thinke of destroying CHRIST in any sort For though it bee true that in sacrificing of Christ on the altar of the crosse the destroying and killing of him was implyed and this his death was the life of the world yet all that concurred to the killing of him as the Iewes the Roman souldiers Pilate and Iudas sinned damnably and soe had done though they had shed his bloud with an intention and desire that by it the world might be redeemed Soe in like sort let the Romish priestes haue what intention they will it is hellish and damnable once to thinke of the destroying of Christ in any sort And besides if it were lawfull for them so to doe yet all that they doe or can doe is not sufficient to make good a reall sacrificing of CHRIST Because all they doe or can doe is noe destroying of his beeing but onely of his being somewhere that is in the Sacrament For as if the things which were brought to be sacrificed in the time of the Law had beene only remoued out of some place into which they were brought or onely caused to cease to bee where they were and not what they were they could not truly haue beene sayd to haue beene sacrificed no more can it be truly said that Christ is really sacrificed in that the priests consuming the accidents of bread and wine vnder which they supposed him to be make him cease to be there any longer Hauing thus in their erring imaginations framed to themselues a reall sacrificing of Christ they beginne to dispute of the force and efficacie of it affirming that this reall offering and sacrificing of CHRIST by the priest is propitiatorie in that it pacifieth God and procureth and obtaineth grace and the gift of repentance that the sinner may come to the sacrament and so be iustified satisfactorie in that it applyeth the satisfaction of Christ and procureth remission of temporall punishments to them that by faith and repentance are alreadie free from the guilt of eternall condemnation meritorious because it obtaineth that grace whereby wee may merit and impetratory in that it obtaineth for vs and procureth to vs all desired good This force and efficacie they say it hath ex opere operato that is the verie offering and sacrificing of Christ in sort before expressed of it selfe hath force and power to obtaine and procure grace remission of sinnes and the like for all them for whom such offering is made if there bee no hinderance or impediment in themselues And that God hath tyed himselfe by promise to conferre such gifts and worke such effects soe often as the body and bloud of his sonne shall bee thus offered And farther they adde that it conferreth good and remoueth euill not infinitely but in a stinted and limited sort Nor in that limited sort equally in respect of all but in proportionable sort as the intendment of the Church is to apply this sacrifice more or lesse to the procuring of more or lesse And that therefore the benefitte that this sacrifice procureth is in one degree communicated to all faithfull ones liuing and dead in another to such as by the Churches appointment are specially named as the Pope King and Bishoppe or the like in another to them that procure the offering of this sacrifice in another to them that are present and stand by in another to them that minister and attend in another to the priest that sacrificeth and in another to whomsoeuer it pleaseth the priest to impart and communicate the benefitte and effect of this sacrifice For as Gregorius de Valentia alleadgeth out of â— Scotus it is to be thought that the priest that is the minister of this sacrifice may apply to whom hee will not only that which by worth of his personall merit in the religious performing of this seruice hee may deserue but some part also of that effect which this sacrifice hath ex opere operato and that God hath committed vnto him the effect which it hath in this kinde in some degree and sort to bee dispensed by him to whom hee thinketh good in recompence of his seruice And further they resolue that those effects which this sacrifice hath ex opere operato and are by the intendment of the Church communicated in different sort and degree to those diuers sorts of men before specified are equally communicated to each of those sorts according to their seuerall differences whether the sacrifice be offered for more or fewer As they that procure Masse to be said for them whether they bee more or fewer shall haue like effects wrought in them But that portion of this
I am si canon ille missae in hunc quem diximus sensum intelligatur nihil habet incommodi superstitiosa tantum absit opinio quia quidam de naturâ energiâ huius sanctissimi sacrificii male edocti virtutem eius ex solo externo opere quod facit Sacerdos in se deriuari putabant tametsi illi nullam viuam fidem adferrent nullam pietatem adhiberent nulla communione vel precum seu orationis sacrificio assensum praeberent quales erant qui nullâ suae nefandae impietatis execrandorum flagitiorum habitâ ratione se huic sacratissimae diuinissimae actioni damnabiliter miscuerunt missam solius externi operis quod sacerdos facit virtute prodesse put antes etsi ipsi nihil probae mentis adferrent That is If the canon of the Masse bee vnderstood in this sense which wee haue expressed there is no euill in it so that men haue no superstitious conceipt of things for there were some who being ill instructed touching the nature of this sacrament supposed that vertue might be deriued vnto them by the sole externe action of the priest although they brought no liuely faith no piety nor gaue any consent to the sacrifice by any communion so much as of prayer of which sort they were who hauing no consideration of their owne horrible impieties evills committed by them persevering in the purpose of sinning damnably presumed to be present at this most holy action and put themselues in a sort into it perswading themselues that the masse by the vertue of the externe worke of the priest alone would doe them good though they brought no motions affections or desires of a good mind with them Hosius was of the same opinion with these before recited When the priest sayth hee lifteth vp the eucharist let men remember that sacrifice wherein Christ being lifted vp to the crosse offered himselfe to God a sacrifice for vs. Let them thinke how bitter the torments were that hee sustained let them know that mens sins were the cause of such his sufferings let them greiue as it is fitte they should for them and let them shew by all meanes that they hate them And because by his precious death hee hath so fully satisfied for all sinnes that there are none that are not abolished let them with good assurance considence goe vnto the throne of grace and whereas wee haue no merit of our owne let them plead that of Christ let them present that his body that did hang on the crosse and his bloud which was shed for the remission of our sinnes to God the Father and let them humbly beseech him to turne away his face from their sinnes and to looke vpon the face of his son Christ who bare our infirmities to looke vpon his face for his merit to remit their sinnes and to graunt that they may deriue vnto themselues all that fruite which that sacrifice of the crosse that is represented on the altar brought to the world Thus he sayth the people were taught by our forefathers and this hee sayth is enough for them to know Notwithstanding hee sheweth that Michael Bishop of Merspurge a man learned godly and truely catholique published certaine sermons touching the sacrifice of the massâ—… which hee wisheth to bee in the hands of all men in these sermons the same explication is made of the sacrament so often mentioned that I haue already deliuered And with him agreeth another learned Bishop Thomas Watson sometimes Bishop of Lincolne in his sermons vpon the seauen sacraments his words are these Christ in heaven and wee his mysticall body on earth doe but one thing for Christ being a Priest for euermore after his passion and resurrection entred into heauen and there appeareth now to the countenance of God for vs offering himselfe for vs to pacifie the anger of God against vs and representing his passion and all that he suffered for vs that we might be reconciled to God by him euen so the Church our mother being carefull for vs her children that haue offended our father in heauen vseth continually by her publique minister to pray to offer vnto God the body bloud of her husband Christ representing renewing his passion and death before God that wee thereby might bee renewed in grace and receiue life perfection and saluation and after the same sort the holy Angels of God in the time of this our sacrifice do assist the priest and stand about the host thinking that the meetest time to shew their charitie towards vs and therefore holding forth the body of Christ praye for mankind as saying thus Lord wee pray for them whom thou hast so loued that for their saluation thou hast suffered death spent thy life vpon the crosse we make supplication for them for whom thou hast shed this thy bloud we pray for them for whom thou hast offered this same thy very body In that houre when Christs death is renewed in mysterie his most fearefull and acceptable sacrifice is represented to the sight of God then sitteth the King on his Mercie-seat enclined to giue and forgiue whatsoeuer is demaunded and asked of him in humble manner In the presence of this body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ the teares of a meeke and humble man neuer beg pardoÌ„ in vain nor the sacrifice of a contrite heart is neuer put back but hath his lawfull desires granted giuen By resorting to this sacrifice of the masse we evidently declare protest before God the whole world that we put our singular only trust of grace saluation in Christ our Lord for the merits of his death his passion not for the worthinesse of any good worke that we haue done or can doe that we make his passion our only refuge For when wisedome faileth which onely commeth by the doctrine of Christ when righteousnesse lacketh which onely is gotten by the mercie of Christ when vertue ceaseth which onely is receiued from him who is the Lord of all vertue then for supplying of these our lacks needs our refuge is to Christs passion then we run as the Prophet saith to the cup of our Sauiour and call vpon the Name of our Lord that is to say we take his passion offer to God the Father in mystery the worke of our redemption that by this memorie commemoration of it it would please his mercifull goodnes to innovate his grace in vs to replenish vs with the fruit of his Sonns passion We are become debtors to Almighty God for our manifold sins iniquities done against him we can neuer pay this debt no scarse one farthing of a 1000 pounds what remedie then haue we but to run to the rich man our neighbour that hath enough to pay for vs all I meane Christ our Lord who hath payde his heart bloud for no debt of his own but for our
appearing that now it is as M Brerely would haue vs to beleeue Wherefore to conclude this point it appeareth by that which hath beene said that neither the canon of the Masse rightly vnderstood includeth in it any such points of Romish Religion as some imagine but in sundry yea in all the capitall differences betweene vs and them of the Romane faction witnesseth for vs and against them that the Prelates and guides of the Church formerly made no such construction of it as now is made That it may haue a good sense our men confesse I could saith Luther make such a construction of the canon of the Masse as might stand with the rule of faith and I haue somwhere so done but seeing it is obscure and the rule of the Lawyers is that hee that will speake obscurely shall haue his words construed against him and not for him I will not saith hee take so much paines as to seeke out and declare the best meaning that may be conceiued of it but a better forme being found out will leaue this and embrace that That it is obscure I shewed out of Cassander and that if it be to be retained it must haue some scholies or explications either added in the margent or inserted into the text that it may be vnderstood and rightly vsed which thing if it be done it will seeme a new one and if it haue such explications as hee would haue it will differ little or nothing from our liturgie There is extant a ceraine forme of reformation exhibited by Charles the fift to the ecclesiasticall states of the Empire and accepted and receiued by them wherein they professe that the canon of the masse which the Church of God hath vsed and retained soe many ages containeth nothing in it that is not consonant to the courses of antiquity so that it is not to be cōdemned or changed by any priuate authority so insinuating that by publike it may but touching the other parts of the masse though for the most part they bee nothing but praises of God prayers of the Church and holy lessons and readings and so farre forth not to be despised yet if there be any new collects sequences or prefaces either vnlearned or depending vpon Apocryphall histories or not soe fitting to the sacrifice of the masse which later ages haue brought in they prescribe that they be remoued and that things may bee brought backe to their auncient purity Besides this wee haue extant certaine articles concerning the reformation of the Church proposed by the embassadors of Ferdinand the Emperour in the councell of Trent amongst which these are found That the breuiaries and missalls should bee purged that all those things which are not taken out of diuine scripture should be remoued that the prolixity of Psalmes and prayers should be contracted good choise beeing made that a new agend or forme of diuine seruice should bee composed and that then all that would not vse it should bee seuerely punished So that M Brerelies maine objection which he thought vnanswerable falleth to the ground For the Canon of the Masse rightly vnderstood is found to containe nothing in it contrary to the rule of faith the profession of the protestant Churches the abuses of priuate Masses halfe cōmunions are found to haue bin beside against the words meaning of them that composed the canon and not without the dislike of many good men before and since Luthers time and the construction that they now make of the word sacrifice so often vsed in it appeareth to be a meere perverting of the meaning of the Canon to a sinister sense neuer intended by the authors of it nor euer allowed by the best men in the Church This Canon notwithstanding is found to haue some passages that in the judgement of men right learned can not well haue any true meaning vnlesse the old custome of offering bread and wine on the Lords Table out of which the Sacrament may be consecrated be restored so that those parts that custome being discontinued may well be omitted Some other parts are obscure need explicatiō which being added ot inserted it will differ litle or nothing from those formes of consecratiō of those holy mysteries that now are in use in the reformed Churches of England some other places therfore brought in because in later ages many things were added to the canon anciently in vse which the best grauest in the Church thought fit to be taken away a new forme of diuine seruice to be composed So that the Church that formerly was hauing no different judgment touching matters dogmaticall no liking of those abuses in practise which som had brought in wishing things to be brought to such a course as Protestants now haue brought them it may well be said to haue bin a Protestant Church in such sort as I haue formerly shewed Only two things may be objected against that which hath been said the one touching prayer for the dead the other touching the commemoration of the Saints prayer that God through their intercession for their merite will giue vnto vs such things as we desire both which seeme to make much against the Religion of Protestants to be points of Romane Religion contained in the very canon of the Masse which the Church vsed in the dayes of our Fathers so that that Church wherein they liued and died could bee no Protestant Church But the answer hereunto is easie For touching the first of these two which is prayer for the dead it is well knowne that Protestants doe not simply condemne all prayer in this kinde For they pray for the resurrection publique acquitall in the day of judgment the perfect consummation blisse of them that rest in the Lord and the perfecting of whatsoeuer is yet wanting vnto them The Apologie of the confession of Augusta saith expressely in the name of all those worthy Princes People States that subscribed the Augustane confession that they do not condemne nor forbid prayer for the dead And Chemnicius saith it is a bestiall apathie for men not to be affected with the death of their friends presently so soone as euer they are gone to put all remembrance of them out of their mindes and not to wish good vnto them nor to pray that it may be well with them which desires and prayers yet must be moderated according to the word of God That it is lawfull to pray for the acquitall publick remission of sins in the day of judgement and the performing perfecting of whatsoeuer is yet behind there is no question that I know made by any and I am well assured that in so doing we exceeding christianly expresse our loue towards the departed and giue testimony of our perswasion that the soules of them that die doe liue and that their bodies also shall bee raysed vp at the last day which thing as Cassander saith truely all the
the Emperor cōcerning the necessary reformation of the Church one was that Happily it were to be permitted that in some places prayers faithfully translated into the vulgar tongue might be intermingled with those things that are sung in latine Likewise in the articles of reformation exhibited to the councell of Trent by Charles the 9◠In sacrificio paraecialibus Euangelium apertè dilucidè pro populi captu copiose ex suggestu exponatur quo in loco quae plebano praeeunte fient preces linguâ fiant vernaculâ peractâ autem re diuinâ latine mysticis precibus lingua etiam vernacula publicae ad Deum preces fiant ibidem plura Which thing if it had bin granted by the councell no new nor strang thing had bin brought in for as Hosius testifieth the Church neuer forbad to sing in the Churches in the vulgar tongue in time and place It were to be wished sayth Erasmus that the whole service of God might be celebrated and performed in a tongue vnderstood of the whole people as in auncient times it was wont to bee and that all things should bee soe plainely and distinctly sounded out that they might bee vnderstood of all that list to attend And Cassander fully agreeing with Erasmus and alleadging to this purpose the Popes permitting of it to the Slauonians vpon the hearing of a voice frō heauen the authority of Caietan sayth It were to be desired that according to the mandate of the Apostle and the auncient custome of the Church consideration might be had of the people in the publike praiers of the Church and in the hymnes and lessons which are there read and sung for the peoples sake and that the ordinary and vulgar sort of beleeuers might not for ever bee wholly excluded from all communion of prayers and diuine readings and hee addeth that vnlesse there bee a reformation in this and other things there is no hope of any durable peace or consent of the Church and professeth hee cannot see but that they to whom the government of the Church is committed shall one day giue an account why they suffered the Church to bee thus miserably disquieted and rent in sunder and neglected to take away the causes whence heresies schismes do spring as in duety they should haue done So that in this poynt as in the former we see the Church wherein our Fathers liued and died was a true Protestant Church CHAP. 5. Of the three supposed different estates of meere nature grace and sinne the difference betweene a man in the state of pure and meere nature and in the state of sinne and of originall sinne THey of the Church of Rome at this day imagine that God might haue created a man in the state of pure nature or nature onely aswell without grace as sinne and that in this state of pure or meere nature without any addition of grace hee might haue loued God aboue all and haue kept all the commaundements of God collectiuely so as to breake none of them at the least for a short time though happily hee could not haue holden on constantly so to keepe them all as neuer to breake any of them seeing there would haue beene a contrariety betweene reason and that appetite that followeth the apprehension of sense in that state of pure or meere nature So that according to this conceipt grace was added not to inable man to loue God aboue all to keepe the severall cōmaundements which hee hath giuen to doe the workes of morall vertue For all these hee might haue beene able to performe out of the power of nature without any such addition but to make him able constantly to keepe all the commaundements of God collectiuely so as neuer to breake any one of them and to keepe them so as to merit eternall happines in heauen Hence they inferre diverse things First that the losse of grace or originall righteousnes that was given to Adam doth not depriue those of his posterity of the power of louing God their Creator aboue all of keeping his commaundements divisiuely and doing the seuerall workes of morall vertue though happily not with that facilitie that in the state of grace hee might haue done them Secondly That Infidels and such as haue no fellowship with the Saints people of God nor any part in his grace may decline sinne and doe the workes of morall vertue Thirdly That all the contrariety that is found in the powers of the soule the rebellion of the inferiour faculties against the superiour the pronenesse to euill and difficultie to doe good would haue beene the conditions of meere nature without addition of grace or sinne and consequently that they are not sinne in the state wherein wee are that these evills are not newly brought into the nature of man by the fall that as man would haue beene mortall in the state of meere nature because compounded of contraries so out of the contrariety of sensitiue and rationall desire hee would haue found a rebellion in himselfe of the inferiour faculties against the superiour that as a heauy thing falleth not downeward while it is stayed but falleth so soone as the stay is taken away by reason of the same nature it had while it was stayed and as a ship that lay quietly while it was stayed with an anchor vpon the remouing of the same is driuen with the windes yet in no other sort then it would haue beene before if it had not beene stayed so all these contrarieties differences and pronenesse to desire things contrary to the prescript of right reason would haue beene in meere nature as the conditions of it would haue shewed themselues if grace had not hindered them and that there is no other difference betweene a man in the state of pure or meere nature and in the state of originall sinne then there is betweene a man that neuer had any cloathing and him that had but by his owne fault and folly is stript out of all betweene whom there is no difference in the nature of nakednesse but all the difference standeth in this that the one is in fault for not hauing cloathes the other not so For they suppose man would haue beene carried as strongly to the desire of sinfull things in the state of pure nature as now that freewill is not made more weake then in that state it would haue beene nor the flesh become more rebellious then it would haue beene without grace before the entrance of sinne This opinion ◠Bellarmin followeth and professeth that though some of excellent learning thinke that both Thomas and the best and most approued of the schoolmen were of a contrary iudgment yet they are deceiued in so thinking and that this is the opinion of them all Against these erroneous conceipts that are indeede the ground of all the points of difference betweene them and vs touching originall sinne freewill the power of nature the workes
of infidels and the like we oppose this proposition That no state of pure or meere nature can be conceiued but that either a man must be lifted aboue himselfe by grace or fall below himselfe by sin And this proposition is proued by vnanswerable reasons For if the principall powers of the soule cannot performe their owne proper actions by any naturall facultie nor without the addition of grace and a kinde of divine force and helpe then can there be no conceipt of a state of pure or meere nature seeing the nature of a thing implieth the powers pertaining to it and a possibility to bring forth the actions of such powers But it is evident that the principall powers of mans soule cannot by any naturall facultie performe their proper actions because the first trueth and chiefest good are the obiects of the reason and the will and these are infinite and the naturall capacitie of reason and the will is finite so that whatsoeuer we vnderstand and conceiue concerning God is so much lesse and commeth so much short of his infinite perfection as the capacitie of our vnderstanding is lesse then the infinite being of God But how then will some man say can man attaine his good beeing so high excellent farre remoued from him and so infinitely beyond without the cōpasse of his naturall facultie The answer hereunto is that though nothing can be lifted vp to be any thing aboue the nature of it yet by forrain helpe a thing may bee carried or lifted aboue it selfe or aboue the nature of it that is aboue that to which the naturall facultie of it extendeth it selfe as a stone may by the hand of man be cast vp on high whether it hath no facultie to moue it selfe so the soule may be raysed and lifted by grace in the acts of her powers aboue that to which by any naturall facultie they can extend themselues For though by nature men cannot know God as he is in himselfe but onely so farre forth as by his effects and glorious workes he may be knowne yet God may present himselfe vnto them in the light of grace as he is in himselfe and make his infinite greatnesse to appeare vnto them and so he must or else man can neuer attaine that which is is his proper good Actus rationalis creaturae sayth Alensis p 3 q 61 memb 1. oportet quod ordinetur ad bonum quod est supra naturam quod est summum bonum infinitum quia ergo non est possibilis extensio rationalis creaturae supra seipsam ideo non est eipossibile per naturā vt ordinet suum actū siue perueniat in suum finem ideo necesse est quod iuuetur à gratiâ The act of a reasonable creature must be directed to a good aboue nature which is the chiefe good and infinite because therefore a reasonable creature cannot raise it selfe aboue it selfe therefore it is not possible that by the power of nature it should order its act or attaine its end and therefore it must be holpen by grace So then there is no immediate knowledge of God as hee is in him selfe no knowledge that in time for his owne sake he made all things of nothing no knowledg how and in what sort wee depend on him how his prouidence reacheth to vs how hee guideth us in all our wayes and consequently how wee should loue him feare him and trust in him and depend vpon him And if within the compasse of nature there bee no such knowledge of God then is there no right loue of God For no man can rightly loue God vnlesse hee rightly know him And if we doe not rightly loue God wee can do nothing well nay wee cannot but continually doe evill For euery thing that a man willeth and affecteth is either God or some other thing besides God If a man loue God not for himselfe but for some other thing this act is sinfull and culpable and not morally good If a man loue any other thing besides God and loue it not finally for God the act of his loue resteth finally in some other thing that is not God and hee loueth it for it selfe without any further reference and soe inioyeth some other thing besides God as if it were the vttermost and most principall good which act is culpable Now if a man remaining within the compasse of nature withour addition of grace cannot but doe euill then can there bee noe state of nature that is not sinnefull without grace and consequently there can bee no state of pure or meere nature seeing euerie thing that is culpable and faulty in any kind is contrary to the nature of the thing wherein it is found and a corruption of nature But that all the principall actions of men without grace are culpable and faulty it is euident because they loue God for some other thing and not for himselfe neuer coming to any knowledge of him as hee is in himselfe and they loue other things for themselues and finally without any reference to God So that grace is necessarily required in man for the performance of his actions so as not to sinne And it is true that Gregorius Ariminensis hath that Adam in the state of his creation was not sufficiently inabled to performe any act morally good or soe to doe any good thing as not to sinne in doing it by any thing in nature if hee had not had speciall grace added Whence it will follow that there is no power to doe good or not to sinne in the nature of a man but from grace that when grace is lost there is an impossibility of doing good and a necessity of doing euill The Papists and wee agree that originall sinne is the privation of original righteousnesse but they suppose there was in nature without that addition of grace a power to doe good and that it was not giuen simply to make man able to do good but constantly and so as to merit heauen so that it being taken away a man may decline each particular sinne and doe the seuerall workes of vertue though neither so as neuer to sinne nor soe as to merit heauen thereby But wee say there neither was nor could be any power in nature as of it selfe to doe any act morally good or not sinnefull that grace was giuen to inable men to performe the actions of their principall powers about their principall obiects and to do good and that it being taken away there is found in them an impotencie to doe any act of vertue and a necessity of sinning in all their morall actions till they be restored again to the state of grace that the difficulty to do good pronenesse to euill contrariety betweene the powers and faculties of the soule and the rebellion of the meaner against the superiour and better are not the conditions of nature as it was or might haue beene in it selfe before the entrance of sinne but that all
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
is punished in the other which remaineth when either he is kept from inioying the things he orderly desireth or left free to desire such things as orderly are not to be desired If man haue lost all desire of that which is just as just as here he saith he hath then surely he sinneth in all his actions and is depriued of all morall rectitude for what morall rectitude is in him that loueth nothing because it is just farther then it may be commodious and in that respect pleasing The schoolmen are wont to vrge that a man may naturally loue God aboue all for seeing he naturally loueth that which appeareth vnto him to bee good why should he not loue God aboue all who is the chief good To this Luthers answer is this that there is a twofold loue for there is amor amicitiae amor concupiscentiae a loue whereby a man willeth the good of him that he loueth a loue whereby he desireth to make vse of the good of that hee loueth and to make it serue his turne In the first sort a man loueth his friend by the latter his horse now saith Luther it is true that euery sinfull man loueth God with the latter kind of loue desiring to make vse of God to serue his owne turne but it is not possible for a naturall man to loue God as a man loueth his friend that is to desire that God may rule raigne be glorified as God to rejoyce when his will is done though it be contrary to that we desire to bee grieued when he is offended And this surely is confirmed by Bernard for he saith that there are 4 degrees of loue For 1 a man loueth nothing but himself 2◠Heloueth other things amōgst other things God for himself finding that he cannot be without him Thirdly He loueth God for God Fourthly he loueth him selfe for God The two former are naturall and as I thinke finfull the two latter I am well assured in the iudgement of Saint Bernard proceede from grace and not from nature for hee sayth That is first that is naturall and then that which is spirituall and that scarce any of the elect of God goe beyond the first of these two latter degrees in this life So that according to that which before I alleadged out of Gregorius Ariminensis euery one that willeth any thing either willeth God or some other thing that is not God if God not for God but for some other thing expected to bee had from him or by him this is vti fruendis to make vse of that for the hauing of some thing as more loued that should be enjoyed as the best and most loued of all other things and this is most perverse as Saint Augustine telleth vs. If wee loue any thing else besides God and not for God it is likewise an iniquitie So that seeing naturally it is impossible to loue for God it is impossible to loue any thing rightly and consequently all the actions of naturall vnregenerate men are sinne And that they are so indeede it is proved by such authorities as may not be excepted against Cyprian de bono patientiae in principio sayth the true vertue of patience cannot be in Infidells now there is the same reason of one vertue and of all his words are these Hanc se sectari Philosophi quoque profitentur sed tam illis patientia est falsa quam falsa sapientia vnde enim vel sapiens esse vel patiens posset qui nec sapientiam nec patientiam Dei novit quando ipse de ijs qui sibi sapere in mundo videntur moneat dicat perdam sapientiam sapientum prudentiam prudentum reprobabo Augustine sayth Thou wilt say if a Gentile shall cloath the naked is it sinne because it is not of faith truely in that it is not of faith it is sinne not because the action of cloathing the naked in it selfe is sinne but to glory in such a worke and not in the Lord none but an impious man will deny to bee sinne If a Gentile that liueth not by fayth shall cloath the naked deliver him that is in daunger binde vp the wounds of him that is wounded bestow his goods to honest friendly purposes and shall not suffer himselfe to bee brought by any torments to beare false witnesse I aske of thee whether hee doe these good workes well or ill for if hee doe these things ill that are good thou canst not deny but that hee sinneth that doth any thing ill if thou say hee doth these good things and doth them well then an euill tree bringeth forth good fruite which he that is truth it selfe saith cannot bee If thou shalt say that a man that is an Infidell is a good tree then hee pleaseth God for that which is good cannot but please God who is good But Iulian the Pelagian answereth as the Papists doe at this day I acknowledge saith hee that they are steriliter boni that is their good is barren and bringeth forth no fruite who not doing the good things they do for God receiue not from him the reward of eternall life The answere of Saint Augustine is out of the 6 of Mathew If thine eye bee evill thy whole body shall bee full of darkenesse c Know that this eye is the intention with which every one doth that hee doth and learne by this that hee that doth not his good workes out of a good intention of a good faith that is of that faith that worketh by loue all the whole body that consisteth of such workes as members is full of darkenes that is the blacknes of sinnes Or truely because thou grantest that such workes of infidels as seeme to thee to bee good bring them not to eternall saluation and the kingdome of heaven know thou that we say that that good will that good worke by which onely a man may bee brought to the everlasting gift and kingdome of God can bee given to none without that grace that is given by him that is the only mediatour betweene God and man All other things that seeme to bee commendable amongst men let them seem to thee to bee true vertues let them seeme to thee to bee good workes and done without all sinne For my part this I know that the will is not good that doth them for an vnbeleeuing will and vngodly is not good Let these wills be according to thy iudgement good trees it sufficeth that with God or in Gods judgement they are barren and so not good Let them be fruitfull amongst men amongst whom also they are good vpon thy credit authority thy commendation thy planting if thou wilt haue it so so that I obtaine this whether thou wilt or not that the loue of this world whereby euery one is a friend of this world is not of God and that the loue that maketh a man injoy the creatures whatsoever they bee without
the loue of the creator as the chiefest and vtter most good is not of God Now the loue of God whereby wee come to God is not but from God the Father by Iesus together with the holy Ghost By this loue of the creator each one vseth the creatures rightly and without this loue of the creator no man vseth the creatures well And againe Noveris non officiis sed finibus à vitiis discernendas esse virtutes Officium est autem quod faciendum est finis vero propter quod faciendum est Cum itaque facit homo aliquid vbi peccare non videtur si non propter hoc facit propter quod facere debet peccare convincitur Quae tu non attendens fines ab officiis separasti virtutes veras officia sine finibus appellandas esse dixisti Ex quo te tanta absurditas sequitur vt veram cogaris appellare iustitiam etiam cuius dominam repereris avaritiam Siquidem manus abstinere ab alieno si officium cogites potest videri esse iustitiae Sed cum quaeritur quare fiat respondetur ne plus pecuniae litibus pereat quomodo iam hoc factum verae poterit esse iusticiae cum serviat avaritiae And againe Absit vt virtutes verae cuiquam serviant nisi illi vel propter illum cui dicimus Psal. 79. Deus virtutum converte nos Proinde virtutes quae carnalibus delectationibus vel quibuscunque commodis emolumentis temporalibus serviunt verae prorsus esse non possunt Quae autem nulli rei servire volunt nec ipsae verae sunt Verae quippe virtutes Deo serviunt in hominibus á quo donantur hominibus Quicquid autem boni fit ab homine non propter hoc fit propter quod fieri debere vera sapientia praecipit etsi officio videatur bonum ipso non recto fine peccatum est ideo Virtutes non relatae ad Deum vitia potius sunt quam virtutes Nam licet à quibusdam tunc verae honestae putentur esse virtutes cum ad seipsas referuntur nec propter aliud expetuntur etiam tunc inflatae ac superbae sunt ideo non virtutes virtutes sed vitia iudicandae sunt Bona opera extra fidem simillima sunt celerrimo cursui extraviam And againe Quamlibet videatur animus corpori ratio vitiis laudabiliter imperare si tamen Deo animus ratio ipsa non seruit sicut sibi serviendum esse ipse Deus praecepit nullo modo corpori vitiisque rectè imperat Nam qualis corporis atque vitiorum potest esse mens domina veri Dei nescia nec eius imperio subiugata sed vitiosissimis daemonibus corrumpentibus prostituta Proinde virtutes quas sibi habere videtur per quas imperat corpori vitiis ad quodlibet adipiscendum vel tenendum nisi ad Deum retulerit etiam ipsae vitia sunt potius quam virtutes Prosper agrees with Saint Austine his words are these sine cultu veri Dei etiam quod virtus videtur esse peccatum est nec placere ullus Deo sine Deo potest Qui verò Deo non placet cui nisi sibi Diabolo placet That is without the worship of the true God euen that which seemeth to be vertue is sinne neither can any man please God without God And whom doth hee please that pleaseth not God but himselfe and the diuell And the same Prosper in his 3d booke de vitâ contemplativâ Apostolus non dixit omne quod non est ex fide nihil est sed dicendo Omne quod non est ex fide peccatum est declaravit quod omnia gesta sinon fuerint ex fide non sint aliqua bona credenda sed vitia quae non invant suos operarios sed condemnant inflatosque praecipitant atque à finibus aeternae salutis eliminant That is the Apostle did not say whatsoeuer is not of faith is nothing but by saying it is sinne he declareth that whatsoeuer things haue not beene done out of faith are not to be thought good but faults and vices which doe not helpe the workers of them but condemne them and cast them headlong downe being puffed vp and banish them out of the confines of eternall saluation And the same Prosper in another place Omnis infidelium vita peccatum est nihil bonum sine summo bono ubi enim deest agnitio aeternae incommutabilis veritatis falsa virtus est etiam in optimis moribus That is the whole life of Infidels is sinne and there is nothing good without the chiefe good and wheresoeuer the knowledge of the eternall and incommutable veritie is wanting let a mans manners be neuer so good it is no true vertue hee seemeth to haue There is nothing good without faith saith Chrysostome and that I may vse a similitude and make a comparison they that flourish in good workes and know not God seeme to me to bee like the reliques of the dead wrapped vp fairely Basil in his second booke de baptismate proposing the question whether it be possible or whether it be acceptable to God that he that serueth sin should doe the workes of righteousnesse bringeth the explication of this question out of the Olde Testament where GOD saith the sinner that offereth to me a calfe is as he that killeth a dogge and in the New Testament the Lord saith he that doth sinne is the seruant of sinne and no man can serue two masters wherefore we are to bee exhorted to make the tree good and her fruit good and first to purge and make cleane that which is in the inside of the cuppe and of the platter and then all that is without will bee cleane Gregory in his morals writing vpon those words of Iob If my mouth haue kissed my hand hath these words Sancti viri sciunt se non virtute propriâ—… sed praeveniente supernâ gratiâ ad meliora vota vel opera commutatos quicquid sibi mali inesse cognoscunt de mortali propagine sentiunt meritum quicquid verò boni in se inspiciunt immortalis gratiae cognoscunt donum eique de accepto munere debitores fiunt qui praeveniendo dedit eis bonum velle quod voluerunt subsequendo concessit bonum posse quod volunt Let them that are otherwise minded tell vs whether the morall actions of Infidels bee good or euill if good then they are from grace whereof they are not partakers if euill then haue they the thing proued about which we contend Beda writing vpon the 14th to the Romanes vpon those words Whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne saith as Prosper that all the whole life of Infidels is sinne that nothing is good without the chiefe good that where the knowledge of the eternall and incommutable veritie is not if the manners and conversation of them that
haue it not bee neuer so good they haue no true vertue Bernard in his booke de gratiâ libero arbitrio Liberi arbitrii conatus ad bonum cassi sunt si non gratiâ adiuventur nulli si non excitentur caeterum in malum dicit scriptura proni sunt sensus cogitationes hominis That is the endeavouring of freewill to doe good is in vaine if it bee not holpen by grace and none at all if it be not stirred vp by grace but the scripture saith the senses and thoughts of men are prone to euill Neither can they say that hee speaketh onely of meritorious good and such as is rewardable in heauen for hee speaketh generally of good as it appeareth in that hee opposeth it not to some other kind of good but to euill Anselme Archbishoppe of Canterbury fully agreeth with the rest affirming in the same words that Prosper and Beda did before that the whole life of infidels is sinne that there is nothing good without the chiefe good and that where the knowledge of the eternall and incommutable veritie is wanting if the manners and conuersation of them that haue it not bee nouer soe good and commendable they haue no true vertue Peter Lombard the master of the sentences sometimes Bishoppe of Paris writing vpon the same place hath the same words and soe hath the ordinary glosse Grosthead the renowned Bishoppe of Lincolne in his sermon vpon the Aduent the beginning whereof is this There shall be signes in the sunne and in the Moone hath these words Bright and glittering starres of vertue seemed to shine and appeare in the morall doctrine of naturall men and in the conversation of many Gentiles as of the Scipioes and others but now it is truly manifest and cleare that without the faith of Christ there is no true vertue in the doctrine or conuersation of any man And in his Enchiridion hee sayth that this was the opinion of St Augustine where treating of the foure Cardinall vertues and proposing the question whether Cato and the Scipioes had such vertues hee sayth thus Wee grant with Augustine that no man euer had or could haue true vertue without the faith of Iesus Christ and proueth it immediately after in this sort Non enim potest esse amor ordinatus vbi contemnitur non amatur quod maximè amandum est cum non ametur nisi quod scitur aut creditur vnde patet quod qui nescit aut non credit dominum Iesum Christum non amat aut contemnit quod maximè amandum est quapropter in tali virtus non est quod etiam probat Augustinus talibus argumentis dicens Absit vt in aliquo sit vera virtus nisi sit iustus c that is There can bee no orderly loue of things where that is contemned and not loued that is to be loued most of all whence it is cleere and euident that seeing nothing can bee loued but that which is knowne or beleeued hee who knoweth not or beleeueth not the Lord IESVS CHRIST contemneth or at least loueth not that which is most of all to bee beloued and therefore in such a one there can bee noe true uertue which also Augustine proueth by arguments of this sort saying GOD forbidde that true vertue should be conceiued to bee in any man vnlesse hee be iust c. By these passages of the Bishoppe of Lincolne it appeareth sayth Ariminensis that hee thought as wee doe that noe act morally good canne bee done without the speciall grace of GOD for if there bee noe vertue without such grace then canne there bee noe act morallie good which is yet more fully cleared for euery vertuous and morall good act either is orderly loue or presupposeth it soe that if there can bee noe orderly loue without GODS grace there can bee noe act of vertue or act morally good With this famous Bishoppe of LINCOLNE wee may ioyne Thomas Bradwardine the noe lesse famous and renowned Archbishoppe of CANTERBVRIE who is his Summe de causa Dei contra Pelagium at large confirmeth and proueth the same Soe that it seemeth by Beda Anselme Grosthead and this BRADWARDINE that this was euer the doctrine of the Church of England as now it is Pupperus Gocchianus that liued a litle before Luthers time saith The whole life of infidels is sinne there is nothing good without the chiefe good where there wanteth the knowledge of the eternall trueth if mens manners be never so commendable they haue no true vertue hee that offendeth in one that is in charity is guilty of all hee therefore that hath not faith and charitie every action of his is sinne And he addeth that when Augustine sayth that they that haue not charity may doe good things but not well his words are not to bee vnderstood as if the things which they doe without charitie were good when they doe them without charitie but that they would bee good if they were done in charity or that they are of such nature and kind which being done in charity may bee good otherwise hee should bee contrary to himselfe where hee sayth that every action of him that hath not charity is sinne Andradius saith that there was much difference touching this poynt not onely amongst the latter but the more auncient divines also and that some did so deiect all the actions and endeavours of infidels as to affirme that none of them are or can bee without sinne It is true indeede that there were ever some in the latter ages of the Church that contradicted this verity which wee haue hitherto proved but they were such as had a touch of Semipelagianisme Prosper speaketh of a rule found in the collations of Cassian Cauendum nobis est ne ita ad Deum omnia sanctorum referamus vt nihil nisi id quod malum est humanae ascribamus naturae That is Wee must take heed least wee so attribute all the merits of the Saints to God as to ascribe nothing to nature but that which is evill and perverse This rule sundry carefully followed in the midst of the Church in all the latter ages who so acknowledged that no man can merit heauen without Gods grace that yet they thought they might doe many things morally good by nature without grace But Prosper bitterly reprehendeth this his wordes are these Quasi natura ante gratiam non sit in damnatione non sit in caecitate non sit in vulnere aut non gratis iustificati sint quorum inde sunt merita vnde iustitia That is As if nature before grace were not in a state of condemnation were not in blindnesse and greivously hurt or as if wee were not freely justified all whose merits are from thence whence is our righteousnesse And all they that rightly vnderstood the doctrine of the Church cleared by Saint Augustine against the Pelagians concurred with Prosper and taught as wee doe now
that all the workes of infidells and men not renewed and iustified by Gods speciall grace were sinnes Yea so great is the force of this trueth that since the councell of Trent some of great esteeme and place in a sorte giue way vnto it For Didacus Alvarez an Archbishop within the dominions of the king of Spaine hath written a learned worke de Auxiliis gratiae and dedicated it with good allowance to the king that now is wherein hee sayth that though euery morall acte that is good ex genere obiecto as to giue almes to a poore man out of naturall compassion bee of that nature that it may bee done in reference to God as loued aboue all as the authour of nature or as the cause and obiect of supernaturall happinesse yet no such can bee so done de facto but by the acte of charitie So that by a man vnregenerate no such acte canne bee done in reference to God formally or vertually Now I suppose there is no morall acte that canne bee done by man but it must bee referred formally or vertually to some last end and if not to God as hee sayth the workes of Infidells cannot then to some other end and then of necessity they must bee sinne for whatsoeuer is done in reference to any thing besides God as the last end is done perversely and sinfully The good man no doubt saw the trueth touching this poynt and therefore sayth that there is no true vertue without charity that the workes of Infidels are not onely not meritorious but not truely good nor the workes of vertue and proveth the same at large out of Augustine whence it will follow that they are sinne for every morall acte is either a worke of vertue and truely good though in an inferiour sort or sinne but this he durst not say and so putteth himselfe into a necessitie of contradicting himselfe for if an infidell when hee giueth an almes cannot doe this act in reference to GOD as the last end either formally or vertually then hee must doe it formally or vertually in reference to some other thing most loued by him and if hee doe so then he putteth an ill circumstance to this his action and so it cannot but bee sinne Thus then wee haue strongly proued out of the testimonies of such as best vnderstood the doctrine of the Church that grace was giuen to Adam in the day of his creation not onely to make him constantly and collectiuely to doe all the morall duties that were required of him and to merit supernaturall happinesse as if he might haue done the seuerall duties and performed the seuerall acts of morall vertue without it but simply to inable him to doe good and decline euill so that it being taken away man knoweth not his true good nor is any way inclined to seeke it as he should doe For whereas there was a threefold eye in Adam as Hugo de Sancto Victore noteth Carnis quo mundum quae in mundo cernebat rationis quo se quae in se contemplationis quo deum primum perfectè habet secundum ex parte tertium omninò non habet nam postquam tenebrae peccati intraverunt oculus contemplationis extinctus est ut nihil videret oculus rationis lippus factus est ut dubiè videret solus oculus carnis in suâ claritate permansit That is Of the flesh by which hee saw the world and the things that are in it of reason whereby hee saw and vnderstood himselfe and all the things that were in himselfe and of contemplation by which he was to see God the first he hath still in perfection the second in part the third he hath wholly lost for after the darkenesse of sinne entred the eye of contemplation was put out so as to see nothing at all the eye of reason was dimmed so as to see doubtfully only the eye of the flesh remained in perfection And two kindes of euill are brought into the nature of man Privativa amissio notitiae in intellectu rectitudinis in voluntate conversionis ad deum tanquam ad proprium obiectum positiva perpetuae tristes dubitationes de Deo de providentiá Dei iudicio promissionibus comminationibus in voluntate conversio ad obiecta contraria legi That is there are newly brought into the nature of man euils of two sorts privatiue as the losse of the true right knowledge of God in the vnderstanding of rectitude in the will and of due conversion to God as her proper object positiue as perpetuall doubtings of God of the providence of God his judgement promises threates in his will a conversion to the desiring of things the Law forbiddeth This corruption of mans nature is excellently described by Prosper Humana natura in primi hominis praevaricatione vitiata etiam inter beneficia inter praecepta auxilia Dei semper in deteriorem est proclivior voluntatem cui committi non est aliud quam dimitti Haec voluntas vaga incerta instabilis imperita infirma ad efficiendum facilis ad audendum in cupiditatibus caeca in honoribus tumida curis anxia suspicionibus inquieta gloriae quam virtutum avidior fame quam conscientiae diligentior per omnem sui experientiam miserior fruendo his quae concupiverit quam carendo nihil in suis habet viribus nisi periculi facilitatem And againe Omnes homines in primo homine sine vitio conditi sumus omnes naturae nostrae incolumitatem eiusdem hominis praevaricatione perdidimus inde tracta mortalitas inde multiplex corporis animique corruptio inde ignorantia difficultas curae inutiles illicitae cupiditates sacrilegi errores timor vanus amor noxius iniusta gaudia poenitenda consilia non minor miseriarum multitudo quam criminum By this which hath beene sayd it appeareth that the Church wherein our Fathers liued and died euer taught as wee doe touching the state of mans creation fall and originall corruption and euer reiected the fancies of those more then Semipelagians that brought in the errours the Romanists now maintaine and so was in this as in the former points a true orthodoxe and Protestant Church CHAP. 6. Of the blessed Virgins conception HAuing spoken of Originall sinne and shewed the nature of it the next thing that is questioned is the generality of it for wee say that amongst al them that haue beene borne of women there neuer was any found that was not conceiued in sinne besides Christ the Lord who had God for his father and a virgin for his mother of whose spotlesse conception his Fathers diuinity and mothers virginity were proofe sufficient But they of the Church of Rome at this day for the most part say that the blessed virgin the mother of our Lord was conceiued likewise without spotte of originall sinne Leo the tenth was moued to determine this question touching the conception of
not of sense and that they are subiect to no dolour or greife inward or outward this he saith is the opinion of Thomas Aquinas and some other Schoolemen The third opinion is that they are in a sorte subiect to the punishment of sense that is to greife and dolour which floweth out of the consideration of their great and inestimable losse of eternall happines but because they cannot haue remorse not hauing lost that eternall good by their owne negligence and contempt therefore they are not subiectto that dolour that is properly named the worme that neuer dieth whereof wee reade in the ninth of Marke Their worme dieth not and their fire neuer goeth out There is a fourth opinion which is that of Augustine who sayth Wee must firmely beleeue and no way doubt that not onely men that haue had the vse of reason but infants also dying in the state of originall sinne shall bee punished with the punishment of eternall fire because though they had no sinne of their owne proper action yet they haue drawne to themselues the condemnation of originall sinne by their carnall conception To this opinion Gregorius Ariminensis inclined fearing exceedingly to depart from the doctrine of the Fathers and yet dareth not resolue any thing seeing the moderne doctours went another way And to the same opinion Driedo inclineth likewise Thus then wee see that Pelagianisme was taught in the midst of the Church wherein our Fathers liued and that not by a few but many For was not this the doctrine of many in the Church that there are foure mansions in the other world of men sequestred from God and excluded out of his presence The first ofthem that sustaine the punishment as well of sensible smart as of losse and that for euer which is the condition of them that are condemned to the lowest hell The second of those that are subiect to both these punishments not eternally but for a time onely as are they that are in purgatory The third of them that were subiect onely to the punishment of losse and that but for a time named by them Limbus patrum The fourth of such as are subiect onely to the punishment of losse but yet eternally and this named by them Limbus puerorum nay were there not that placed these in an earthly paradise and was not this Pelagianisme Surely August telleth vs that the Pelagians excluded such as were not made pertakers of Gods grace out of the kingdome of heaven and from the life of God which is the vision of God and yet supposed that they should be for euer in a kind of naturall felicity so that they imagined a third state and place betweene the kingdome of heauen and hell where they are that endure not onely the punishment of losse but of sensible smart also where they are whose worme neuer dieth and whose fire neuer goeth out and this is the opinion of Papists against which Saint Austine mightily opposeth himselfe The vnregenerate is excluded out of the kingdome of heauen where Christ remaineth that is the fountaine of the liuing Giue mee besides this another place where there may bee a perpetuall rest of life the first place the faith of Catholiques by diuine authoritie beleeueth to bee the kingdome of heauen the second Hell where euery apostata and such as are aliens from the faith of Christ shall suffer everlasting punishment but that there is any third place we are altogether ignorant neither shall wee finde in the holy Scripture that there is any such place There is the right hand of him that sitteth to iudge and the left the kingdome and hell life and death the righteous and the wicked On the right hand of the Iudge are the iust and the workers of iniquity on the left There is life to the ioy of glory and death to weeping and gnashing of teeth The just are in the Kingdome of the Father with Christ the vnrighteous in eternall fire prepared for the divell and his Angels By which words of Augustine it is euident that there is no such place to bee admitted as the Papistes imagine their Limbus puerorum to bee neither did the Church wherein our Fathers liued and died beleeue any such thing though many embraced this fancie And therefore Gregorius Ariminensis hauing proued out of Augustine and Gregory that infants that die in the state of originall sinne not remitted shall not onely suffer the punishment of losse but of sense also concludeth in this sort Because I haue not seene this question expressely determined either way by the Church and it seemeth to me a thing to be trembled at to deny the authorities of the Saints and on the contrary side it is not safe to goe against the common opinion and the consent of our great Masters therefore without peremptorie pronouncing for the one side or the other I leaue it free to the Reader to judge of this difference as it seemeth good vnto him CHAP. 8. Of the remission of originall sinne and of concupiscence remaining in the regenerate IN the remission of all sinne there are two things implyed the taking away of the staine or sinfulnesse and the remouing of the punishment that for such sinfulnesse justice would bring vpon the sinner In actuall sinne there are three things considerable First an act or omission of act Secondly an habituall aversion from God and conversion to the creature remaining after the act is past till we repent of such act or omission of act and this is the staine of sinne remaining denominating the doers sinners and making them worthie of punishment And thirdly a designing to punishment after the act is past In remission therefore of actuall sinne there must bee first a ceasing from the act or omission secondly a turning to God and from the creature and thirdly for Christs sake who suffered what we deserued a taking away of the punishment that sin past made vs subject to In originall sinne there are onely two things considerable the staine or sinfulnesse and the designing of them that haue it to punishment The staine of originall sinne consisteth of two parts the one privatiue which is the want of those divine graces that should cause the knowledge loue and feare of God the other positiue and that is an habituall inclination to loue our selues more then God and inordinately to desire whatsoeuer may be pleasing to vs though forbidden and disliked by God and is named concupiscence This sin first defileth the nature and then the person in that it so misinclineth nature as that it hath the person at commaund to be swayed whether it will The remission of this sinne implieth a donation of those graces that maycause the knowledge loue and feare of God a turning of vs from the loue of our selues to the loue of God and forChrists sake a remouing of the punishment we were justly subiect to in that we had such want and inordinate inclination The donation of grace maketh
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
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
beleeued by the Church wherein our Fathers liued and died But they of the Church of Rome at this day dislike this opinion for they suppose that though our will be not free from sinne so as collectiuely to decline each sinne and that though in the state wherein presently we are we cannot but sinne at one time or other in one thing or other yet we may decline each particular sinne divisiuely and doe the true workes of morall vertue Much contending there is hath beene touching freewill wherefore for the clearing of this point two things are to be noted 1 from what and 2dly wherein this liberty may be thought to be The things from which the will may be thought to bee free are fiue 1 The authority of a superiour commander and the duty of obedience 2ly The inspection care gouernment direction and ordering of a superiour 3ly Necessity that either from some externe cause enforcing or from nature inwardly determining and absolutely mouing one way 4ly Sinne the dominion of it 5ly Misery Of these fiue kindes of liberty the 2 first agree only to God so that in the highest degree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is freedome of will is proper to God only and in this sense Calvin and Luther rightly deny that the will of any creature is or euer was free The third kind of libertie is opposite not only to coaction but naturall necessitie also In opposition to coaction the vnderstanding is free for howsoeuer a man may be forced to thinke beleeue contrary to his inclination that is such things as he would not haue to be true yet the vnderstanding cannot assent to any thing contrary to her owne inclination for the vnderstanding is inclined to thinke so of things as they are as they may be made to appeare vnto her to be whether pleasing to nature or not but the vnderstanding is not free from necessitie But the will in her action is free not onely in opposition to coaction but to naturall necessity also Naturall necessitie consisteth herein that when all things required to inable an agent to produce the proper effect thereof are present it hath no power not to bring forth such effect but is put into action by them So the fire hauing fit fuell in due sort put vnto it being blowed vpon cannot but burne The libertie of the will therefore appeareth herein that though all those things be present that are pre-required to inable it to bring forth the proper action of it yet it hath power not to bring it forth and it is still indifferent indeterminate till it determine and incline it selfe God indeed worketh the will to determine it selfe neither isit possible that hee should so worke it and it should not determine it self accordingly yet doth not Gods working vpon the will take from it the power of dissenting and doing the contrary but so inclineth it that hauing libertie to doe otherwise yet shee will actually determine so Here Luther and Calvin are charged with the denyall of this libertie of the will many strange absurdities are attributed to them for first Luther is said to haue affirmed that the will of man is meerely passiue that it produceth not any act but receiueth into it such acts as God alone without any concurrence of it worketh produceth in it But all this is nothing but a meere calumniation for Luther knoweth right well that men produce such actions as are externally good euill willing out of choice confesseth that we doe the good things that God commandeth vs when we are made partakers of his grace but that God worketh vs to doe them Wee beleeue we feare we loue but it is God that worketh vs to beleeue feare loue Certum est nos facere cùm facimus saith Saint Augustine seà Deus facit ut faciamus It is most certain that we doe those things we are said to doe but it is God that maketh vs to doe them not only by perswading inviting inwardly drawing vs by morall inducements but by a true reall efficiencie So that according to Luthers opinion we moue not but as moued nor are actiue but as hauing first bin passiue nor turne our selues but as first wrought vpon and made to turne yet doe wee truely moue our selues and truely freely and cheerefully choose that which is good and turne ou rselues from that which is euill to that which is good Diuines say that facere vt velimus and facere ipsum velle differ very much that is they say it is one thing to make vs to will and another to produce the acte of willing God worketh both but in a different sorte the first sine nobis facientibus nos velle Secundum autem operatur nobiscum simul tempore consentientibus cooperantibus that is God worketh the first of these alone we make not our selues to will the second hee produceth together with vs willing that hee would haue vs and producing that wee doe So that in the former consideration wee are meerely passiue in the latter actiue which neither Luther nor any of his followers ever denyed Calvine they say confesseth that the will concurreth actiuely to the acte which God produceth but without any freedome at all vnlesse wee speake of that freedome which is from coaction It is true indeede that Calvine denyeth vs to bee free from necessity but hee speaketh of the necessity of sinning but hee neuer denyeth vs to bee free from naturall necessitie that is from being put into action so as naturall agents are that is without all choyce and liking ofthat wee incline to doe It is evident that Calvine confesseth the will of man to bee free to doe euill and he denyeth it not to bee free to performe acts civilly good or morally good ex genere obiecto yea hee thinketh that the will freely and out of choyce willeth whatsoeuer it willeth as in the state of auersion it freely willeth that it should not so when God conuerteth it hee turneth the course of the actions and desire of it and maketh it freely and out of choyce to turne to good That men haue lost the freedome from sinne and put themselues into a necessity of sinning Saint Augustine sheweth Libero arbitrio male vtens homo se perdidit ipsum sicut enim qui se occidit vtique vivendo se occidit sed se occidendo non vivit nec seipsum potest resuscitare cum occiderit ita cum libero peccaretur arbitrio victore peccato amissum est liberum arbitrium à quo enim quis devictus est huic servus addictus est Quae sententia cum vera sit qualis quaeso potest servi addicti esse libertas nisi quando eum peccare delectat Liberaliter enim seruit qui sui domini voluntatem libenter facit Ac per hoc ad peccandum liber est qui peccati servus est
quae in suo genere sunt bona sed ex affectu sunt mala But he sayth there are others of another opinion making the actions of men to be of three sorts denying all the actions of infidels to be sinne Opera cunsta quae ad naturae subsidium siunt semper bona esse astruunt Sed quod Augustinus mala esse dicit si malas habeant causas non ita accipiendum est quasi ipsa mala sint sed quia peccant mali sunt qui ea malo fine agunt Thomas Bradwardin in his summe against the Pelagians of his time cleerely resolueth that the will of man since the fall hath noe power to bring forth any good action that may bee morally good ex fine circumstantiâ—…s And Aluarez though hee thinke that all the actions of infidels are not sinne yet sayth that none of them is truly an act of vertue noe not in respect to the last naturall end CASSANDER sayth that the article of the Augustane confession touching originall sinne agreeth with the doctrine of the Church when as it teacheth that the will of man hath some kinde of liberty to bring forth a kinde of ciuill iustice and to make choyce in things subiect to reason but that without the spirit of God it hath no power to doe any thing that may bee just before God or anything spiritually iust And all orthodoxe divines agree against the Pelagians that it is the worke of grace that wee are made iust of vnjust truely and before God that this grace createth not a new will nor constraineth it against the liking of it but correcteth the depravation of it and turneth it from willing ill to will well drawing it with a kinde of inward motion that it may become willing of vnwilling and willingly consent to the divine calling The Pelagians the enemies of Gods grace being vrged with those texts of Scripture wherein mention is made of grace sought to avoyde the evidence of them affirming that by grace the powers faculties and perfections of nature freely given by God the Creator at the beginning are vnderstood when this would not serue the turne they vnderstood by grace the remission of sins past and imagined that if that were remitted wherein wee haue formerly offended out of that good that is in nature wee might hereafter so bethinke our selues as to doe good decline euill Thirdly When this shift failed likewise they began to say that men happily will not bethinke themselues of that duety they are bound to doe or will not presently and certainely discerne what they are to doe without some instruction or illumination but that if they haue the helpe of instruction and illumination they may easily out of the strength of nature decline evill and doe that they discerne to be good Against this it is excellent that Saint Bernard hath Non est eiusdem facilitatis scire quid faciendum sit facere Quoniam diversa sunt caeco ducatum ac fesso praebere vehiculum Non quicunque ostendit viam praebet etiam viaticum itineranti aliud illi exhibet qui facit ne deviet aliud qui praestat ne deficiat in viâ Itanec quivis doctor statim dator erit boni quodcunque docuerit Porro duo mihi sunt necessaria doceri ac iuvari tu quidem homo rectè consulis ignorantiae sed si verum sentit Apostolus spiritus adiuvat infirmitatem nostram Immo vero qui mihi per os tuum ministrat consilium ipse mihi necesse est ministret per spiritum suum adiutorium quo valeam implere quod consulis When they were driven from this device also they betooke themselues vnto another to vvit that the helpe of grace is necessary to make vs more easily more constantly and vniuersally to doe good then in the present state of nature vve can and to make vs so to doe good as to attaine eternall happines in heauen And this is and vvas the opinion of many in the Roman Church both aunciently and in our time For many taught that men in the present state of nature as now it is since Adams fall may decline each particular sinne doe vvorkes truely vertuous good fulfill the severall precepts of Gods law according to the substance of the vvorke commaunded though not according to the intention of the lavv-giver that they may loue God aboue all as the authour and end of nature So that to these purposes there vvas no necessity of the gift of grace but that grace is added to make vs more easily constantly vniversally to doe good and to merit heaven And therefore Stapleton confesseth that many vvrote vnaduisedly aswell amongst the Schoolemen heretofore as in our time in the beginnings of the differences in religion but that novv men are become vviser I vvould to God it vvere so but it vvill bee found that hovvsoeuer they are in a sort ashamed of that they doe yet they persist to doe as others did before them for they teach still that men may decline each particular sinne doe the true vvorkes of morall vertue doe things the lavv requireth according to the substance of the things commaunded though not so as to merit heauen or neuer to breake any of them Bellarmine indeede denyeth that vvee can loue God aboue all in any sorte vvithout the helpe of grace But Cardinall Caietan saith that though vvee cannot so loue God aboue all as to doe nothing but that vvhich may be referred to God as the last end yet so as to doe many good things in reference to him as the last end And Bellarmine if he deny not his owne principles must say so for first he defendeth that man may doe a worke morally good without grace and doe it to obey God the author of nature And elsewhere he proueth that man cannot perpetually doe well in the state of nature without grace because it is so turned away from God to the creature by Adams sinne specially to himselfe that actually or habitually or in propension hee placeth his last end in the creature not in God so cannot but offend if he bee not watchfull against this propension Whence it followeth that seeing a man must place his chief good in God if he doe good that naturally he can doe good he can naturally place the same in God That which he some-where hath that it is enough to intend the next end explicitè that it will of it selfe be directed to GOD the last end seeing euery good end moueth virtute finis ultimi is idle for it moueth not but virtute finis ultimi amati nam finis non movet nisi amatus ergo amat finem ultimum So that many formerly almost all presently in the Church of Rome are more then Semipelagians not acknowledging the necessitie of grace to make vs decline euill doe good but to doe so constantly
vniversally so as to merite heauen But Augustine Prosper Fulgentius Gregory Beda Bernard Anselme Hugo many worthy Divines mentioned by the Master of Sentences yeaâ—…he Master himselfe Grosthead Bradwardine Ariminensis the Catholique Divine that Stapleton speaketh of those that Andradius noteth Alvarez and other agree with vs that there is no power left in nature to avoide sin to doe any one good action that may be truely an action of vertue therefore they say grace must change vs and make vs become new men Cardinall Contarenus noteth that the Philosophers perceiuing a great inclination to euill to be found in the nature of mankind thinking it might bee altered put right by inuring them to good actions gaue many good precepts directions but to no purpose for this euill being in the very first spring of humane actions that is the last end chiefly desired which they sought not in God but in the creature no helpe of Nature or Art was able to remedie it as those diseases of the body are incurable which haue infected the fountaine of life the radicall humiditie GOD onely therefore who searcheth the secret most retired turnings of our soule spirit by the inward motion of his holy spirit changeth the propension inclination of our will and turneth it vnto himselfe And in another place he hath these wordes Wee must obserue that at this present the Church of God by the craft of the diuell is divided into two sects which rather doing their owne busines then that of Christ seeking their owne glory more then the honour of GOD the profite of their neighbours by stiffe pertinacious defence of contrary opinions bring them that are not wary and wise to a fearefull downefall For some vaunting themselues to be professours of the Catholique Religion enemies to the Lutherans while they goe about too much to maintaine the libertie of mans will out of too much desire of opposing the Lutherans oppose themselues against the greatest lights of the Christian Church and the first principall teachers of Catholique verity declining more then they should vnto the heresie of Pelagius Others when they haue beene a little conversant in the writings of S. Augustine though they haue neither that modestie of minde nor loue towards God that he had out of the pulpit propose intricate things such as are indeed meere paradoxes to the people So that touching the weakenes of nature the necessitie of grace we haue the consent of all the best and worthiest in the Church wherein our Fathers liued and died The nextthing to be considered is the power of freewill in disposing it selfe to the receipt of grace Durandus is of opinion that a man by the power of free will may dispose and fitte him selfe for the receipt of grace by such a kind of disposition to which grace is to be giuen by pact and diuine ordinance not of debt Amongst the latter diuines there are that thinke that as one sinne is permitted that it may be a punishment of another soe God in respect of almes and other morall good workes done by a man in the state of sinne vseth the more speedily and effectually to helpe the sinner that hee may rise from sinne and that God infallibly and as according to a certaine lawe giueth the helpes of preuenting grace to them that doe what they can out of the strength of nature this is the merit of congruence they are wont to speake of in the Roman Schooles But as I noted before Gregorius Ariminensis resolutely rejects the conceipt of merit of congruence Stapleton saith it is exploded out of the Church And Aluarez that S. Augustine Prosper whom Aquinas the Thomists follow reiect the same August l. 2. contra duas epistolas Pelagii c. 8. Si sine Dei gratià per nos incipit cupiditas boni ipsum caeptum erit meritum cui tanquam ex debito gratiae veniat adiutorium ac sic gratia Dei non gratis donabitur sed meritum nostrum dabitur c. 6. lib. 4. lib. de praedest sanctorum de dono perseuerantiae Et Prosper lib de gratiâ libero arbitrio ad Ruffinum ait Quis ambigat tunc liberum arbitrium cohortationi vocantis obedire cum in illo gratia Dei affectum credendi obediendique generauerit Alioquin sufficeret moneri hominem non etiam in ipso nouam fieri voluntatem sicut scriptum est Praeparatur voluntas à domino Neque obstat sayth Aluarez quod idem Salomon Prouerb cap. 16. inquit hominis est praeparare animam Intelligit enim hominis esse quia libere producit consensum quo praeparatur ad gratiam sed tamen id efficit supposito auxilio speciali Dei inspirantis bonum interius mouentis sic explicat istum locum August lib. 2. contra duas epistolas Pelag. cap. 8. And so those words are to be vnderstood If any one open the doore I will enter in Reuela 3 and Isaâ—… 30. The Lord expecteth that he may haue mercy on you for he expecteth not our consent as comming out of the power of nature or as if any such consent were a disposition to grace but that consent hee causeth in vs. Fulgentius lib de incarnatione cap. 19. Sicut in nativitate carnali omnem nascentis hominis voluntatem praecedit operis diuini formatio sic in spirituali natiuitate quâ veterem hominem deponere incipimus Bernard de gratiâ libero arbitrio in initio Ab ipsâ gratiâ me in bono praeuentum agnosco provehi sentio spero perficiendum Neque currentis neque volentis sed dei miserantis est Quid igitur agit ais liberum arbitrium breuiter respondeo saluatur tolle liberum arbitrium non erit quod saluetur tolle gratiam non erit vnde saluetur opus hoc sine duobus effici non potest uno á quo fit altero cui vel in quo fit Deus author est salutis liberum arbitrium tantum capax nec dare illam nisi Deus nec capere valet nisi liberum arbitrium quod ergo a solo Deo soli datur libero arbitrio tam absque consensu esse non potest accipientis quam absque gratiâ dantis ita gratiae operanti salutem cooperari dicitur liberum arbitrium dum consentit hoc est dum saluatur consentire enim saluari est Yet must we not thinke that God moueth vs and then expecteth to see whether wee will consent Concilium Arausicanum Can. 4. Si quis vt a peccato purgemur voluntatem nostram Deum expectare contendit non autem vt etiam purgari velimus per sancti spiritus infusionem operationem in nos fieri confitetur resist it ipsi spiritui sancto per Salomonem dicenti praeparatur voluntas a domino Apostolo salubriter praedicanti Deus est qui operatvr in nobis
desinit esse gratia quoniam id adiuvat quod ipsa est largita Hugo de Sancto Victore Benefaciendi tres sunt gratiae praeveniens cooperans subsequens prima dat voluntatem secunda facultatem tertia perseverantiam So that in the matter of free will and grace the Church wherein our Fathers liued and died is found to haue beene a Protestant Church CHAP. 11. Of Iustification THey of the Church of Rome doe teach that there is a threefold iustification The first when a man borne in sinne and the childe of wrath is first reconciled to God and translated into a state of righteousnesse and grace The second when of righteous hee becommeth more righteous And the third when hauing fallen from grace he is restored againe The first Iustification implyeth in it three things remission of sinnes past acceptation and receiuing into that fauour that righteous men are wont to find with God and the grant of the gift of the holy spirit and of that sanctifying renewing grace whereby we may be framed to the declining of sinne and the doing of the workes of righteousnesse These being the things implyed in the first justification of a sinner it is agreed by all that when in sorrowfull dislike of former mis-doings wee turne vnto God all our sinnes past are freely remitted thorough the benefite of Christs satisfaction imputed vnto vs as also that for the merite of Christs actiue righteousnes consisting in the fulfilling of the Law wee are accepted and finde fauour with God as if wee had alwayes walked in the wayes of God and pleased him And both these are necessary for if a man cease to bee an enemie he doth not presently become a friend and though hee pardon him that offended him so as not to seeke revenge of the offence yet doth it not follow that presently hee receiueth him into fauour but it is possible hee should neither respect him as an enemie nor as a friend and neither will euill vnto him as to an enemie nor good as to a friend So likewise it sufficeth not that God remitte our sinnes and seeke not our euill for Christs passion but it is necessary also that hee bee so reconciled as to embrace vs as freinds and to doe good vnto vs this wee haue by the merit of Christs actiue righteousnes who having a two fold right to heaven the one of inheritance because borne the sonne of God the other of merit because he had done things worthy the reward of heauen made vse onely of the one and communicateth the other vnto vs. Neither is this all that the sinner when he is to bee iustified seeketh after for hee neuer resteth satisfied till hee haue not onely obtayned remission of sinnes past and acceptation with God but the graunt of the gift of the spirit also and of that grace that may keepe him from offending God so as formerly and incline him to doe the things that are pleasing vnto him And therefore in the conference at Ratisbon the Diuines of both sides agreed that no man obtayneth remission of sinnes nisietiam simul infundatur charitas sanans voluntatem vt voluntas sanata quemadmodum ait Augustinus incipiat implere Legem Fides ergo viva est quae apprehendit misericordiam Dei in Christo credit iustitiam quae est in Christo sibi gratis imputari quae simul pollicitationem spiritus sancti charitatem accipit So that it is evident that to bee iustified hath a three fold signification For first it importeth as much as to bee absolved from sinne that is to bee freed from the wofull consequents of that disfauour and dislike that vnrighteousnes and sinne subjecteth vs vnto Secondly To bee accepted and respected so as righteous men are wont to bee And thirdly to bee framed to the loue and desire of doing righteously And in this sort doth Dominicus à Soto explicate this poynt and with him doe all they agree who say that grace doth justifie formaliter charitas operativè and opera declarativè that is that grace doth iustifie formally charitie as that which maketh men doe the workes of righteous men and that good workes by way of declaration make it manifest that they are righteous that doe them For they vnderstand by grace a state of acceptation that is such a condition wherein men are not disfavoured as hauing done ill but respected as if they had done all righteousnes which is in trueth a relation as the Protestants teach For what is it but a relation in reference to another to bee respected by him and accepted to him And in this sense a man may bee iustified that is accepted as if hee had neuer done ill or failed in any good for the righteousnes of another Nay they all confesse that all they that are justified are so accepted for the obedience merit and satisfactory sufferings of Christ when they are first reconciled to God So that it is strange that they should vrge as sometimes they doe that a man canne no more bee justified that is accepted as if righteous for the righteousnes of another then a line canne bee or bee accounted straight for the straightnes of another For as Durandus rightly noteth though one mans merit and well doing cannot bee imputed to another as to bee or bee accounted his merit and hee esteemed to haue merited and done well yet it may bee so communicated as that the fruite benefit good of it shall redound to him he be accounted worthy respect for the others sake as if he had done well Neither doe they nor can they make any question hereof if they will but vnderstand what they say For whereas three things are required of a man if hee will bee subject to no euil and enjoy good viz. not to haue done euill to haue done good and to doe good in the present and time to come though we be framed to the doing of good hereafter yet wee canne neither bee freed from the punishment our former evill doings deserued but by the benefit of his sufferings that suffered what hee deserued not to free vs nor to be accepted hauing done nothing worthy acceptation but for his merit who did all good in our nature to procure vs acceptation Andreas Vega confesseth that men may be absolued from their sins that is freed from the punishment of them by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse and that they may become acceptable and deare unto God in such sort as iust men are formally by being beloued of him but that if we speake Philosophycally of iustice it is in the predicament of quality not of relation which we willingly yeeld vnto And though he say no man euer in expresse words affirmed before Bernards time that Christs righteousnesse is imputed to us yet he thinketh it may rightly be sayd to be imputed both for satisfaction merit that is so as to free us from punishment bring good vpon us
as if we had merited it and that to these purposes it is imputed to vs as if it were ours And farther he addeth that as God doth nothing in nature but by his sonne as God so he will do nothing pertaining to our iustification and restauration but for him as he is man and that there is no benefit bestowed on vs or good done vnto us but it presupposeth a newe application and imputation of the merits of Christ. Soe that euery one is newly made partaker of Christs merits and oweth newe thankes to him soe often as new gifts and benifittes are conferred and bestowed vpon him and he feareth not to pronounce that the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed vnto vs not only when wee are baptized as he sayth a man excellently learned vnaduisedly affirmeth but in other sacraments and as often as men receiue any newe gift from God yea that a new imputation of Christs righteousnesse is necessarily required for the remission of those veniall sinnes into which the iustified fall and the freeing of vs from temporall punishments Bernar Nemo leuia peccata contemnat impossibile est enim cum iis saluari impossibile est ea dilui nisi per Christum à Christo August tam de eo qui leuioribus peccatis obnoxius est quam de eo qui grauioribus pronunciat quod si sibi relinquerentur interirent All therefore acknowledge as he thinketh that the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed but there are as he telleth vs 2 opinions in the Church of Rome touching this point the one that Christs righteousnes is no otherwise communicated or imputed to us but in that for the merit of it wee are accepted all things necessary to fitte vs for iustification are giuen vnto us righteousnesse making vs formally iust that is inclining vs to decline euill do good is infused into vs and what soeuer is profitable to set vs forward and to make us continue in the same is bestowed on vs. Others renowned for learning and piety do thinke that for the attaining of heauen happinesse not only in a twofold righteousnesse is necessary the one inherent the other imputed as to the former but that this imputed righteousnes of Christ is twise offered and presented by Christ to God the Father First that we may be iustified that is that our sinnes may be remitted we accepted and renewing grace may be giuen vnto vs. And secondly that we may avoyd and decline the extremity and seuerity of Gods iudgment that he may accept our weake indeauours and admitte vs to heauen notwithstanding the imperfection and defects thereof that for his sake the imperfection impurity of our righteousnesse may be couered This opinion is clearely deliuered by Cardinall Contarenus he tellethus it was allowed in the conference at Ratisbon by the diuines of both sides his words are these Seeing we haue affirmed that we artaine a twofold righteousnesse by faith a righteousnesse inherent in vs as charity and that grace whereby we are made partakers of the diuine nature and the iustice of Christ giuen and imputed vnto vs as being graft into Christ and hauing put on Christ it remaineth that wee enquire vppon which of these wee must stay and relie and by which wee must thinke our selues iustified before GOD that is to be accepted as holy and just hauing that justice which it beseemeth the sonnes of God to haue I truely thinke that a man very piously and Christianly may say that wee ought to stay to stay I say as vpon a firme and stable thing able vndoubtedly to sustaine vs vpon the justice of Christ giuen imputed to vs and not vpon the holinesse and grace that is inherent in vs. For this our righteousnes is but imperfect and such as cannot defend vs seeing in many things we offend all c. But the justice of Christ which is giuen vnto vs is true perfect justice which altogether pleaseth the eyes of God in which there is nothing that offendeth God Vpon this therefore as most certaine stable wee must stay our selues beleeue that wee are justified by it as the cause of our acceptation with God this is that precious treasure of Christians which whosoeuer findeth selleth all that he hath to buy it Ruard Tapper followeth the other opinion and saith that whereas according to Bernard our righteousnesse is impure though sincere and true we must not conceiue that this impurity defileth our righteousnesse as if it selfe were stayned or any thing were wanting in it for so it should not bee true and right but that it is saide to bee impure because there are certaine staines and blemishes together with it in the operations of the soule for GOD onely is absolutely free from sinne and in many things wee sinne all our righteousnesse therefore according to his opinion is imperfect in vertue and efficacie because it cannot expell and keepe out all sinne out of the soule wherein it is by reason of the infirmity of the flesh but the good workes of the just doe abide the severity of Gods judgment neither can they bee blamed though tryed most exactly and discussed in all their circumstances yea though the divell should be permitted to say what he can against them for they haue no fault nor deformitie Here for the better clearing of this point it is to bee obserued that it is confessed by all that the most righteous liue not without sinne consequently that they haue need continually of remission of sinnes It is resolued amongst all Catholiques saith Andreas Vega that there was neuer any found amongst the Saints the blessed Virgin onely excepted that in the whole course of their liues avoided all veniall sinnes Iob asketh who shalll be cleane from filthinesse and answereth himselfe according to the translation which the ancient Doctors followed namely Cyprian Ambrose Augustine Gregory and others no one though he liue but one day vpon earth And Dauid saith generally no man liuing shall bee justified in thy sight and in another place for this impiety of sinne shall euery holy one pray vnto thee hee saith not euery sinner but euery holy one saith Saint Augustine for it is the voice of the Saints If we say wee haue no sinne we deceiue our selues there is no trueth in vs and Solomon saith there is no man righteous on earth that doth good and sinneth not and those sayings of the Apostles are well knowne in many things wee sinne all If wee say wee haue no sinne wee deceiue our selues c. And who is hee that neuer needed in his whole life to say that part of the Lords Prayer forgiue vs our trespasses And all this is strongly proued in that if wee looke on the liues of all the Saints which are marvailously commended in Scripture we shall finde none of them that had not some blemish as in the most beautifull body Let vs begin with
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
comparatione that is from him not before him by his gift but not in comparison with him For the clearing of this point Pet. Pomponatius noteth that there is defectus in specie defectus in genere and defectus in latitudine entis that is Things doe fail come short of perfection 3 wayes for there are some things that want that perfectioÌ„ that pertaineth to things of their particular kind some things that want not that perfectioÌ„ yet come short of that which some other of the same generall kind haue somethings that haue all perfectioÌ„ that any thing of their kind any way can haue yet come short of that which is found in the latitude extent of perfectioÌ„ being Examples of the first ignorance error blindnes c. in men Of the second the want of reason in bruit beasts which are liuing creatures as well as men yet come short of that perfection that is found in men and likewise the sonnes of men come short of that perfection of intellectuall light that is found in the Angels Of the third in all the most perfect creatures which come short of that which is found in God who is being it selfe they are this and not that they haue being after not being and would haue not being after being if they were left to themselues they are good but not connaturally they are no lesse capable of euill then of good they are good but mutably good and so in respect of GOD imperfectly good In this sense Iob saith God found folly in his servants and vanitie in his Angels This kind of defect or euill is without all fault sinne or blame of things wherein it is found and is incident to the nature and condition of all created things which are compounded of being and not being perfection and want and consequently haue some thing of good and some thing of euill That defect that is in respect of perfections that other things of the same generall kind haue is likewise a naturall consequent of the different degrees of things and nothing is blamed for being thus defectiue So the righteousnesse that was in Adam was inferiour to that of the Angels coÌ„firmed in grace yet was it not sinful But the righteousnesse of the iust commeth short of that which pertaineth to men And though it be right true sincere and not dissembled yet hath it such defects that it is impure What may all our righteousnes bee before God will it not bee found and esteemed as the Prophet saith to bee like the ragges of a menstruous woman and if it bee strictly examined will not all our righteousnes be found to be vnrighteous and defectiue What therefore will become of our sinnes when our righteousnes is not able to answere for it selfe Therefore crying out earnestly with the Prophet Lord enter not into iudgment with thy seruant let vs with al humility fly to mercy which only is able to saue our souls Bernardus super Cantica serm 61. Vbi tuta firmaque infirmis securitas requies nisi in vulneribus saluatoris Tanto illic securior habito quanto ille potentior est ad salvandum fremit mundus premit corpus diabolus insidiatur nec cado fundatus enim sum super firmam petram Peccavi peccatum grande turbatur conscientia sed non perturbabitur quoniam vulnerum Domini recordabor Ego vero fidenter quod ex me mihi deest vsurpo mihi ex visceribus Domini quoniam misericordia effluit nec desunt foramina per quae effluat Foderunt manus eius c. per has rimas licet mihi sugere mel de petrâ oleumque de saxo durissimo Cogitabat cogitationes pacis ego nesciebam Quis enim cognovit sensum Domini aut quis consiliarius eius fuit At clauis â—…eserans clavus penetrans factus est mihi vt videam voluntatem Domini Meum meritum miseratio Domini non planè sum meriti inops quamdiu ille miserationum non fuerit Nunquid iustitias meas cantabo Domine memorabor iustitiae tuae solius ipsa est enim mea nempe factus es tu iustitia mihi à Deo Nunquid mihi verendum nè vna ambobus non sufficiat non est pallium breve quod secundum Prophetam non possit operire duos But because happily some exception may bee taken to Saint Bernard as if hee had some singular opinion I will shew that all the glorious lights of the Church ever beleeued as hee did and as wee doe Theodoret in Ps 23. Quae existimantur remunerationes propter solam diuinam benignitatem hominibus praebentur Omnes enim hominum iustitiae nihil sunt ad dona quae à Deo nobis suppeditata sunt nedum ad futura munera quae omnem humanam cogitationem transcendunt Chrysost in Ps. 4. Etiamsi innumerabilia recte fecerimus à miserationibus clementiâ audimur Etiamsi ad ipsum virtutis fastigium pervenerimus servamur à misericordiâ Et in Ps. 6. super illa verba Miserere mei Domine quoniam infirmus sum Hâc voce omnes egemus etiamsi innumerabilia rectè ex virtute fecerimus vel ad summam peruenerimus iustitiam August in Ps. 142. Omnes dereliquistis me dicit Dominus quid vultis mecum in iudicium intrare vestras iustitias commemorare Commemorate iustitias vestras ego novi facinora vestra Nolo tecum habere causam vt ego proponam iustitiam meam tu convincas iniquitatem meam Ne intres in iudicium cum servo tuo Quare hoc Quare times Quoniam non iustificabitur coram te omnis viuens Omnis itaque viuens iustificare forte potest se coram se non coram te Quomodo coram se sibi placens tibi displicens coram te auteÌ„ non iustificabitur omnis vivens Quantumlibet rectus mihi videar producis tu de thesauro tuo regulaÌ„ coaptas me ad eaÌ„ et pravus invenior Grego moral vlt. Si autem de his diuinitus districtè discutimur quis inter ista remanet salutis locus quando mala nostra pura mala sunt bona quae nos habere credimus pura bona esse nequaquam possunt Beda in explicatione Ps. 24. Ne memineris delicta sed potius memento mei Domine ut miserearis secundum misericordiam tuam id est te condignam non secundum iram me condignam tu dico ad quem pertinet qui solus misereris solus mederis solus peccata dimittis hoc non facias propter merita mea sed propter bonitatem id est suavitatem tuam Et in Ps. 31. Beati quorum remissae sunt iniquitates c. Instruit videlicet vt nemo vel libertatem arbitrii vel merita sua sufficere sibi ad beatitudinem credat sed solâ gratiâ Dei se salvari posse intelligat Alcuinus in Ps. 50. Sordidare me potui sed emundare nequeo nisi tu
his merite and not for the dignity and perfection of the righteousnesse which is communicated vnto vs in Christ And farther they say that the faithfull soule doth not rely vpon that righteousnesse that is inherent in it but vpon the onely righteousnesse of Christ giuen vnto vs without which there neither is nor can be any righteousnesse And they adde hereunto that they that truly repent of their sinnes should most firmely and with great assurance of faith resolue that they please God for Christs sake who is a Mediatour betweene God and them because he is a worker of propitiation a High Priest and an Intercessour for vs whom the Father hath giuen vnto vs and all good things together with him And therefore though they say not as the Canons of Colen that Christs righteousnesse is the formall cause of our justification yet Vega thinketh they followed the same opinion because besides inherent righteousnesse they affirme that another righteousnes namely that of Christ is communicated to vs by which especially wee are made righteous and vppon which only we must rely The Interim published by Charles the 5 with the assent of the imperiall states deliuereth the same touching iustification that the former authors haue done And the diuines of both sides in the conference at Ratisbon agreed in the same explication of the article of iustification that wee haue hetherto deliuered A great contention there is and hath beene whether the righteousnesse of Christ imputed to vs bee the formall cause of our justification and whether we be formally justified by his imputed righteousnesse or not But Andraeas Vega supposeth that it is a meere logomachie and verball contention which his conjecture I thinke will be found more then probable For as I haue already shewed in the justification of a sinner three things are implyed 1 To be free from dislike disfauour and punishment as if he had neuer offended Secondly to be respected fauoured and indeared vnto God in such sort as righteous men are wont to be as if he had done all righteousnes And thirdly To haue the grant of the gift of righteousnesse to keepe from euill and incline him to good in the time to come All these denominations are respectiue and a man may be so denominated from something without For one man is reconciled to another in that hee no longer intendeth euill vnto him and one man is deare vnto another and we are deare vnto God formally by that loue whereby we are beloued of him And because that which giueth satisfaction to God and that which maketh him well pleased towards vs is that for which formally or in respect whereof God willeth our good not euill by both these we may be sayd though in a different sort to be formally iustified Wherefore hauing sufficiently cleared the point of controuersie touching the first justifying and reconciling of a sinner to God and made it appeare that the Church euer beleeued as we now do it remaineth that we speake of the second justification The second justification consisteth in the remission of such sinnes as the justified man dayly through infirmity falleth into and the progresse and going on in well doing and the dayly preuailing against sinne whereby the kingdome of sinne is weakened and the kingdome of grace and righteousnesse is confirmed and more strongly established in us Touching the second justification there is no difference between vs them that so deliuered the doctrine of the first justification as I haue before expressed but between the Romanists vs there are sūdry things cōtrouerted For 1 t many of thē deny the veniall sins into which the regenerate do fal to be properly sins therefore think not aright of the remissiō of thē 2◠They imagine that sūdry externall obseruatiōs ex opere oper◅to giue grace remit those sins whereas in truth in the opiniō of others they auaile no otherwise then they stirre vp deuotion and raise in vs good motions and desires to purge out the remaines of sinne and to seeke the remission of it Thirdly they make the good workes of men justified to deserue increase of grace the reward of eternall life of condignity But I will shew in that which followeth that the doctrine of merit was neuer admitted in the Church neither before nor after Luthers time In this justification men are justified meerely by faith as in the first so farre forth as it importeth remission of sins but in that it importeth an increase confirmation and growth in that good that is begun in us our working of vertue and good indeauours causing the same may be sayd to justify that is to make vs more iust inherētly then before more strōgly inclined to good in which sense S. Iohn saith Qui iustus est iustificetur adhuc The third kind of justification which is sayd to bee the restoring of men once justified and afterwards fallen from grace to the state of grace againe is meerely imaginary For they that are called according to purpose and soe justified do neuer totally nor finally fall from God The sins which men run into I haue elsewhere shewed to be of 2 sorts Inhabiting only or Raigning the former in the judgment of our aduersaries themselues do stand with grace the state of iustification Sins regnant are as Theodoret writing vpon the sixt to the Romans after him others do rightly note of 2 sorts for either they raigne as a tyrant or as a king a king reigneth with the loue liking of his subjects who wish nothing more then to liue vnder him think there is no happines but in his slauery a tyrant with dislike They that are justified called acording to purpose neuer haue sin raigning in them as a king but somtimes as a tyrant they haue For though Dauid Peter were strangely transported with the violēt passions of feare lust yet who will euer think that these lost all their former good affections towards God thought it their happines to be subject to his enemies Nay it is cleerly deliuered concerning Peter by Theophylact and sundry others that though the leaues were shaken off yet the roote remained vnmarred Iustification likewise as I haue shewed in the same place importeth 2 things An interest right title to the kingdome of heauen a claime to it by vertue force of the same right title the one of these may cease be suspended when the other remaineth If a man that hath much due vnto him vpon good assurances do some act for which he is excommunicated or outlawed he looseth not the title right he had to the things due vnto him vpō those assurāces but if the same things be detained all prosecution of his right is suspēded all actuall claime ceaseth during the time he continueth in that estate So in like manner if a man called according to purpose justified who can neuer finally fall from God fall
into grieuous sin such as is in some sort regnant as Dauid did hee looseth not the right title hee formerly had but the actuall claime to that whereto he hath title is suspended So that he falleth not totally from justification but so only as for the present to haue no actuall claime to any thing by vertue o◅ it The remission of his originall sin the right to heauen obtained in baptisme the force and vertue of repentance of former sins and the right to the rewards of actions of vertue formerly done remaine still neither needeth he newly to seeke remission of sins formerly remitted but of this only the remission of the other will be reuiued again he may make claime to all those things he had formerly right vnto by vertue of the former right This is cleerely deliuered by Alexander of Ales p. 4. q. 12. memb 4. art 6. Scotus Durandus the rest of the Schoole-men So that the elect chosē of God once justified neuer falling totally from justification are neuer to be newly justified againe but the dayly lighter sins they run into stand with the right they haue to the fauours of God eternall happines the actuall claime to the same by that right The more grieuous depriue thē of the claime only not of the right when they are justified acquitted from these by particular repentance they are restored to their former claime only hauing neuer lost their right so that they cannot properly be sayd to be newly justified but only to be justified from such particular sins as they newly run into Hauing spoken of justification and the nature of it as it is considered in it selfe it remaineth that wee come to speake of the things required in men for the disposing and fitting of them that they may be capable of this grace There were amongst the Schoole-men as Stapleton telleth vs and after them in the beginning of these controuersies in religion who extenuating the corruption of nature taught vnaduisedly that men without and before the motions of grace may doe certaine morall good workes in such sort as thereby to fitte themselues for the receipt of the grace of justification and to merit it ex congruo Who to expresse this their false conceipt were wont to say facienti quod in se est Deum non denegare gratiam that is that God will not faile to giue grace to such as doe the vttermost that lyeth in them But the same Stapleton telleth vs that the more sound and judicious euer taught that there is no power nor will in man to dispose and fit himselfe for the receipt of this grace vnlesse hee bee moued by preventing grace stirring inciting and inclining him to turne to God and that the merite of congruence hath beene long since hissed out of all Schooles Touching these preparations wrought in men by preventing grace First it is agreed betweene those of the Church of Rome and those of the reformed Religion that faith to beleeue in generall the truth of things revealed and contained in Scripture is necessarie in the first place and before all other things Secondly that in particular there must be a viewing of the things there found that the consideration of mans originall state there described the fall corruption of nature and manifold sinfull euils into which each man is plunged together with the apprehension of Gods displeasure against the same is necessarily required Thirdly a feare sorrow growing out of the discerning of this vnhappy condition wherein we are Fourthly an enquirie by what meanes wee may escape out of these euils Fiftly faith to beleeue that God most inclinable to releeue vs rather then man should vtterly perish sent his owne Sonne into the world to suffer the punishment of sin to satisfie his justice to bring grace dissolue the workes of the diuell that so all that in sense of former euils flye to him for mercy and deliuerance may escape be saued Sixtly hauing found so happy meanes of escape a flying vnto God in earnest desire to bee receiued to mercy for Christs sake to be freed from the guilt of sinne to bee reconciled to God and to haue grace to decline euill and doe good in the time to come All these things in the judgement of the Diuines of both sides are necessarily required in them that are to be justified The most reverend Canons of the Metropoliticall Church of Colen in the booke called Antididagma Coloniense make the things required in them on whom the benefite of justification is bestowed to be of two sorts For there are some that onely dispose prepare vs other by which we receiue the same Of the former sort is the generall perswasion of faith touching the trueth of things in Scripture the particular consideration of things concerning the knowledge of God and our selues sorrow feare dislike of our present estate desire to be deliuered out of it to be reconciled to God to haue grace to decline euill and doe good Of the latter sort is the perswasion of faith whereby we assure our selues without doubting that God will not impute our sins vnto vs that thus penitently turne vnto him but that the course of his mercies now and euer shall be turned towards vs for his Sonne Christs sake This is that speciall faith they of the reformed Religion speake of and the Romanists seeme so much to dislike whereas yet the best and most judicious amongst them euer did and still doe admit the same Andraeas Vega l. 9. c. 7. saith that there hath beene a great controversie about this matter not onely betweene Catholiques and such as they esteeme heretickes but euen amongst the most learned Catholiques of this age at Rome at Trent at Ratisbone and in sundry other places many affirming that a man without speciall revelation may vndoubtedly beleeue and certainely assure himselfe that he is in grace and hath obtayned remission of all his sinnes This perswasion rising as a conclusion out of two propositions the one of faith the other euident vnto vs in our owne experience is a perswasion of faith because whensoeuer a conclusion is consequent vpon two propositions the one of faith the other euident in the light of reason and experience it is to bee beleeued by faith or as Iohn Bacon certitudine consequente fidem This opinion as Vega telleth vs Claudius Belliiocensis followed in his Commentaries vpon Timothy And the most reverend Canons of the Metropoliticall Church of Colen together with the Authors of the Enchiridion of Christian Religion published in the Provinciall Councell of Colen vnder Hermannus so much esteemed as Cassander telleth vs in Italy France The Authors of the booke offered by Charles the 5 to the Diuines of both sides And as some say Hieron Angestus But for the better clearing of this point First I will produce the testimonies of such as liued before Luthers time Secondly I will
booke in explication and defence of this one decree of the councell and telleth vs the councell neuer meant simply to condemne the certainety of grace but onely that kinde of certainety that heretickes imagine which is without all examination of themselues their estate the trueth of their profession their dislike of sinnefull evills and desire of reconciliation and grace to decline euill and to doe good to perswade themselues they are justified And whereas most men conceiue the meaning of the councell to bee that hee is accursed that thinketh it necessary for the attayning of remission of sinnes that every man should perswade himselfe without any doubting in respect of his owne indisposition that his sinnes are remitted that thus to perswade himselfe procureth remission hee maketh the meaning of it to be that whosoeuer without consideration of his estate whether hee be rightly disposed or otherwise presumeth of Gods grace fauour is worthily anathematized but if a man hauing examined himselfe finde a disposition in dislike of former euills to returne vnto God to seeke remission grace not to offend in like sort any more he may notwithstanding the decree of the councell nay he ought to assure himselfe of remission and grace And there vpon bringeth forth a cloude of witnesses for confirmation of the certainety of grace But whatsoeuer wee thinke of the construction he maketh of the wordes of the decree he resolueth that a man may bee as certaine that his sinnes are remitted and he receiued to grace as that twise two are foure twise foure eight and that euery whole is greater then his part or as a man is resolued touching the things hee seeth with his eyes and handleth with his hands Gaspar Casalius a Bishoppe of Portugall that was present in the councell of Trent writeth largely against that kinde of imagined certainety which Eisingreinius sayth the councell meant to condemne And then goeth forward An non licet homini unquam credere firmiter se esse iustum á peccatis saltem á mortalibus Quidem in eâ formâ nunquam licet vt ex dictis patet quia est illa fides siue confidentia superba imprudentissima An licet in aliâ formâ Vtique licet In quâ formâ licet habendo respectum ad divinas promissiones conditionales ad conditiones quas requirunt Etenim omnes tenemur firmiter credere fide diviná cui non potest subesse falsum tam de nobis ipsis quam de aliis omnes Adae filios de facto iustos esse aut iustificari quotquot habent eas conditiones quas diuina promissio sive diuina lex conditionalis ad id requirit in nobis Hoc constat quia omnes tenemur tali fide credere Deum veracem in omnibus dictis suis pertinentibus ad doctrinam promissiones cunctis aliis adhibito autem diligenti in nobis de nobis examine dum quis seipsum probat ad iudicium rationis ac legis trahit licet vnicuique iudicare de se prudenter tamen procedendo cum examine discretione quòd eas conditiones requisit as habet vel non habet Si enim hoc non liceret nobis non diceret Paulus 1 Cor. 11. Probet autem seipsum homo sic de pane illo edat de calice bibat Nec diceret Apostolus Ioannes 1 Ioh. 4. Nolite omni spiritui credere sed probate spiritus si ex Deo sint quoniam multi Pseudoprophetae exierunt in mundum Ecce committitur nobis probatio adhibitis his quae ad rem ipsam adhiberi debent tum nostritum spirituum Licet ergo nobis iudicare de nobis benè vel malè prout in nobis invenerimus dummodo prudenter agamus cum prudentiâ intuentes discurrentes concludentes Mox vero prout quis cum prudentiâ de se iudicaverit quod conditiones á Deo requisitas habeat potest etiam iudicare de seipso quod iustus sit si certò certò si cum formidine cum formidine firmae enim praestant divinae promissiones iuxta suas conditiones ex parte illarum nullus est defectus nec esse potest So that according to this opinion a man certainely finding in him the performance of the condition required may assure himselfe of his justification acceptation with God and this assurance is an act of faith No man liuing sayth Vega should euer draw mee to doubt neither indeede could I doubt if I would of my being in the state of grace if I might inferre it out of two propositions the one beleeued and the other some other way evident vnto mee For there are many propositions de fide which can no otherwise bee proved to be de fide but because they cleerely follow vpon things beleeued some proposition evident in the light of nature As Scotus sheweth that this proposition the father differeth really from the sonne is a proposition of faith because it is inferred out of these two The father begat and the sonne was begotten and this other evident in the light of nature Omnis generans realiter differt à genito Qui pertinaciter dubitaret de propositione illatâ evidenter ex vnâ—… creditâ—… alia evidenti esset haereticus hic enim cum non posset dubitare de consequentiâ nec de euidenti dubitaret de credita It will bee sayd that graunting such a proposition to bee de fide as followeth out of two propositions whereof one is beleeued and the other some other way evident vnto vs yet it will not follow that wee may bee certaine that wee are in the state of grace Because that cannot bee inferred out of two such propositions seing one of them must depend on experience and the knowledge of our inward actions which as some thinke cannot be certainely knowen by vs. Let vs see therefore whether a man may certainely discerne the quality and condition of his soule and the motions actions and desires of the same There are that thinke that our inward actions are vnknowen vnto vs and that the nature of the heart is such as is knowen onely to God But Saint Paul sayth 1 Cor. 2. that the spirit of a man knoweth the things that are in him And besides if wee could not knowe our inward actions wee should not bee commaunded or forbidden to doe such actions neither should wee bee required to confesse our inward sinnes if wee could not know them All which things are absurde and hereticall It is cleere therefore that wee may know and discerne our inward actions that wee may know what we do what wee will and in what sort and to what end wee will it Wee may know therefore whether we sorrow for sinnes because wee haue thereby displeased God or for some other reason whether wee esteeme the losse of Gods favour the greatest euill whether wee would rather regaine it then haue all things without it whether wee would not bee willing to
the first the question is vsually proposed whether the Rulers of Gods Church and people may make lawes concerning Gods worshippe and service For the clearing whereof Stapleton distinguisheth the things pertayning to the worshippe and service of God into three sorts The first such as are seales assurances and in their sort and kinde causes of grace as the sacrifices in old time and the sacraments now the second such as remooue the impediments of grace dispose to the receipt of it and worke other spirituall and supernaturall effectes though they giue not grace in so high degree as the first as the signing with the signe of the Crosse sprinkling with holy water and the like the third such as are vsed onely for order and comelinesse in the performance of the principall and essentiall duties of Gods worshippe and seruice These being the diuerse sorts of things pertayning to the worshippe and seruice of God the question and controuersie betweene vs and our aduersaries is onely touching thinges of the second ranke For they confesse the Church hath no power to institute things of the first sort and wee willingly grant vnto it a most ample power in things of the third sort Let vs first therefore lay downe their opinion and then examine the trueth or falshood of it Their opinion is that the Church hath power to institute Ceremonies and obseruations though not to iustifie and giue grace as doe the sacraments yet to cure diseases driue away deuils purge out veniall sinnes and to worke other the like spirituall and supernaturall effects and that not onely by way of impâ—…tration and by force of the prayers of the Church which hath prayed that they that vse such things may enjoy such happy benefites but ex opere operato by the very worke wrought the vse of these things applying the merits of Christ to the effecting of these inferiour effects as the Sacraments doe to the effects of Iustification and remission of sinnes The signe of the Crosse sayth Bellarmine driueth away Diuels three wayes first by the deuotion of them that vse it it being a kinde of invocation of his name that was crucified for the redemption of the world expressed not by words but by this signe Secondly by the impression of feare which the verie sight and apprehension of it worketh in the diuell as being the thing whereby Christ wrought his overthrow Thirdly ex opere operato in which sort Infidells vsing this signe haue wrought these effects The Rhemists vpon 1. Tim 4. 5. Euery Creature is good c. haue these obseruations First that euery creature is by nature and condition of creation good Secondly that Sathan vniustly vsurpeth vpon these creatures in by them seeking to hurt the bodies and soules of men Thirdly that by prayer and inuocation of Gods name notwithstanding the curse vpon all creatures Sathans readinesse to doe vs harme they are good and comfortable to vs so that in them wee taste the sweetenesse of Diuine goodnesse Fourthly that the blessings of Gods Church and her Ministers doe not onely stay and hinder Sathans working remoue the curse and make the creatures serue for our good accordingly as at the first they were appointed but apply them also to so sacred vses as to be instruments of remission of sinnes iustification and infusion of grace as appeareth in the sacraments instituted by Christ Fiftly that besides and out of the vse of Sacraments the prayers and blessings of the Church doe sanctifie diuers creatures to the working of spirituall and supernaturall effects as to expell Diuells cure diseases and remitte veniall sinnes and that not only as sanctified things are wont to doe in that they stirre vp and increase devotion and the fervour of piety but in that the Ministers of the Church by their soueraigne authority haue annexed to the vse of them power to worke such effects This last proposition containeth the whole matter of difference betweene them and vs for touching all the former wee consent and agree with them For clearing of this point wee lay downe these propositions First that by ordinary prayers the Creatures of God are sanctified to ordinary vses Secondly that the presenting them or some part of them in holy places and to holy persons to be blessed of them maketh the vse of them more comfortable then the former blessing but addeth no supernaturall force efficacie or grace vnto them Thirdly that Christ appointed and the Church daylie sanctifieth the Creatures of God and elements of this world to bee the matter of his Sacraments Fourthly that bread being appointed to bee the matter of the Sacrament of the body of Christ and water of Baptisme the Christians in ancient time held that bread which had beene offered and presented at the Lords Table out of which a part was consecrated for the vse of the Sacrament more holy then other bread And this is that bread Augustine saith was giuen to the Catechumens as also they religiously kept of that water which had beene hallowed for the vse of Baptisme and by the vse of it strengthened their assurance of enjoying the benefites which are bestowed on men in Baptisme Neither can our adversaries clearely proue any separate sanctifying of water to haue beene vsed in the Primitiue Church If they could it were nothing else but the bringing of some part of this element into holy places with humble desire that they which in memory of Baptisme should vse it and so have their faith strengthened might more and more receiue the effects of sauing grace as the Christians of Russia and Aethiopia vnto this day on the Epiphany on which day they remember the Baptisme of Christ goe into the water praying vnto God that the effects of the Sacrament of Baptisme may more more be seene and appeare in them Fiftly that the Church consecrateth sundry outward things to the vse of Gods seruice not giuing them any new quality force or efficacie but onely praying that God will bee pleased to accept that which is done in or with them and to worke in vs that the vse of them importeth Sixtly holy men hauing the gift of miracles did vse sometimes water sometimes oyle sometimes other things and gaue them to bee vsed by other for the working of miraculous effects after the example of Elizeus and Christ himselfe of which sort is that of Ioseph mentioned by Epiphanius who filling a vessell with water signing it with the signe of the Crosse and casting it into a certaine fire caused it to burne though Sathan hindered it before that it could not burne as likewise that of Hilarion who gaue a kind of hallowed oyle to certaine who by vsing it were cured of their diseases But the consecrating of oyle salt water and the like things by men not hauing the gift of miracles to driue away deuils cure diseases remit veniall sinnes and worke other spirituall and supernaturall effects ex opere operato by application of the
merites of Christ was neuer knowne in the Primitiue Church nor any such forme of exorcising or blessing as they now vse That which the Rhemists alleadge touching the Liuer of a fish vsed by Tobie the piece of the holy earth where Christ was buried preseruing a mans chamber from the infestation of diuels and the force of holy reliques tormenting them maketh nothing to this purpose all these examples being miraculous Touching the harpe of Dauid quieting Saul there is a reason for it in Nature though the repressing of Sathans rage were miraculous That Infidels haue sometimes driuen away diuels by the signe of the Crosse it was by the speciall dispensation of Almighty God who would thereby glorifie his Sonne whose Crosse the world despised and not as if this Ceremonie had force ex opere operato to worke such effects That the name of Iesus did miraculously cast out Diuels in the Primitiue Church which is the next allegation who euer made doubt but what maketh this to the purpose That which they alledge that Saint Gregory did vsually send his benediction and remission of sins in and with such tokens as were sanctified by his blessing and touch of the Martyrs reliques as now his successours doe the like hallowed remembrances of religion is very vaine For Gregory did not send any such blessing of of his owne or remission of sinnes by force of it as nowe his successours do but onely certaine things that had pertained to Christ or his Apostles as part of the wood of the crosse of Christ or of the chaines wherewith the Apostles were bound and with them the blessing of Christ and those Apostles to such as should conforme themselues to his sufferinges or their faith That which they alledge out of the third Councell of Carthage touching the blessing of milke honey grapes and corne bewrayeth their ignorance For that Canon speaketh not of any such blessing but forbiddeth any thing besides bread and wine mingled with water for the matter of the Sacrament and grapes and corne to bee presented on the Altar The Canon of the Apostles is to the same effect forbidding any thing but newe grapes and corne in their season and oyle for the lights incense to be vsed in the time of the oblation to be presented on the Altar willing the first fruites to be carried to the Bishops house and prescribing what shall be done with such presents The sixt generall Councell finding that some did giue to the people with the Sacrament these grapes c forbad it and prescribed that being blessed they should be deliuered priuately to the Catechumens and others that they might praise God who hath giuen so good and pleasing things for the nourishment of mens bodies but speaketh nothing of blessing of them to be instruments of remission of sinnes and of the like spirituall and supernaturall effects Thus wee see our aduersaries cannot proue that the Church hath power to annexe vnto such Ceremonies and obseruations as shee deuiseth the remission of sinnes and the working of other spirituall and supernaturall effects which is the only thing questioned betweene them and vs touching the power of the Church So that all the power the Church hath more then by her authority to publish the Commaundements of Christ the sonne of God and by her censures to punish the offenders against the same is onely in prescribing things that pertaine to comelinesse and order Comelinesse requireth that not only that grauity and modesty doe appeare in the performance of the workes of Gods seruice that beseemeth actions of that nature but also that such rites and ceremonies be vsed as may cause a due respect vnto and regard of the things performed and thereby stirre men vppe to greater feruour and deuotion Caeremoniae Ceremonies are so named as Liuie thinketh from a Towne called Caere in the which the Romans did hide their sacred thinges when the Gaules inuaded Rome Other thinke Ceremonies are so named a Carendo of abstaining from certaine things as the Iewes abstained from swines slesh and sundrie other things forbidden by God as vncleane Ceremonies are outward acts of religion hauing institution either from the instinct of nature as the lifting vp of the hands and eyes to heauen the bowing of the knee the striking of the breast and such like or immediately from God as the sacraments or from the Churches prescription and either onely serue to expresse such spirituall and heauenly affections dispositions motions and desires as are or should be in men or else to signifie assure and conuey vnto them such benefits of sauing grace as God in Christ is pleased to bestowe on them To the former purpose and end the Church hath power to ordaine Ceremonies to the later God onely Order requireth that there be sette howres for prayer preaching and ministring the sacraments that there be silence and attention when the things are performed that womē be silent in the Church that all things be administred according to the rules of discipline Thus we see within what bounds the power of the Church is contained and how farre it hath authority to command and prescribe in things pertaining to the worship and seruice of God CHAP. 32. Of the nature of Lawes and how they binde Now it remaineth that wee examine how farre the band of such lawes extendeth as the Church maketh and whether they binde the conscience or onely the outward man For the clearing whereof first wee must obserue in what sense it is that lawes are sayde to binde and secondly what it is to binde the conscience Lawgiuers are sayd to binde them to whome they giue lawes when they determine and sette downe what is fitte to be done what things they are the doing whereof they approoue and the omission whereof they dislike and then signifie to them whom they command that though they haue power and liberty of choyse to doe or omitte the things prescribed yet that they will soe and in such sort limitte them in the vse of their libertie as that either they shall doe that they are commanded or be depriued of the good they desire and incurre the euils they would auoyd None can thus tye and limit men but they that haue power to depriue them of the good they desire and bring vpon them the contrary euils So that no man knowing what hee doth prescribeth or commandeth any thing vnder greater penalties then he hath power to inflict nor any thing but that whereof hee canne take notice whether it be done or not that so hee may accordingly reward or punish the doing or omission of it Hence it followeth that mortall men forget themselues and keepe not within their owne boundes when either they commaund vnder paine of eternall damnation which none but God can inflict according to that of our Sauiour Feare not them that can kill the body but feare him rather that hath power to cast both body and soule into hell fire
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
will not conceiue that they may haue something to say against vs are all easily cleared and answered by this explication of the same By that which hath beene sayd touching Christs being a Mediatour according to both natures wee may easily vnderstand how and according to what nature hee is Head of the Church In a naturall Head Bonauentura obserueth three things the first that it is Conforme caeteris membris the second that it is Principium membrorum and the third that it is Influxiuum sensus motus that is first that it hath conformitie of nature with the rest of the members of the body Secondly that it is the first chiefest and in a sort the beginning of all the members and thirdly that from it influence of sense and motion doth proceede and hee sheweth the same to bee found in Christ the mysticall head of the Church For first hee hath conformitie of nature with them that are members of his body the Church in that he is Man Whereupon S. Augustine sayth Vnius naturae sunt vitis palmites the vine and the branches are of the same nature And secondly as the naturall head is the chiefest and most principall of all the members so is Christ more excellent then they that are Christs Omnia membra faciunt vnum corpus sayth S. Augustine multum tamen interest inter caput caetera membra Etenim in caeteris membris non sentis nisi tactu tangendo sentis in caeteris membris in capite autem vides audis olfacis gustas tangis All the members make one body yet is there great difference between the head and the rest of the members for in the rest a man hath no sense but that of feeling in the rest he discerneth by feeling but in the Head heseeth and heareth and smelleth and tasteth and feeleth So in the members of Christs mysticall body which is the Church there are found diuersities of gifts operations administrations and to one is giuen the word of wisdoâ—… to another the word of knowledge to another faith to another the gift of healing to another the operation of great workes and to another prophesie but to the man Christ the spirit was giuen without stint or measure and in him was found the fulnesse of all grace The third property of a naturall Head which is the iufluence of Senâ—…e and Motion agreeth vnto Christ in respect of his humanity and diuinity both For hee giueth influence of diuine sense and motion two waies per modum praeparantis and per modum impertientis that is by preparing and making men fitte to receiue grace by imparting it to them that are fitted prepared He prepareth and fitteth men to the receipt of Grace by the acts of his humanity in which hee suffered death dying satisfied Gods wrath remoued all matter of dislike meritted the fauour and acceptation of God and soe made men fitte to receiue the grace of God and to enioy his fauour Hee imparteth and conferreth grace by the operation and working of his diuine nature it being the proper worke of God to inlighten the vnderstandings of men and to soften their hearts So that to conclude this point we may resolue that the grace in respect whereof Christ is Head of the Church is of two sorts the one created and habituall the other increate and of Vnion In respect of the one hee giueth grace effectiuè by way of efficiencie in respect of the other dispositiuè by way of disposition fitting vs that an impression of grace may be made in vs. CHAP. 17. Of the things which Christ suffered for vs to procure our reconciliation with God HAuing shewed how Christ as a Mediator interposed himselfe between God and vs when we were his enemies and how he is the Head of that blessed company of them that beleeuing in him looke for saluation let vs see consider first what he suffered for vs to reconcile vs vnto God secondly what he did for vs thirdly what the benefits are that hee bestoweth on vs and fourthly to whom he committed the dispensation of the rich treasures of his graces the word of reconciliation and the guiding and gouerning of the people which hee purchased as a peculiar inheritance to himselfe Touching the first to wit the sufferings of Christ he was by them to satisfie the justice of God his Father displeased with vs for sinne that so wee might bee reconciled vnto him Wherefore that wee may the better conceiue what was necessary to be done or suffered to satisfie the justice of God wee must consider sinne in the nature of a wrong and in the nature of sin In the nature of a wrong and so two things were required for the pacifying of Gods wrath for first he that hath done wrong must restore that he vnjustly tooke away from him whom he wronged and secondly hee must do something in recompence of the wrong he did as if hee tooke away another mans good name by false and lying reports hee must not only restore it to him againe by acknowledging that the things were vntrue which in defamation of him hee had spoken but he must also take all occasions to raise continue and increase a good opinion of him If sinne be considered in the nature of sinne it implyeth in it two things debitum poenae and debitum neglectae obedientiae that is a debt of punishment and a debt of obedience then neglected when it should haue been performed and therefore in the satisfaction that is to reconcile us to God displeased with vs for sinne as sinne two things must be implyed for first the punishment must be sustained that sinne deserued and secondly that obedience must be performed that should haue been yeelded whilest sinne was committed but was neglected For if only the punishment be sustained we may escape the condemnation of death but we cannot inherit eternall life vnlesse the righteousnesse and obedience which Gods law requireth be found in vs also Now the law of God requireth obedience not only in the present time and time to come but from the beginning of our life to the end of the same if wee desire to inherit the promised blessednesse And though the performance of that obedience that was neglected may seeme to be in the nature of merit rather then satisfaction yet in that it is not simply the meriting and procuring of fauour and acceptation but the recouering of lost friendship and the regaining of renewed loue it is rightly esteemed to pertaine vnto satisfaction Touching sinne considered in the nature of an offence wrong and the things required to pacifie Gods wrath in that respect there is no question but that the sinner himselfe that wronged God in sinning must by sorrow of heart disliking and detesting and by confession of mouth condemning former euils restore that glory to God hee tooke from him and seeke and take all occasions the weaknes of his meanes wil affoord
to glorifie God as much as he dishonoured him before and God accepteth weake indeauours as sufficient in this kind CHRIST hauing perfectly satisfied for us as a publicke person may accept of a meane and weake satisfaction for the wrong done to him but must inflict punishment answerable to the fault to satisfie publique justice offended by that wrong Wherefore passing from this kinde of satisfaction let vs speake of that other that God requireth standing in the suffering of punishments due to sinne Some define this kind of satisfaction to be the suffering of the punishments that God inflicteth or wherewith a man voluntarily punisheth himselfe but this is not a good definition For as a thiefe or murtherer may not lay violent hands on himself be his owne executioner when he hath offended to satisfie publique Iustice but must submit himself to that which authority will lay on him so it is so farre frō being any satisfaction to Gods Iustice for a man when he hath sinned to become his own executioner to punish himselfe for his sin to satisfie the Iustice of God that it highly displeaseth God It is true indeede that we may lawfully afflict our selues not to satisfie Gods Iustice but to purge out the drosse of that sinfull impuritie that cleaueth to vs and to cure the wounds of our soules as wee may afflict our selues by fasting watching and abstaining from many things otherwise lawfull for the freeing of our selues from the remaines of our former excessiue and immoderate delight in eating drinking surfeiting and riot other abuses of the good creatures of God So that we must not define satisfaction to bee the suffering of those punishments that God inflicteth or wherewith the sinner punisheth himself for it is only the sustaining of those that God in Iustice doth inflict And in this sort Christ satisfied his Fathers wrath not by punishing himself but by being obedient to his Father euen vnto the death Wherefore let vs proceed more particularly to consider the satisfactory sufferings of Christ see first what punishments Christ suffered to pacifie his Fathers wrath and secondly what the manner of his passion was Touching the punishments that Christ suffered they were not ordinary but beyond measure grievous bitter insupportable yea such as would haue made any meere creature to sinke down vnder the burthen of thē to the bottome of Hell For he suffered grieuous things from all the things in Heauen Earth Hell in all that any way pertained to him He suffered at the hands of God his Father and of Men of Iewes of Gentiles of enemies insulting of friends forsaking of the Prince of darknes all his cruell mercilesse instruments of the elements of the world the Sun denying to giue him light the aire breath the earth supportance Hee suffered in all that pertained to him In his name being condemned as a blasphemer as an enemy to Moses the Law the Temple worship of God to his own Nation to Caesar the Romans a glutton a cōpanion with Publicans sinners a Samaritan one that had a Diuell did all his miracles by the power of Beelzebub In the things he possessed when they stripped him out of his garments cast lots on his seamelesse coate In his friends greatly distressed discomforted with the sight of those things that fell out vnto him according to that which was prophesied before The Shepheard shall be smitten the sheep shall be scattered In his body when his hands feete were nailed his sides goared his head pierced with the crown of thorns his cheeks swollen with buffering his face defiled with spitting vpon his eyes offended with beholding the scornefull behauiour of his proud insulting enemies his eares with hearing the wordes of their execrable blasphemy his taste with the myrrhe gall that they gaue him in his drinke his smell with the stinch and horrour of the place wherein he was crucified being a place of dead mens skuls Lastly in his soule distressed with feares compassed about with sorrowes besetting him on euery side that euen vnto death In so wofull sort did he take on him our defects and suffer our punishments But because we may as well enlarge and amplifie Christs passions and sufferings too much as extenuate them too much let vs see if it bee possible the vttermost extent of that he suffered For the clearing hereof some say that he suffered all those punishments that were beseeming him or behoofefull for vs that hee suffered all those punishments that neither prejudice the plenitude of sanctitie nor science But that wee may the better informe our selues touching this point wee must obserue that the punishments of sinne are of three sorts First Culpa Secondly ex culpa ad culpam Thirdly ex culpa sed nec culpa nec ad culpam that is First sinne Secondly something proceeding from sinne and inducing to sin Thirdly things proceeding from sin that neither are sins nor incline and induce to sinne Examples of the first are Enuie afflicting the mind of the proud man grieuous disorders accompanying the drunkard and a reprobate sense following the contempt of Gods worshippe and seruice Of the second naturall concupiscence pronenesse to euill difficulty to doe good contrariety in the faculties of the soule and repugnance and resistance of the meaner against the better Examples of the third which are things proceeding from sin but neither sinnes nor inclinations to sinne are hunger thirst weakenesse nakednesse and death it selfe The punishments of this last sort onely Christ suffered and neither of the former two for neither was there sin in him nor any thing inclining him to euill or discouraging him from good The punishments of this kinde are of two sorts Naturall and Personall Naturall are such as follow the whole nature of man as hunger thirst labour wearinesse and death it selfe Personall are such as grow out of some imperfection and defect in the vertue and faculty forming the body disorder in diet or some violence offered and these are found but in some particular men and not in all men generally as Leprosies Agues Gowts the like All those punishments that are punishments only that are from without and that are common to the whole nature of Men Christ suffered that came to bee a Redeemer of all without respect of persons but such as flow from sin dwelling within or proceed from particular causes or are proper to some and not common to all hee suffered not The punishments that are punishments onely and not sinne and are common to the whole nature of man are likewise of two sorts for either they are suffered for sinne imputed or sinne inherent For one may bee punished either for his owne fault or the fault of another in some sort imputed to him When a man is punished for his owne fault hee hath remorse of conscience blaming and condemning him as hauing brought such euils vpon himselfe by
his owne folly But when a man is punished for another mans fault whereof hee hath beene no cause by example perswasion helpe or consent hee canne haue no remorse of conscience Now our Saviour Christ suffered the punishments of the sinnes of other men not his own and therefore hee was free from remorse of conscience though it be generally found in all men and be neither sinne nor inducement to sin Lastly the punishments that are punishments onely and not sin that are common to the whole nature of Man and suffered not for the faults of him that suffereth them but for the sins of other are of two sorts for either they are the punishments of sinne eternally remayning in staine and guilt or broken off ceasing and repented of The punishments of sinne eternally remaining must according to the rules of diuine justice be eternall and consequently joyned with desperation which alwayes is found where there is an impossibility of any better estate for euer But it is no way necessary neither doth the iustice of God require that the punishments of sinne repented of ceasing and forsaken should bee euerlasting or ioyned with despaire For as the Diuines doe note that there are three thinges to bee considered in sinne The auersion from an infinite and incommutable good the inordinate conuersion to a finite good and the continuing in the same or ceasing from it so to these seuerall thinges in sinne there are three seuerall thinges answearing in the punishment of it For to the auersion which is obiectiuely infinite there answereth poena damni the losse of God which is an infinite losse To the inordinate conuersion of the sinner to thinges transitory there answereth poena sensus a sensible smart and griefe intensiuely finite as the pleasure the sinner taketh in the transitory thinges hee inordinately loueth is finite To the eternity of sin remayning euerlastingly in staine guilt or the continuance of it but for a time answereth the eternity of punishment or the suffering of the same but for a time It is true that euery sinner sinneth in suo aeterno as Saint Gregorie speaketh in that hee would sinne euer if hee might liue euer and that euery sinner casteth himselfe by sinning into an impossibility of euer ceasing to sin of himselfe as a man that casteth himselfe into a deepe pit canne neuer of himselfe rise out of it againe And therefore naturally eternity of punishment is due to sinne but if by force of Diuine operation men be framed to cease from sinne and to turne from it vnto God the Iustice of God requireth not eternity of punishment but onely extrâ—…mitie answerable to the grieuousnesse of sinne Wherefore seeing our Sauiour Christ suffered onely for those sinnes which he meant to breake off by framing the sinners to repentance it was no way necessary for the satisfying of diuine Iustice that hee should endure eternall punishment If it be sayd that all doe not repent nor cease from doing ill wee easily graunt it but it is likewise to be knowne that the satisfaction of Christ is not appliable to all sinners not through any defect in it selfe but through the incapacity of them to whom it should be applyed Soe that as Christ dyed and satisfied Gods wrath sufficiently for all but effectually onely for the elect and chosen soe likewise hee giueth grace to cease from sinne if the fault were not in themselues sufficiently to all But to the elect and chosen whom he foreknew before the world was made hee giueth grace effectually that his passion may be applyed vnto them and they really and indeede made partakers of it They seeme therefore to be deceiued who thinke that the excellencie of the person of Christ dispensed with the eternity of punishment which otherwise to satisfie diuine justice hee was to haue suffered and thereupon inferre that it might also dispense with the grieuousnesse and extremity of punishment that otherwise hee was to haue endured For the worth and excellency of his person was neither to dispense with the time nor grieuousnesse of his punishments but to make the passion of one auaileable for many Otherwise if it might haue dispensed with one degree of extremitie of punishment due to sinne it might also haue dispensed with two and consequently with all as Scotus aptly noteth though to another purpose These things being thus distinguished it is easie to answer that question that hath troubled many Whether Christ suffered all the punishments of sinne or not For wee may safely pronounce as I thinke that Christ suffered the whole generall punishment of sinne that onely excepted which is sinne or consequent vpon the inherence and eternity of sinne that is punished as remorse of conscience and desperation If any man shall goe further and aske whether to satisfie Gods justice Christ suffered the paines of hell or not it will be answered that he suffered not the paines of hell in specie or loco that is either in kind or place but some thinke that he suffered paines and punishments conformable and answerable to them in extremity that onely excepted which is sinne or consequent vpon the inherence and eternity of the sinne of such as are punished in hell Concerning poena sensus that is sensible smart and griefe Cardinall Cusanus a famous learned man is claerely of opinion that Christ suffered extremity of such paine answerable to that sensible smart and griefe that is indured in hell but the doubt is principally of the other kind of punishment named Poena damni which is the losse of God For the clearing of which point Scotus aptly obserueth diuers things For first he sheweth that punishment is the discernable want of some fitting good in an intellectuall nature and the presence of some euill in the same Secondly that the good that is in an intellectuall nature is of two sorts the one of vertue the other of sweete joyfull and pleasing delight and that though both these concurre sometimes as in the fruition of God in heauen wherein the perfection of vertue the fullnesse of joy and delight do meete together yea that though every thing that is vertuous be delightfull yet it is not so much the height of vertue as of delight that is to be judged happinesse Thirdly he inferreth from hence that there are two kinds of punishment consisting in the losse of God whereof the one is the want of that vertue whereby the soule is to be joyned and knit vnto God the other the want of that delight and pleasure that is to be found in God That the former is an evill of vnrighteousnesse sin may be called an obstinacy in sinne and is nothing else but sinne not remitted nor remoued Poena derelicta non inflicta that is no new euill brought in vpon the sinner but that left in him that hee wrought in himselfe The other is more properly named Poena damni or Damnum that is the punishment of losse or a losse
minde the distance and disproportion that we know to be betweene them and vs together with our dependance of them or subiection to them This kinde of feare causeth and produceth all acts of Reuerence Adoration It is found in the Angels and spirits of iust perfect men is more excellent then any other vertue The greatnesse that is found in thinges that are euill causeth a feare declining them as euill which is of diuerse sorts For first there is an Humane feare which maketh men more decline the losse of their liues good estates then the losse of the fauour of God Secondly there is a Mundane feare that causeth them to decline the disfauour of the world more then the displeasure of Almighty God and these two kindes of feare driue men from God but there are other kindes which driue them vnto God The first whereof is a Seruile feare that maketh men leaue the act of sinne both inward outward to auoid punishment though they retaine the loue liking of it The second is an Initiall feare that maketh them cast from them the very desire of sinning not out of the loue of God which they haue not yet attained vnto but out of the consideration of the wofull consequence of it and thirdly there is a Filiall feare proceeding from the loue of God causing vs to decline the offending of him whom we so dearely loue and of whom wee are so dearely loued more then any euill whatsoeuer The former kindes of feare that driue men from God could not bee found in Christ who was not onely nearely ioyned vnto God but God himselfe blessed for evermore for neither did hee prize life nor the fauour of the world that knew him not at any higher rate then was fit Of the later sorts of feare neither Seruile nor Initiall were in him that was free from all sinne and touching Filiall feare being well assured of his owne power in respect whereof it was impossible for him to be drawn to the committing of any euill though he had that part of it which standeth in declining the offence of GOD more then any euill in the world yet not that other that proceedeth from the consideration of the danger of being drawen therevnto so that hee could not feare lest hee should fall into sinne Besides all these kindes of feare whereof some driue men from God and some bring them to God there is another which is the ground of them all named Naturall feare which is the declining of any thing that is hurtfull or contrary to the desired good of him that feareth This Naturall feare as also the feare of Reuerence that part of Filiall feare that is the declining of sinne and the displeasing of God was found in Christ as all other sinlesse and harmelesse affections were For in the nature of man he reuerenced and adored the Maiesty of God his Father and with a Naturall feare declined death and the bitternesse of that cuppe he was to drinke of and with a Filiall feare declined the offending of God his Father more then hell it selfe But passing by the feare of Reuerence and that part of Filiall feare that was found in Christ concerning which there is no question among the Diuines that wee may the better discerne both what his Naturall feare was and in respect whereof wee must note that feare is first in respect of things which cannot bee auoided neither by resistance and encounter nor by flying from them which things though they may seeme rather to make an impression of sorrow then feare because in respect of their certainty they are rather apprehended as present then future yet for that wee know not experimentally how we shall bee afflicted with them and in what sort wee shall sustaine and beare them we may rightly be said to feare them Secondly in respect of such things as may be escaped or ouercome with a kinde of vncertainty of euent and danger of the issue Thirdly in respect of such as may be escaped or ouercome without any vncertainty of the euent or issue though not without great conflict and labour These kindes of Naturall feare thus distinguished it is easie to see what Christ feared and in what sort For first hee feared death and the stroke of the iustice of God his Father sitting on the Tribunall or Iudgement seate to punish the sinnes of men for whom hee stood forth to answere that day and secondly hee feared euerlasting destruction The former of these hee feared as things impossible to be escaped in respect of the resolution and purpose of God his Father that by his satisfactory death and suffering and no other way man should be deliuered The later hee feared that is declined as a thing he knew he should escape without all doubt or vncertainty of euent though not without conflicting with the temptations of Sathan and the enduring of many bitter and grieuous things for it was no otherwise possible for him hauing put himselfe into the communion of our nature to escape the swallowing vp of that gulfe into which wicked sinners sinke downe but by resisting the temptations of sinne that it might not enter into him by breaking off the same in others and by suffering whatsoeuer it had deserued But some man will say Beza teacheth that Christus veritus est succumbere absorberi à morte that is that Christ feared to sinke downe and to bee swallowed vp of death and consequently that he feared euerlasting destruction with an vncertainty of his escape from the same It is true that Beza saith that Christ feared to sinke downe and to bee swallowed vp of death yet doth not that follow whâ—…ch is alledged as a consequent of his saying nor any thing contrary to that hath beene said of vs. For whereas there is a double apprehension of reason in Christ the one named Superior that looketh into things with all circumstances the other Inferiour that presenteth to the minde of man some circumstances and not all Beza teacheth that Christ feared to sinke downe and to be swallowed vp of death that is that he so declined the swallowing gulfe of death out of which he saw no escape within the view of Inferiour reason presenting vnto him this hideous destroying euill in it owne nature endlesse without shewing the issue out of the same that yet notwithstanding simply he feared it not Superiour reason clearely shewing him the issue out of it This wil not seem strange vnto vs if we consider that in Christ euery faculty power part was suffered notwithstaÌ„ding the perfectioÌ„ found in some other to do that which properly pertained to it from hence it is easie to discerne how it came to passe that Christ should desire and pray for that which he knew should neuer be granted as namely that the cup of death might passe from him For the sense of nature Inferiour reason presented death the ignominie of the Crosse vnto him
at this day it is receiued in all the Churches of the world without contradiction though there be some question touching the meaning of it Bellarmine reckoneth three opinions of Protestants differently vnderstanding the same whereof the first is that to descēd into hell is to be vtterly annihilated brought to nothing the second that it is to suffer the paines of hell and the third that it is nothing else but his buriall Of these three opinions imputed by Bellarmine to the Protestants the first is nothing but his owne fancy neuer dreamed of by any Protestant For who euer professing himselfe a Christian thought that to goe downe into hell is to be vtterly extinct and to be no more But saith he Brentius bringeth in Christ speaking in this sort I will descend into hell I will feele the paines of hell seeme vtterly to perish therefore he is of that opinion whatsoeuer others are A strange thing it is that men of learning iudgement should so forget themselues as this Cardinall often doth saying hee knoweth not what For doth he vtterly cease to be that feeleth the paines of Hell or doe not the wicked perish is not their estate in holy Scripture described to be euerlasting perdition hee knoweth right well it is yet I thinke dareth not from thence inferre that they are vtterly extinct and haue no more beeing if he doe we will not feare to brand him with the marke of impiety and intollerable ignorance for the wicked are said vtterly to perish not by losing all being but all good desirable happy being If Brentius escape his hands hee hath good hope to conuince Caluine of this errour and so still to lay vpon vs the heauy imputation of so damnable impiety Caluine hath written a Booke called Psychopanychia the drift whereof is to proue that the soules spirits of men sleepe not after death but liue either in paine or rest out of this booke the Cardinall presumeth that he shall bee able to proue that the soules spirits of wicked men are vtterly extinct and haue no more beeing An ill chosen booke in my opinion for such a purpose the whole drift thereof being to demonstrate the contrary of that hee vndertaketh to proue out of it Yet let vs see how he goeth about to conuince the Author of this booke of that errour which throughout the same he laboureth to confute His first demonstration is this Caluine proueth at large in that booke that the wicked doe liue for euer though in paine torment therefore he thinketh that to goe downe into hell is to be vtterly extinct and to haue no more beeing Astrange illation such as perhaps will not satisfie all therefore let vs heare another for he hath store of proofes Caluine in the same booke laboureth to proue that the Spirits of iust men are not extinguished but that they liue remaine for euer because that Christs soule was not extinguished in his death but remained still liued after death That Christs soule was not extinguished in his death he strongly demonstrateth because it was so commended into the handes of his Father that it could not perish so as the wicked doe who are swallowed vp of hell destruction and yet still remaine and liue for euer If this demonstration satisfie vs not what will Christs soule was so kept by GOD the Father to whom it was commended that it could not perish at all no not so as the wicked doe who yet are not extinct but liue for euer in bitter sense of woe misery much lesse be extinct vtterly cease to be therefore Christs descension into hell was an vtter extinction These must be the Cardinals proofes if hee will bring any out of that booke to conuince Caluine of that errour wherewith he chargeth him But he knoweth right well that neither these nor any other that he doth or can produce out of the same conclude any such thing as he intendeth and therefore let the Reader know that the Cardinall neuer perswaded himselfe that either Brentius or Caluine or any other Protestant was of that opinion with which he chargeth them but that he sought onely to abuse his Reader and therefore that which in vile hypocrisy he saith of Caluine Brentius that they bring in Atheisme by these their impious damnable assertions may be verified of himselfe and other his consorts who by their shamelesse lying hellish slaundering wrong both God and men and bring all Religion into horrible contempt Wherefore leauing these Hellish Diuellish slaunderers to Gods most righteous and fearefull Iudgements touching the descending of Christ into hell it is true that Saint Augustine saith None but an Infidell will deny it for it is one of the Articles of our Christian Faith But how we are to vnderstand this his descending it is not so certaine Wherevpon wee shall finde that there are presently three opinions in the Church concerning the same For some vnderstand by the name of Hell the place of dead bodies and the dominion of death holding soule body asunder turning the body forsaken of the soule into rottennesse corruption These do so interprete this Article as that they vnderstand nothing else by Christs descending into Hell but his going downe into the chambers of death and his three dayes continuance in the places of darknesse vnder the dominion thereof Others vnderstand by the name of Hell the paines of Hell and thinke that Christs descending into Hell was nothing else but the suffering of hellish pains in his Soule in the time of his Agonie in the Garden and in the houre of his death vpon the Crosse. A third sort there are that vnderstand by the name of Hell into which in this Article Christ is said to haue descended the receptacles and places appointed for the soules of men after this life sequestred from the presence of God and not admitted into Heauen These places the Romanists imagine to be foure Of which the first is the Hell of the damned wherein wicked Cast-awayes impenitent sinners are punished not onely with the losse of the sight of God but with sense also of smart miserie that for euer The second is by them named Limbus puerorum where Infants dying vnbaptized and in the state of originall sin are supposed to be holden for euer exiled from the presence of God his holy ones yet without all sensible smart or paine The third they imagine is Purgatory where they thinke the soules of good but yet imperfect men are punished till they haue satisfied the wrath of God for sins committed in the time of their life but not sufficiently repented of nor satisfied for while they liued The fourth place imagined by thē is Limbus patrum wherein the soules of Abraham Isaack and Iacob and all the just were holden till the comming of Christ and kept from the sight and presence of God yet without all sensible
and tying them to the performance of certaine duties Secondly of sinnes Thirdly of punishments to be inflicted by Almighty God and Fourthly of punishments to be inflicted by men The bond of Lawes is of two sorts For there are diuine lawes and there are humane Lawes God bindeth men to the doing of what hee pleaseth and Men that are in authority either Ciuill or Ecclesiasticall to such things as they thinke fit Touching these bonds none haue power to loose but they that haue power to binde so that what God by precept bindeth vs to doe none but God can free vs from the necessity duty of doing it and what the Church or Magistrate binde vs to no inferiour power can loose vs or free vs from Loosing in this sense opposed to binding by law and precept is in two sorts By Reuocation and by Dispensation Reuocation is an absolute Abrogation of a Law in respect of all places times persons and conditions and that either by expresse and direct Repeale or by generall neglect and long continued disuse Dispensation is in respect of certaine persons times places and conditions of Men thinges so that a dispensation permitting the Law to retaine her wonted authority onely freeth some particular person or persons at some times in some places and in some condition of thinges from the necessity of doing or leauing vndone that which vnlesse it be in consideration of such particular circumstances the Law-giuer meant should be obserued but in such cases not so Heere the question is moued by occasion of that kinde of loosing which is by reuersing Lawes formerly in force whether God the giuer of the morall Law may revoke the same and dispense with men for the not doing of things there prescribed of the doing of things there forbidden The answere is that these Lawes are imposed vpon men by the very condition of their nature and creation as the very condition and nature of a man created by GOD requireth that he should honour loue feare and reuerence him that made him and therefore touching the precepts of the first Table that concerning the Sabaoth excepted it is cleare and euident that they cannot be altered nor Man by God himselfe discharged from the duty of honouring loving and fearing God so long as he hath any beeing Touching the precepts of the second Table it is resolued that GOD cannot dispense with man or giue him leaue to doe the thinges therein forbidden as to steale murther or lie For all these imply and involue in them that which is simply euill and to bee disliked but by some alteration in the doer or matter of action he may make that not to bee euill that otherwise would bee euill and consequently not forbidden as namely that to bee no theft or murther which otherwise would be as when hee commanded the Israelites to spoyle the Aegyptians they did not commit the act of robbery for robbery is the taking away of a thing from the owner against his will but these thinges which the Israelites tooke away were the Aegyptians no longer after God the supreme Lord had spoyled them of the title they had therevnto and assigned the same to the Israelites So likewise for one man to take away the life of another hauing no authority so to doe is murther and no man can be dispensed with lawfully to doe any such act but for a Magistrate to take away the life of an offender is a lawfull act and no act of murther and so if Abraham had slaine his sonne Isaac it had not beene murther being authorized so to doe by God who hath supreme authority in the world and may justly as a Iudge for sinne found in men take away the liues of whom he pleaseth and as supreme and absolute Lord bring all to nothing that for his wills sake he made of nothing though there were no sinne nor fault at all But touching Ceremoniall Iudiciall and Positiue Lawes of God concerning Sacraments and obseruations of what kinde soeuer seeing they are imposed after vpon the being of nature wee thinke that God may alter them at his pleasure so that at one time it may bee lawfull to doe that was forbidden at another The Gouernours that God hath set ouer his Church and people by commission from him may interprete what is doubtfull in these Lawes of God or in those of the other sort but yet according to the Law but they may not abrogate or dispense with any Law of God either naturall and morall or positiue established concerning the vse of Sacraments and things pertaining to Gods worship and seruice But concerning those Lawes that were made by the Apostles and Primitiue Fathers touching matters of outward obseruation the succeeding Guides of the Church may either dispense with them or reverse them vpon the due consideration of the difference of times Men and things And so wee see to whom it pertaineth to binde men with their lawes and to loose them from the bonds thereof The bond of sin which is the second kinde of those bonds I mentioned is two-fold for there is Vinculum captivitatis and Vinculum servitutis that is a man that is a sinner is so bound that hee can neither returne to doe good nor leaue off to doe euill for sinne holdeth him in a bond of captivitie that hee shall not returne to doe good and with a bond of seruitude that he shall not cease to doe euill And though God hath so ordered the nature of Man that hee who will doe euill shall thus bee entangled yet it is man that thus entangleth wrappeth and bindeth himselfe and not God But for the bond of eternall condemnation and the punishments following euill doers which is the third kinde of those bonds wherewith I shewed that men are tyed and bound it is of GOD. From these bonds of sin and punishment inflicted by GOD none but hee alone can free men by his fauour and the worke of his grace as the supreme and highest cause none but Christ by Merite Satisfaction The Ministers of the Church by the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments may convert Men to God instrumentally making them partakers of his graces bringing thē into such an estate wherein they shall be sure for Christs sake to finde mercie with GOD for the remission taking away of their sinnes They may pray for them and out of the knowledge of their estate assure them of remission But other power to vnloose and vntie these direfull horrible bonds of sinne and punishment they haue none only the punishments which they haue power to inflict they haue authoritie to diminish lessen or take away so that whom they bind with the bonds of Ecclesiasticall censures punishments those by the same authoritie they may vnloose For as the Guides of Gods Church may prescribe enjoyne and impose certaine actions of Mortification and penitentiall conversion vnto GOD so when they see cause they may release from the same as by
Simeon and Leui Priest-hood and knight-hood Bishoply power and that which is Princely must rise vp together for the rescuing of Dinah their sister out of the hands of him that seeketh to dishonour her Vi charitatis etsi non authoritatis that is By force of charity though not of authority So that according to his opinion the chiefe Ministers of the Church inuest the Princes of the world with their royall authority according to the saying of Hugo but giue them not their authority they may iudge of the actions of Princes but they may not praeiudicare they may not preiudice Princes They may in the time of neede come to the succour and in the time of danger reach forth the helping hand to the ciuill state shaken by the negligence or malice of ciuill princes but it must bee by way of charity not of authority as likewise the ciuill state may and ought to bee assistant to the Ecclesiasticall in like danger defect or failing of the Ecclesiasticall ministers The next argument that our Aduersaries bring is taken from a comparison between the soule and body expressing the difference betweene the ciuill and Ecclesiasticall state found as they say in Gregory Nazianzen But that we may the better vnderstand the force of this argument we must obserue that in the comparison which they bring they make the Ecclesiasticall state and spirituall power like the spirit and diuine faculties thereof and the ciuill state like the flesh with the senses and sensitiue appetite thereof And as in Angels there is spirit without flesh in bruit beasts flesh and sense without spirit and in man both these conjoyned so they will haue vs graunt that there is sometimes Ecclesiasticall power without ciuill as in the Apostles times and longe after sometimes ciuill without Ecclesiasticall as among the heathen and sometimes these two conjoyned together And as when the spirit and flesh meete in one the spirit hath the command and though it suffer the flesh to do all those things which it desireth vnlesse they be contrary to the intendments designes ends of it yet when it findeth them to be contrary it may and doth command the fleshly part to surcease from her owne actions yea it maketh it to fast watch and do and suffer many grieuous and afflictiue things euen to the weakning of it selfe Soe in like manner they would inferre that the Ecclesiasticall state being like to the spirit and soule and the ciuill to the body of flesh the Church hath power to restraine and bridle ciuill Princes if they hinder the spirituall good thereof not onely by censures Ecclesiasticall but outward inforcement also This is the great and grand argument our Aduersaries bring to proue that Popes may depose Princes wherein first wee may obserue their folly in that they bring similitudes which serue only for illustration and not for probation for the maine confirmation of one of the principall points of their faith which whosoeuer denyeth sinneth in as high a degree as Marcellinus that sacrificed vnto Idols and Peter that denied his maister Secondly we see how much Princes are beholding vnto them that compare them to bruit beasts and at the best to the brutish part that is in men common to them with bruit beastes If they say Nazianzen so compareth them they are like themselues and speake vntruly for he compareth not Princes Priestes to spirit and flesh but going about to shew the difference of the objectes of their power maketh the spirit to be the obiect of the one of thē the flesh of the other Not as if Princes were to take no care of the welfare of the soules of their subjects as well as of their bodies but because the immediate procuring of the soules good is by preaching ministration of the Sacraments Discipline which the Prince is to procure and to see wel performed but not to administer these things himselfe as also because the coactiue power the Prince hath extendeth onely to the body and not to the soule as the Ecclesiasticall power of binding and loosing doth Thirdly we may obserue that if this similitude should proue any thing it would proue that the ciuill state among Christians hath no power to do any act whatsoeuer but by the command or permission of the Ecclesiasticall For so it is between the spirit the body sensitiue faculties that shew themselues in it The Philosophers note that there is a double regiment in man the one politicall or ciuill the other despoticall the one like the authority of Princes ouer their subjects that are freemen the other like the authority of Lords ouer their bondmen and slaues The former is of reason in respect of sensitiue appetite which by perswasion it may induce to surcease to desire that which it discerneth to be hurtfull but cannot force it so to doe the other of reason and the will in respect of the loco-motiue facultie and this absolute so that if reason cannot winne a desisting from desire in the inferiour powers that shew themselues in the body yet the will may command the loco-motiue faculty either cause al outward action to cease how earnestly soeuer sensitiue desire carry vnto it or to bee performed how much soeuer it resist against it as it may commaund and force the drinking of a bitter potion which the appetite cannot be wonne vnto and the rejecting putting from vs those things that are most desired Neither can the appetite and sensitiue faculties performe any of their actions without the consent of the will reason For if the will commaund the eyes are closed vp and see nothing the eares are stopped and heare nothing how much soeuer the appetite desire to see and heare Neither onely haue the soules higher powers this commaund ouer the inferiour faculties in respect of things that may further and hinder their own good and perfection as they may command to watch or fast for the prevention and mortification of sin but they may also at their pleasure hinder the whole course of the actions of the outward man withdraw all needfull things from the body and depriue it euen of life it selfe though there be no cause at all so to doe So that if the comparison of the ciuill and Ecclesiasticall state to the soule and body do hold from thence may it be inferred that the Church hath power to commaund in all things pertaining to the common-wealth and that the ciuill magistrates haue none at all For the lower faculties neither haue nor ought to haue any commaund further then they are permitted by the superiour neither can they doe any thing contrary to the liking of the superiour though neuer so just reasonable And so we see how silly a thing it is to reason from these similitudes and that they that so do build vpon the sands so that all the frame of their building commeth to the ground The third reason brought by our Adversaries is this
a pilgrime and so going to Rome with this Hildebrand in his company by his aduice counsell found the meanes to get himselfe chosen Pope by the Clergy and people of Rome Leo dyed and Gebehardus afterwards named Victor succeeded him and Stephen him about whose time Henry the third dyed Henry the fourth his sonne succeeded him and after Stephen Benedict and Nicholas Alexander gate the papall See against whom great exception was taken for that contrary to the custome hee was chosen without the Emperours consent and with the liking of the yong Emperor and his mother as some report Another was set vp by the Bishops of Lombardy affirming that no man might be chosen or designed to the Popedome without the Emperours allowance And besides Anno Arch-bishop of Coleyn went to Rome to expostulate the matter with Alexander and the Cardinals adhering to him and to know of him how he durst contrary to custome and the law prescribed and imposed anciently vpon the Popes assume the Popedome without the consent of the Emperour alleaging many things to shew the vnlawfulnesse of this fact and beginning at Charles the great hee named many Emperours who had either chosen or confirmed Popes and made good their election But being ready to go forward and to adde more proofes vnto that which he had said Hildebrand the Arch-deacon the whole company of Cardinals beckening vnto him so to doe stood vp and answered in this sort Arch-bishop Anno the Kings and Emperours of Rome neuer had any authority right or commanding power in the choyce of the Pope and if at any time any thing were done violently or disorderly it was afterwards corrected and set right againe by the censure of the Fathers After the death of Alexander this Hildebrand who thus euer opposed himselfe against the Emperours claimes was by the Romanes chosen Pope without the Emperours consent Which the Bishops of France vnderstanding knowing well of how violent seuere and vntractable a disposition hee was vnwilling to haue him possesse so high a place in the Church told the Emperour that if hee did not in time preuent the matter and voyd his election greater euils and perils would beset him then he could at first thinke of Whereupon he sent Embassadours to Rome to know the cause why the Romanes contrary to the ancient custome had chosen a Pope without his consent And if they gaue not satisfaction to put Hildebrand from the Papal dignity which he had vniustly gotten The Embassadours comming to Rome were kindly and courteously entertained and when they had deliuered their message Hildebrand like a vile dissembling hypocrite contrary to his owne practise and that which he had perswaded other vnto answered that hee neuer sought this honor but that it was put vpon him and that yet hee would not accept of it till by a certaine Embassadour hee was assured that not onely the Emperour but the Princes of Germany consented to his election Which answer when the Emperour receiued hee was fully satisfied and with all readinesse by his royall consent confirmed his election and commanded that he should be ordained Thus wee see how to serue his owne turne he could now acknowledge the Emperours interest and refuse to be ordained before hee had obtained his confirmation which yet before in the case of Alexander he disclaimed though a some say hee neuer yeelded so much to the Emperour but euer held out against him disclaiming his intermedling and that a most horrible schisme ensued thereupon Howsoeuer he was no sooner Pope but he began to molest the Emperour challenging him for Symony in conferring Ecclesiasticall dignities and requiring him to come to some Synodall answer which when he refused to doe he excommunicated him depriued him of his Empire and absolued his subiects froÌ„ their Oath of obedience This was the first Pope that euer presumed to depose any Emperour Lego relego saith Otho Frisingensis Romanorum Regum Imperatorum gesta nusquam invenio quenquam eoâ—…um ante hunc à Romano Pontifice excommunicatum vel regno privatum nisi fortè quis pro anathemate habendum ducat quod Philippus ad breve tempus à Romano Pontifice inter poenitentes collocatus Theodosius à beato Ambrosio propter cruentam caedem à liminibus Ecclesiae sequestratus sit that is I reade and I reade ouer againe and againe the Acts of the Romane Kings and Emperours and I no where finde any of them before this excommunicated by the Romane Bishop or depriued of his kingdome unlesse haply any man doe thinke that is to be taken for an excoÌ„munication that Philip was for a short time put among the Penitents by the Bishop of Rome and Theodosius for his bloudy murther stopped by blessed Ambrose from entring into the Church And therefore whatsoeuer Gregory pretendeth to the contrary professing that hee treadeth in the steps of the Saints and his holy predecessours yet it is true that Sigebert saith which hee hopeth hee may say with the leaue of all good men that this novelty that hee say not heresie had not shewed it self in the world in their time that the Priests of that God which maketh hypocrites to reigne for the sins of his people should teach his people that they owe no subiectioÌ„ to wicked Kings and that they owe no feaulty vnto them though they haue taken the oath of feaulty that they are free froÌ„ periury that lift vp their hands against the king to whoÌ„ they haue sworne that they are to be taken for excoÌ„municate persons that do obey him What horrible confusioÌ„s followed vpon this censure of Gregory Otho Frisingensis reporteth in most tragicall manner His wordes are these How great euils how many warres and dangers of warres followed thence How often was miserable Rome besieged taken and sacked How one Pope was intruded vpon another as likewise one King set vp against another it is irksome to me to remember To conclude the whirle-winde of this tempest inwrapped in it so many euils so many schismes so many perils of the soules and bodies of men that it alone may suffise in respect of the cruelty of the persecutioÌ„ and the long continuance of the time thereof to set before our eyes the infelicity of mans miserable conditioÌ„ For first the Emperour offended with the Pope for molesting him about the Investitures of Bishoppes which his Predecessours anciently had and enjoyed and the Clergy discontented with him for his forbidding marriage hee was in an assembly of the States and Bishops of Germany holden at Wormes deposed a letter written to him requiring him no longer to meddle with the Episcopall Office But such was the resolutioÌ„ and stoutnesse of this turbulent vnquiet spirit that being encouraged by certain Bishops of Germany promised their aide helpe he depriued the Bishops that had giuen sentence against him and deposed Henry the Emperour absoluing his subiects froÌ„ their Oath of obedience Whereupon
Catholicarum quam plurimum scripturarum solertissimus indagator authoritatem sequatur inter quas fanè illae sunt quas Apostolica sedes habere ab eâ alij meruerunt accipere epistolas So that whereas Saint Augustine saith that in reckoning the Canonicall bookes of Scripture a man must follow the authority of the greater number of Catholique Churches and among them especially such as either had Apostolicall seates as Hierusalem and the like or receiued Epistles from some of the Apostles as did the Churches of Corinth and Galatia Gratian maketh him say that the Epistles which the Apostolicall See receiued or other receiued of it are to be reckoned among Canonicall Scriptures This ouersight of Gratian Picus Mirandula long since obserued and after him Alfonsus a Castro whereby wee may see how easie it was for men in former times to runne into most grosse errors before the reuiuing of learning in these latter times while the blinde did lead the blinde For Gratian was the man out of whom the greatest Diuines of former times tooke all their authorities of Fathers and Councles as appeareth by their marginall quotations And how ignorantly and negligently he mistooke them mis-alleaged thē this one example is proof sufficient But whatsoeuer we think of Gratian we shall find that not only our Diuines but the best learned among our aduersaries also put a greatdifference between the sacred scriptures of the holy Canon and the Decrees of Councels For first they say the Scripture is the word of God reuealed immediately and written in a sort from his owne mouth according to that of S. Peter the holy men of God spake as they were moued by the holie Ghost And that of S. Paul All Scripture is by diuine inspiration which is not so to be vnderstood as if alwaies the holy Writers had had new reuelations and had alwayes written that which before they were ignorant of for it is certaine that the Euangelists Mathew and Iohn wrote those things which they saw and Marke and Luke those things they heard from others as Luke himselfe confesseth in the beginning of his Gospel But the holy writers are therefore said to haue had immediate reuelation and to haue written the words of God himselfe because either some new things and not knowne before were reuealed to them by God or because God immediately inspired and moued the Writers to write those things which they had seene and heard and directed them that they should not any way erre in writing whereas Councels neither haue nor write immediate reuelations or words of God but only declare which is that word of God vttered formerly to the Prophets and Apostles how it is to bee vnderstood and what conclusions may bee deduced from it by discourse of reason Secondly the holy Writers performed that which they did without any further labour or trauell then that in writing and calling to minde what they had seene and heard but in Councels the Bishoppes and Fathers with great paine and trauell seeke out the trueth by discourse conference reading and deepe meditation and therefore the holy Writers are wont to attribute all to God onely and the Prophets were wont often to repeate The Lord sayth Thirdly in the Scriptures not onethe whole sentences but euery word pertaineth to Faith for no word is therein vaine or ill placed But in Councels there are many disputations going before resolution many reasons brought for confirmation of things resolued on many things added for explication and illustration many things vttered obiter and in passage that men are not bound to admitte as true and right nay many things are defined in Councels that men are not bound to stand vnto For it is the manner of Councels sometimes to define a thing as certainely and vndoubtedly true pronouncing them Heretiques that thinke otherwise and subiecting them to curse Anathema and sometimes as probable onely and not certaine as the Councell of Vienna decreed that it is more probable that both grace and vertues accompanying grace are infused into Infants when they are baptized then that they are not and yet is this no matter faith in the Church of Rome Fourthly in the scripture all things as well concerning particular persons as in generality are vndoubtedly true For it is as certaine that Peter and Paul had the spirit of God as that no man can be saued without the illumination and sanctification of the spirit but in the determinations and decrees of Bishoppes assembled in a generall councell it is not so for they may erre in iudging of the persons of men and therefore there is no absolute certainty in the canonization of Saints as both Thomas and Canus do confesse Fiftly in Scriptures there are no precepts touching manners either concerning the whole church or any part of it that are not right equall and just But councels may erre if not in prescribing things euill in stead of good yet in prescribing things not fitting nor expedient if not to the whole church yet to some particular part of it as not knowing the cōdition of things therein Yea some there are that think it not hereticall to beleeue that generall councels may prescribe some lawes to the whole church that are not right profitable and iust as to honour such a one for a Saint who indeed is no Saint to admit such orders of Religious men as are not profitable to receiue the communion onely in one kinde and the like And there are many that confidently pronounce that generall councells may decree such things as may breed inconuenience and may sauour of too great seuerity and austerity which the guides of the church in the execution of the same must bee forced to qualifie and temper So that the onely question is whether a generall councell may certainely define any thing to bee true in matter of faith that is false or command the doing of any act as good and an act of vertue that indeed and in trueth is an act of sinne Touching this point there are that say that all interpretations of holy Scriptures agreed on in generall councels and all resolutions of doubtes concerning things therein contained proceed from the same Spirit from which the holy Scriptures were inspired and that therefore generall councels cannot erre either in the interpretation of Scriptures or resoluing of things doubtfull concerning the faith But these men should know that though the interpretations and resolutions of Bishops in generall councels proceed from the same Sperit from which the Scriptures were inspired yet not in the same sort nor with like assurance of beeing free from mixture of errour For the Fathers assembled in generall councels doe not rely vppon immediate reuelation in all their particular resolutions and determinations as the Writers of the Bookes of holy Scripture did but on their owne meditation search and study the generall assistance of Diuine grace concurring with them That the Fathers
so doe least which once to thinke is impious shee make CHRIST himselfe an adulterer to whome shee marryeth her husband yet liuing After this refutation of their reasons hee goeth forward to shew the absurd consequences of their opinion By this inconsiderate opinion saith he of them that thinke the marriages of women falne from an holy purpose if they doe marry to bee voide not a little euill is brought forth for from hence it commeth that women are separated from their husbands as adulteresses and not wiues And while they thus separate them and force them to containe they make their husbands truely and indeede adulterers when as these their wiues yet liuing they marry Thus doth Austine resolue that mariages after vowes made to the contrary are lawfull and good though the not performing of vowed continency is a sinne as hee thinketh more grieuous then adultery not for that the mariage of such is to bee condemned but because the inconstancie in not performing that was purposed and the violating of the vow are condemned Non susceptio à bono inferiori sed ruina ex bono superiori not for that they doe a lesser good but because they fall from a greater Lastly not for that they afterwardes maryed but for that they violated their first faith of continency Which thing that the Apostle might briefly insinuate hee would not say that they haue damnation which marry after the purpose of a more high degree of sanctity not for that they are not to be disliked that so do but least their mariage it selfe might seem to be condemned but when hee had saide they will marry hee by and by addeth Hauing condemnation and expresseth why Because they haue broken their first faith That it may appeare that the Will which fell from a former purpose is condemned and reproued whether mariage follow or not If any man doubt whether Saint Austine were the Author of this booke De bono viduitatis wherein these things are found as some doe and consequently whether he were of the opinion wee haue recited or not hee may easily know that this is Saint Augustines judgement whether this be his booke or not by his Epistle to one Bonifacius who had vowed a monasticall retyred and single life and yet afterwards did marry whom hee telleth hee cannot now as otherwise hee would exhort to that kind of life which he had formerly vowed because of his wife so that he thought not his mariage voyde or that he was to be separated from his wife His wordes are these Thy wife hindereth mee that I cannot exhort thee to this kind of life without whose consent it is not lawfull for thee to containe c. And else-where speaking of certaine women who abode not in that which they had first vowed which had a desire of mariage but maried not for feare of disgrace he saith It were better for them to marry then to burne that is then to bee wasted with the secret flame of the conscience in lust And Hierome also is of the same opinion For speaking to a certaine virgine that had priuately vowed virginity and that could not endure the straight keeping of her mothers house he hath these words If thou be a virgine why dost thou feare carefull and diligent keeping If thou be corrupted why dost thou not openly marry This is as a board to swimme out on after shipwracke So should'st thou temper that which thou begannest ill by vsing this remedy Neither truely doe I say this for that I take away repentance after sin that so that which is ill begun may still continue but for that I despaire of drawing of you from that ill company into which you are entered And in his Epistle to Demetriades he hath these wordes The ill name and report of some that behaue not themselues well disgraceth and dishonoureth the holy purpose of virgins and obscureth and blemisheth the glory of the Heauenly and Angel-like family who must bee plainely and peremptorily vrged and required either to marry if they cannot containe or to containe if they will not marry To these we may adde Epiphanius who indeede maketh it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a thing euill and such as God will judge and punish to forget neglect and not to performe a vowe made to God but not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a thing that casteth men into the condemnation of hell fire and plungeth them into euerlasting destruction as to liue in adultery Who defendeth that it is better to descend to that state of life which is lawfull and honourable with one fault of breaking the vow passed to the contrary and with teares of repentance to wash away the impurity of that one fault of inconstancy and so to bee saued then to liue in sinne continually and so to perish So that though hee thinke it a fault for a man to promise a course of continencie to GOD by vowe and not to performe it yet hee thinketh it better for a man after this one fault committed which may bee repented of and forgiuen to marry then by liuing in continuall adultery to adde one sinne vnto another and to plunge himselfe into endlesse destruction Hugo de sancto victore maketh two constructions of the wordes of Saint Austine before alleadged Whereof the one is that hee speaketh of secret vowes whereof the Church canne take no knowledge because there is no witnesse of them and that Saint Austines meaning is that mariages after such vowes are to bee reputed good by the Church The other is that the Church in the time of Austine allowed mariages after a vowe made to the contrary but that now the same Church for consideratiōs her mouing hath determined otherwise and by her authority made them voyd The former of these constructions is too weake and cannot be allowed For that Austine thinketh mariage is lawfull and good after knowne vowes made to the contrary it is euident by his Epistle to Bonifacius whom he blameth for breaking his vow whereof himselfe and Alipius were witnesses and yet alloweth his mariage as also for that in the place interpreted by Hugo hee sheweth that some who were of another judgement as indeed we finde Innocentius Bishop of Rome to haue beene dissolued mariages after vowes made to the contrary which they would not nor could not haue done if those vowes had beene altogether secret vnknowne Neither doth that hee saith in the 2d place any better avoyd the cleare euidence of Saint Austines judgment then the first For no difference of times and conditions of men and thinges canne so change the nature of vowes and mariages as that a vowe at one time should make voyd an ensuing mariage and not at another Others therefore there bee who goe about to avoide the euidence of the authorites of Austine and the Fathers brought to proue the validity of mariage after vowes made to the contrary by making a distinction of vowes
vttermost farthing let him attaine the life of immortality with thee The 3◠Receiue the soule of thy seruant which thou leadest out of the dirty miry gulfe of this world to the heauenly coūtry receiue it into the bosome of Abrahā be-dew it with the dew of refreshing let it be kept apart from the cruell burning of the fiery flaming hell The 4◠Graunt that thy seruant may escape the place of punishment the fire of hel the flames af the lowest gulfe The like may bee shewed in the rest for they are all framed to the same purpose forthe escaping of hel the power of the Prince of darknes the deuouring gulfe of eternall condemnation al which things in the judgment of our Aduersaries thēselues are granted vnto men dying in the faith of Christ state of grace in the very entrance into the other world and the first instant of the next life so that all the prayers that wee finde in the auncient were made respectiuely to the passing hence entrance into the other world with desire of the Resurrection and perfect consummation which we expect in the last day and because this passage is often past they that are departed already entred into their rest before their friends whom they leaue behinde them canne send so many good wishes after them as they desire it was an ordinary thing with the Auncient in their prayers to acknowledge and professe they were perswaded the thing was already granted and performed which they desired and to beseech GOD notwithstanding to accept their voluntary deuotions good affections In this sort Augustine prayeth for Monica his Mother That God will keepe her from the powers and Princes of darkenesse and remit her sinnes And yet saith Hee beleeueth it is already done that hee asketh So Nazianzen professeth his assured perswasion that Caesarius is with God and yet commendeth him to God And the like wee finde in Ambrose touching Valentinian By all which it is euident that the Auncient prayed not to deliuer the departed out of Purgatorie or any estate of temporall affliction but on their obite dayes acknowledged the goodnesse of God towards them preuenting all desires of men declared their readinesse to entreate for them if they were in neede or danger and not past before they could send their good wishes after them and expressed their desires of the perfecting and accomplishing of all that which is yet wanting to them And as the Auncient were wont to pray for their brethren and friends on the dayes of their obites and the deposition of their bodies respectiuely to their passage hence and the escaping of the daungers of hell and eternall death in the same so in like sort in processe of time in those dayes wherein their obites were remembred and by returne of times represented to them they vsed the same forme of prayer againe as if they had beene but euen then in the passage hence and in danger of hell and the powers of darkenesse But as on the dayes of the birth circumcision apparition passion resurrection and ascension of Christ for so wee call the dayes answering to these representing them to vs signes and remembrances carrying the names of the things themselues men so speake asif God did then send his Sonne into the world to be borne of a woman to be made vnder the Law to suffer ouercome and triumph ouer death by ascending into Heaven to take possession thereof for vs and yet meane not as the wordes may seeme to import that Christ doth newly take flesh and is borne of the Virgin c. But that he is borne vnto vs and wee made partakers of the benefits of his birth circumcision passion c. So in the dayes wherein they remembred the obites of their brethren and friends as then present and prayed for them as then in passage hence and in danger to be swallowed vp of hell destruction they desired not that which the words may seeme to import for that was granted to them on their dying dayes or else they are vncapable of it for euer but that which is yet wanting to them In which sense the wordes of that prayer in the Masse-booke must bee vnderstood Lord Iesus King of glory deliuer the soules of all faithfull ones departed from the hand of hell and from the deepe lake deliuer them from the mouth of the Lyon that the lowest hell swallow them not vp and that they fall not into the dungeons of vtter darkenesse but let thy Standard-bearer holy Michael present them into the place of holy Light which of old thou diddest promise to Abraham and to his seede For these dangers of falling into the deepe lake the mouth of the Lyon the dungeons of vtter darkenesse and being swallowed vp of the lowest Hell the dead in Christ escaped in the day and time of their dissolution neither is there any thing to be wished farther vnto them in this behalfe but that publicke acquitall and full and perfect escape in the day of Iudgement according to that other prayer found in the Missall O gracious God which calledst backe the first man to eternall glory O good shepheard which broughtest backe the lost sheepe vpon thy shoulder to the folde Righteous Iudge when thou shalt come to Iudge deliuer from death the soules of them whom thou hast redeemed Deliuer not the soules of them which confesse vnto thee vnto the beasts forsake them not for euer In all these prayers there is no word of petition for the deliuerance of the dead out of any paines or punishments but for their escaping avoyding declining and not falling into hell eternall condemnation the power of Satan and the mouth of the Lyon It is true that some long since began to pray to deliuer men out of paines and punishments or to suspend mitigate and ease their paines but in such sort as the Romanists dare not pray It was an opiniō of many whootherwisewere right beleeuers that all Christians professing the truth in Christ how ill soeuer they liue shall bee saued in the end Frustrà nonnulli saith S. Augustine immò quamplurimi aeternam damnatorū poenam cruciatus sine intermissione perpetuos humano miserantur affectu atque ita futurumesse non credunt that is there are some nay there are exceeding many who out of an humane affection commiserate the eternall punishments of the damned and their torments that are without ceasing these men thought the sayings of CHRIST and his Apostles concerning the eternall punishments of the wicked were vttered rather minacitèr then veracitèr and that they rather shew what men according to their deseruing should suffer then what indeede they shall suffer Hence it came that many did pray for the deliuerance of men out of hell that died in mortall sinne This opinion Damascene followed and whereas the Prophet asketh Who shall confesse vnto thee O Lord in hell he
what is yet wanting to the faithfull departed or to such as are aliue at the suite supplication of the holy Patriarches Prophets Apostles c. For seeing it is confessed by vs that the Saints in heauen doe pray for vs in a generality we may desire of God the graunting of such things as we or others need not only vpon our own suite but much more for that there are so many supplyants to him for vs not in earth alone but in heauen also though without sence or knowledge of our particular wantes So that there is nothing found in Chrysostome either touching prayer for the dead or invocation of Saints that maketh any thing for the confirmation of popish errours For neither doth Chrysostome in that Liturgie pray for the ease of men in Purgatorie neither doth he inuocate any Saint but calleth vpon God onely though not without hope of being heard the rather for that not onely the faithfull on earth but the Saints in heauen also make petition for him But Master Higgons asketh why I concealed these things To whom I answere that I did not conceale any of them For howsoeuer citing some other parts of Chrysostomes Liturgie to another purpose I had no reason to bring in these passages being altogether impertinent to my purpose and the matter in hand yet in other places I haue shewed at large the ancient practise in all these things and therefore this seduced runnagate whom Sathan the tempter hath beguiled had no reason to compare me to the Tempter leauing out certaine wordes in the text he alleadged vnto Christ. §. 5. IN the next place he obiecteth to vs the heresie of Aerius condemned by Augustine amongst many other impious heresies and Augustines conclusion that whosoeuer maintaineth any of the hereticall opinions condemned by him is no Catholicke Christian and telleth vs that this censure toucheth vs very neere but that I demeane my selfe plausibly and artificially to avoid the pressure of that difficultie which is too heauy for me to beare Whereunto I briefly answer that I demeane not my self artificially to avoid the force of any trueth which I esteeme value aboue all treasures in the world but in all sincerity vnfold those thinges which Papists seeke to wrap vp in perplexed and intricate disputes to the entangling of the Readers For I shew that the naming of the names of the departed the offering of the sacrifice of praise for them the praying for their resurrection publike acquitall perfect consummation and blisse in the day of Christ yea the praying for their deliuerance from the hand of hel the mouth of the Lyon the vtter deletion remissioÌ„ of their sins respectiuely to their passage hence first entrance into the other world are not disliked by vs and that thus far the general intention of the Church extended but that to pray for the deliuerance of meÌ„ out of hel or for the mitigation or suspension of the punishments that are in hel was but the priuat deuotioÌ„ of some particular men doubtfully eroneously extending the publicke prayers of the Church farther then they were meant and intended by her and that in this particular they fell from the trueth which if M. Theophilus Higgons shall deny justifie such kind of prayers for the dead we will be bold to call him by his new name Theomisus But he is desirous to know of me or any other without lies obscurities and circuitions whether Cyrill of Hierusalem concurring absolutely with the Papists in this point of prayer for the dead and Augustine agreeing with him fell away from the truth or not That he professeth himselfe an enemy to lies obscurities and circuitions the best sanctuaries of their euill cause I greatly maruell feare that if he giue ouer the aduantage which he and his companions are wont to make thereof this his first booke will be his last But in that he saith Cyrill of Hierusalem concurreth absolutely with the Papists in the matter of prayer for the dead and Augustine with him hee doth as beseemeth him for he vttereth lies and vntruthes which before vnaduisedly he condemned For first it is most certaine that Cyrill maketh but two sortes of men departing out of this life sinners righteous and that he thinketh as Chrysostome also doth and after them Damascene many other that wicked and sinfull men in hell may find some ease be relieued by the prayers of the liuing but of Purgatory he speaketh not Touching Augustine he dissenteth altogether from this opinion of Chrysostome Cyrill and Damascene thinketh that the prayers of the Church for such as excelled in goodnes are thanksgiuings to God for such as died impenitently in grieuous sins comforts of the liuing but no helpes of the dead for those that were neithâ—… exceeding good nor exceeding euill propitiations and meanes to obtaine fauour and remission But whether they of this middle sort be in any penall estate after death or whether by the mercy of God and working of his grace the prayers of the liuing accompanying them they bee freed from sinne and the punishment of it in the first entrance into the other world he resolueth nothing and therfore there was no cause why this good man reflecting as he saith vpon my assertion should bee amazed to behold such a repugnancie betweene these things to wit Augustine ran doubtingly into the opinion of Purgatorie and yet he affirmeth there is no doubt but that some sinnes are remitted in the other world and tâ—…at some soules may be relieued by prayer For in the iudgement of wiser men then Mastâ—…r Higgons these thinges imply no contradiction and therefore the Grecians admit the latter of them and yet deny Purgatory Yea in their Apologie touching Purgatory they say if there be remission of sinnes after this life there is no enduring of the punishments due to sin it being one thing to haue remission of a sin or fault and another to suffer the extremity of punishment it deserueth That there is therefore remission of sinnes of a middle sort of men after this life in the entrance into the other world Augustine made no doubt and to that purpose he alleadged the saying of Christ concerning the sinne that is neither remitted in this world nor the other from thence to inferre that some sinnes are remitted after this life But whether there be any Purgatory-punishments after this life or not hee was euer doubtfull as appeareth by sundry places in his workes where he saith Perhaps there is some such thing it is not incredible that there is some such thing and whether there be or not it may be found out or it may be hid neither will it follow that because he maketh three estates of men dying whereof some are so good that wee haue rather cause to giue God thankes for them then to pray others so ill that they cannot be relieued and a third sort that need our
the true Catholicke Church as admit not all the things before specified so that I lay no foundation of Babell as this Babylonian is pleased to say I doe but pitying the breaches of Sion endeauour as much as in me lieth to make them vp that Hierusalem may be as a citie at vnity wit hin it selfe But the Romanistes indeede build Babell and their tongues are confounded euery one almost dissenting from other and that in most materiall and essentiall points Pighius and Catharinuâ—… haue a strange fancie touching originall sinne contrary to the Doctrine of other Papists Pighius is of Caluins opinion touching iustification Catharinus defendeth against the common tenent that men in ordinary course without speciall reuelation may be certaine by the certainty of Faith that they are in the state of grace yea M Higgons himself saith Our faith in Christ must be trustfull liuely and actiue by a speciall application of his merites vnto our selues as he was wont to preach in Saint Dunstans Church So vrging a necessity of special Faith which the Romanists condemne as hereticall in the Doctrine of our Church and innumerable like differences they haue yet all these are of one Church Faith Communion nothing it seemeth being necessary to the vnity of their Church but the acknowledging of the Supremacie of the Pope And yet which is most strange they that thinke he may erre they that thinke he cannot erre they that make him to be but Prime Bishop they that make him vniversall Bishop they that attribute to him power to depose Princes dispose of their states they that deny that hee bath any such power are of one the same Church But it is a Babylonicall Church §. 2. FRom the perpetual visibilitie vndoubted assurance the Church hath of holding the true Faith he proceedeth to shew our zeale in impugning condemning the opinion of Purgatory that yet notwithstanding the whole vniversal Church receiued it And thervpoÌ„ saith â—…he was misinformed by me others that the Greeks neuer intertained this doctrine that now he findeth that we erre not knowing or 〈◊〉 the truth assuring himselfe that howsoeuer some Greeks did not or do not admit the doctrine of Purgatory precisely vnder this name with some other circuÌ„stances yet the church of Greece generally doth retaine the thâ—…ig it selfe But whatsoeuer this goodfellow say to the coÌ„trary we know the Greek 〈◊〉 neuer 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 thing There is extant a most excelleÌ„t learned Apollogy of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—…o the couÌ„cel of Florence or Basil as it is thought In this apology first 〈◊〉 clearly 〈◊〉 that there is no purging after this life by â—…e especially materiall c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Papists imagine Secondly they insâ—…te that some a longst 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that such as are of a middle condition and so depart hence are after death in a certaine obscurity without enioying the light of Gods countenance or holden as it were in a prison or in a state of sorrow till by the goodnesse of God and the prayers of the Church they be deliuered and thus much some professed in the Councell of Florence for there was a diuision amongst them Thirdly they incline to an opinion that the lesser sinnes of men dying in the state of grace are remitted after death without any punishment at all either by fire or in any other kind by the meere mercy goodnesse of God And whereas some bring proofes of remission of sinnes after this life thereby to confirme their conceit of Purgatory they say there is no agreement betweene remission and purging by fire and punishment for that eyther punishment or remission is needfull and not both and againe they confidently pronounce that neither Scripture nor the fifth Generall Councell deliuered vnto vs a double punishment or a double fire after this life This iudgment resolution they confirme proue by very excellent reasons authorities for first thus they argue It more beseemeth the goodnes of God to suffer no good though neuer so litle to passe away vnrespected vnrewarded theÌ„ to punish small sins offences but some litle good in them that haue great sins hath no reward because of the preuayling of the euil that is fouÌ„d in theÌ„ therefore smal euils in them that haue great works of vertue are not to be punished the better things ouercomming Secondly as is a little good in those that are mainely euill so is a little euill in those that are otherwise mainely good But a little good in those that are otherwise euill can procure no reward but onely causeth a difference in the degree of punishment making it the lesse therefore a little euill causeth no punishment but a difference in the degree of glory and happinesse which it maketh to bee lesse then otherwise it would bee whence it followeth that there is no Purgatory Thirdly either the wils of men departed hence are mutable or immutable if they be mutable then they that are good may become euill and they that are euill may become good whence it will follow according to Origens opinion that neyther the good are vnchangeably happy nor the the euill vnchangeably miserable but that men may fall from happinesse to misery and rise from misery to the heighth of all happinesse And soe wee shall make the punishments of all cast-awaies euen of the diuels themselues to be temporary as endeed supposing the mutability of the Will to continue after death iustly they may for the reason why in Iustice the punishment of sinne in the damned is to be eternall is because they are immutably vnchangeably and etâ—…nally euill if they bee immutable then are they not capable of any correction for he who is corrected is sette right by being brought to iust dislike and forsaking of that he formerly affected ill which chaunge from loue to hate froÌ„ liking to disliking from pursuing and following to forsaking and flying from cannot be found in a Will that is immutable Bonauentura disputeth the matter how afflicting fire purgeth the soule and answereth that some thinke that this fire besides the punishing vertue and power it hath hath also a spirttuall purging vertue such as sacraments haue which hee thinketh to be absurd especially seeing Gregory out of visions and apparitions of the dead sheweth that soules are purged in diuerse places and by diuerse other meanes as well as by fire and therefore there are other who thinke that what this purging fire worketh it worketh by punishing and afflicting which helpeth and strengtheneth grace that it may be able to purge out sinne Now punishment and affliction canne noe way helpe grace or strengthen it to the expulsion of sinne but in that by the bitternesse of it it maketh vs know how much it offendeth GOD and hurteth vs and thereby causeth a dislike of it or at least an increase of the dislike of it which dislike the Will cannot newly
such as are ordained by Heretikes are truly ordayned in the iudgment of our Aduersaries themselues but if all faile he will go backe to prayer for the dead which hath made him dead while hee is aliue and will proue that Bernard confuted Henricus impugning prayer for the dead with a miracle and that therefore the impugning of prayer for the dead is pronounced impious by Gods owne voyce from heauen surely if it could be proued that God gaue testimony by a miracle against Henricus his impugning of prayer for the dead to deliuer them out of Purgatory it were something but neither hee nor all the rabble of Romanistes shall euer proue that Henricus is reported to haue holden many damnable opinions in confutation whereof Bernard might worke a miracle without any respect to his denying prayers for the dead for he contemned the Sacraments denyed reconciliation to penitents the comfort of the holy Eucharist to such as in their greatest distresses desired the same And feared not to exclude infants from the benefitte of the Sacrament of regeneration Bernard himselfe describing him and the good effectes that followed his preaching sheweth that hauing beene a Monke hee became an Apostata that hee gaue himselfe to all impurity and that what hee got by his preaching hee played away at dice or spent it amongst harlots that his preaching wrought so good effectes that Churches were forsaken and left without People People without Priestes priestes without due reuerence and Christians without Christ Churches were reputed Synagogues the Sanctuaries of God denied to bee holy Sacraments accounted vnholy Festiuall daies depriued of Festiuall solemnities men dyed in their sinnes and their soules vvere euery where caught vp and brought to the terrible iudgement-seate neyther reconciled by penitentiall reconciliation nor garded with the Sacrament and holy Communion that the way of the life of Christ was shutte vppe against infants whiles the grace of Baptisme was denyed vnto them and that they were hindered from drawing neere to saluation though the Sauiour him-selfe cryed out aloud for them saying Suffer little children to come vnto mee This is all that Bernard imputeth to him neyther doth Willielmus Abbas as Maister Higgons vntruly reporteth charge him with denying of prayer for the dead but one Gotefrey a Monke of Clarauallis whose report is not greatly to bee regarded because what hee addeth aboue that before alleaged by vs touching prayer for the dead invocation of Saints excommunications of Priests Pilgrimages building of Churches and the like hee addeth as out of Bernards Epistle before mentioned wherein there is no such thing So that it is very probable that hee mistooke the matter and imputed such thinges to Henricus as were taught by the Apostolici or some other such like Hitherto wee finde no great proofe of the confirmation of prayer for the dead or any other point of popish errour by miracles so that my Peremptory denyall that euer any miracle was done by any man in times past or in our times to comfirme any of the things controuersed betweene the Papists and vs standeth as yet vncontrouled Wherefore Maister Higgons riseth from Henricus to Gregory the first and Augustine whom hee sent into England for the conuersion of our Nation who hee sayth were Papists and yet wrought many miracles for the confirmation of the doctrine they preached A more trifling fellow I thinke neuer aduentured to put penne to paper for wee confidently deny that eyther Gregory or Augustine were Papists say with Bishop Iewell in his worthy challenge that all the learned Papists in the world cannot proue thay eyther of them held any of those twenty seauen Articles of popish religion mentioned by him If some superstition began in their times to grow in it is not to bee maruayled at neyther will it follow that if Augustine and his Colleagues sent hither to sing the Lords song in a strange land did miracles for the confirmation of the Christian faith taught by them that the same miracles confirmed euery superstitious opinion which any of them held For then Cyprian and the African Bishops teaching rebaptization the Orientall Bishoppes thitking it necessary to keepe the feast of Easter with the Iewes Papias and all the worthy Fathers that taught that Christ raising vp the Saintes from the dead shall raigne with them on earth a thousand yeares in all earthly felicity that there are two resurrections the one of the just the other of the wicked and that there are a thousand yeares betweene Lactantius Irenaeus and others excluding the soules of the faithfull departed out of heauen till the resurrection such as held that men may be deliuered out of hell such as held it necessary to minister the Communion to infantes and other like Catholique Christians erring in some point of Doctrine could doe no miracles for the confirmation of the Christian faith amongst infidels or mis-belieuers but that the same must be confirmations of their errors God must concurre with thē by confusion as this confused companion speaketh but if this instance serue not the turne he hath another evidence more potent and perswasiue which serued as a Key to vnlocke his vnderstanding and that is this Transubstantiation is affirmed by mee to be one of the greatest mysteries of Popish Religion Gerson is highly approued by mee and yet he affirmeth that Transubstantiation is confirmed by a thousand and a thousand miracles For answere whereunto wee say with Cassander that the names of conversion transmutation trans-formation and trans-elementation are found among the Auncient and that the word Transubstantiation was vsed some hundreds of yeares since but touching the manner of this conversion there is great variety of opinions yet so that all agree in this that they vnderstand such a mutation or chaunge to bee made that that which before was earthly and common bread by the wordes of Institution the invocation of GODS Name and Divine vertue is made a Sacrament of the true Body and Bloud of CHRIST visibly sitting at the right hand of GOD in Heauen and yet after an invisible and incomprehensible manner present in the Church And that the Body and Bloud of CHRIST are in the Sacrament and exhibited and giuen as spirituall meate and drinke for the saluation and euerlasting life of them that are worthy partakers of the same Thus much we doubt not but a thousand and a thousand miracles may confirme and more Gerson doth not say is confirmed by miracle For whereas there is almost infinite varietie of opinions touching the manner of this conversion amongst such as admit it in generality it would bee very hard for Master Higgons or a wiser man then he is to say which of them any miracle euer confirmed All admit saith Caietan the conversion of the bread and wine into the Body Bloud of Christ but in truth many deny that which the word Transubstantiation indeed importeth therefore are diversly divided
was no cause for here is neither falsehood nor absurdity but in himselfe who to wrecke his anger hath sold himselfe to bee an absurd Patron of errour and vntruth The rest of his friuolous discourse following being but a reflection as hee calleth it vpon these premises I will not trouble my selfe nor the reader with The Second Booke §. 1. I Come to his Second Booke in the first part whereof hee challengeth mee for traducing the foure Doctors of the Church beginning with Gregory and from him proceeding to the rest To make it appeare that I haue wronged Gregory First he noteth that the principall drift of my discourse touching the Church is to proue that the opinions wherein the Papists dissent from the Protestants at this day were not the doctrines of the Church wherein our Fathers liued and died but of a faction only predominating in the same Secondly that to this purpose I frame an appendix wherein I produce the testimonies of sundry Fathers and Schoole-authors to justifie the foresayd position Thirdly that descending into the controuersie whether any sinnes be remitted after this life or not I vse this pretense to wit that whereas Lombard and other do say that some veniall sinnes are remitted after this life we must so vnderstand their sayings that therefore they are sayd to bee remitted after this life because they are taken away in the very momēt of dissolution the last instant of life being the first after life That this is the summe of that Exposition I make of Lombards other mens opinion cōcerning the remission of sins after this life wherein how sincerely exactly I deale he wil not dispute 4ly That to corroborate this my Exposition I bring a testimony of S. Gregory not without great wrong done vnto him To these his obseruations I briefely answere First that it is true that the doctrines wherein the Papists and We dissent at this day were not the doctrines of that Church wherein our Fathers liued and dyed but that I haue in any part vntruly set downe the differences betweene them and vs this false runnagate shall neuer be able to proue though if his credit would reach vnto it hee would gladly make men beleeue so 2ly That I haue indeed framed and added such an Appendix as he speaketh of to my Third booke wherein I haue produced sundry learned men and Schoole-authors for proofe of that my former position calling them as they well deserue worthy learned men but that they are mine enimies or that I speake honourably of them for mine own aduantage is but the saying of a silly fellow that careth not much what hee sayth soe he may be thought to say something Thirdly that this good fellow that complaineth so much of falshood and bad dealing hath in his third obseruation wholy mistaken the matter shamefully belied me for I make not that costruction of the sayings of Lombard and others which he speaketh of but it is the construction of Alexander of Ales the irrefragable Doctor and first of all the Schoole-men But that the Reader may the better perceiue how hee peruerteth all that commeth in his way I will lay downe the matter at large In the twentieth Chapter of that Appendix he speaketh of I produce the iudgment and resolution of Scotus Durandus and Alexander of Ales that all sinfulnesse is vtterly abolished in the very moment of dissolution and that there is no remission of any sin in respect of the fault and staine after death The words of these Authors I set downe at large The words of Alexander of Ales are these Finall grace taketh away all sinfulnesse out of the soule because when the soule parteth from the body all pronenesse to ill and all perturbations which were found in it by reason of the coniunction with the flesh do cease the powers thereof are quieted perfectly subiected to grace by that means all veniall sins remoued so that no veniall sin is remitted after this life but in that instant wherein grace may be said to be finall grace it hath full dominion absolute command and expelleth all sin Whereunto he addeth that whereas the Mr of Sentences some other do say that some veniall sins are remitted after this life some answer that they speake of a full remission both in respect of the fault and staine and the punishment also but that others more narrowly and piercingly looking into the thing do say that they are to be vnderstood to say sins are remitted after this life because it being the same moment or instant that doth continuate the time of life that after life so that the last instant of life is the first after life they are remitted in the very moment of dissolution grace more fully infusing and powring it selfe into the soule at that time then before to the vtter abolishing of all sin all impediment formerly hindering her working now ceasing So that these are the words of Alexander of Ales deliuering the opiniōof many worthy men in the church and not mine and therefore whether he and they doe aptly expound the sayings of the Master of Sentences and others or not it is nothing to me for I doe not so interpret the sayings of these men nor cite him to proue they are to bee so interpreted but cite him onely to shew that many learned men in former times did thinke all sinfulnes to be purged out of the souls of men departing hence in the state of grace euen in the very moment of dissolution which he clearely sheweth and besides telleth vs how they sought to construe the sayings of them that seemed to bee of another judgement that they might not be thought to bee contrary herevnto The same may bee confirmed out of Bonaventura who sayth it was the opinion of certaine Doctours who were of good vnderstanding that no sinne is remitted after death because the force of Free-will in respect of merite or demerite doth altogether cease These as he saith thought that veniall sinnes are wholly remitted and taken away either by repentance or by finall grace if there bee no time and place for repentance as when a just good man is suddainly seized vpon by death The Authour of the booke called Regimen Animarum a manuscript copy whereof I haue who liued about the yeare 1343 hath these words Delet gratia finalis veniale peccatum in ipsà dissolutione corporis animae ex virtute completionis sui status quamvis motus contritionis non sit ad illud directus hoc ab antiquis dictum est sed modò communiter tenetur quod peccatum veniale hinc deferatur à multis etiam quoad culpam That is finall grace doth abolish and vtterly take away veniall sinne in the very dissolution and parting of the soule and body in that she groweth to bee in a full and perfect estate though no motion of contrition bee directed to the putting of it
away and this was said by the Auncient but now it is commonly holden that many carry venial sinnes with them out of this world euen in respect of the staine and fault Caietan agreeth with those Auncient Diuines that this Author speaketh of his words are these Patet quòd nec pro fomite purgando qui etiam in baptizatis remanet nec pro reliquis quibuscunque nisi satisfactione debit â pro commissis velomissis poenae sunt purgatoriae sicut nihil acquirit grave ex remotione prohibentis sed iuxta pristinam gravitatem tendit ad proprium locum it a anima ex remotlone prohibentis iuxta sortitam prius charitatem in coelestis patriae mansionem sibi paratam intrat That is It is evident that Purgatory paines serue neither for the purging out of the remaines of concupiscence which still abideth euen in the Baptized nor for the taking away of any other thing whatsoeuer but onely for the satisfying for the sinnes of omission and commision that are past and therefore if that bee once performed as a heauy thing when that is taken away which hindered getteth no new quality or vertue but by force of that waight and heauinesse it formerly had goeth to the proper place where nature hath appointed it to rest so the soule so soone as that is taken away which hindered by force and vertue of that charitie it formerly had entereth into the mansion of the Heauenly Countrey provided for it Further hee addeth that as after death charitie is extra statum merendi that is in a state wherein there is no farther meriting so likewise it is in a state wherein it is capable of no increase the increase of charitie being the bound of the merite of it whence it followeth that there is no purging out of any sinne after death for if after death there bee no new increasing of that grace and charitie which during life stood together with veniall sinne there is no purging out of any such sinne after death seeing it is charity stirred vp and enkindled that consumeth sinne as the burning Furnace doth a droppe of water and nothing else This is the resolution not of a few or meane men but of many and those the greatest and best esteemed of in the Churches wherein our Fathers liued and died To these I say Gregory seemeth to agree saying That the very feare that is found in men dying purgeth out the lesser sinnes But heere Maister Higgons hath noted three points of fraudulencie as hee saith committed by mee in a few words First by an omission in that whereas Saint Gregory saith plerunque for the most part it is so I omitte and leaue out this particle Secondly by a reddition in that whereas Gregory saith the Smallest I say the Lesser Thirdly by an extension in that whereas Gregory saith the Soules of the iust are purged I say in a more generall sort the soules of men dying are purged For answere hereunto I say I haue no way misalledged Gregory nor deriued any conclusion out of any words of his contrary to his purpose and Doctrine in other places for Gregory seemeth to bee of opinion that the feare that is found in the soules of good men dying doth alwayes purge out the lesser sinnes so often as it is found in them but that it is not alwayes found in them but for the most part whereas I haue onely said it doth purge out such sinnes without adding alwaies or for the most part And that hee addeth the particle for the most part to shew that this feare is not alwaies found in good men when they are to die and not to deny the effect of purging out the smaller sinnes vnto it wheresoeuer it is found appeareth in that immediatly after by way of opposition he saith that nonnunquam that is sometimes God strengtheneth and confirmeth the mindes of men ready to die that otherwise would feare so that they doe not feare at all but if wee take the words as Higgons would haue vs yet am I no whit disaduantaged for if the feare of Gods iudgements alone doe for the most part purge out the lesser sinnes it is likely that other good motions and the strengthning of grace and putting of it into a state of perfection by the subtraction of impediments should take away the rest which is all that I haue said For I doe not say that hee doth agree with those that thinke all sinfulnesse is purged out in the very moment of dissolution but that hee seemeth to agree with them or that in consequence of reason hee should agree with them Neither is his next exception of least and lesser any better then this For Gregorie himselfe in the thirty ninth chapter of the same booke speaking of those sinnes that are compared to timber hay and stubble and are to be purged out by the fire the Apostle speaketh of to the Corinthians calleth them indifferently peccata parua minima leâ—…ia leuissima minuta atque leuissima that is small and smallest light and lightest sins so that small or light sinnes in the positiue degree are the same with him that least or lightest and therefore it was no fraudulencie in mee not translating any sentence of Gregorie but reporting his opinion touching veniall sinnes indifferently and freely to name them small lesser or smallest and lightest sinnes seeing in his meaning and phrase of speech and trueth of the thing it selfe they are all one The last exception is more friuolous then the two former for speaking onely of the soules of the iust and the purging out of such sinnes as are found in them till death in my whole discourse what neede was there that I should adde iust seeing no man could possibly vnderstand mee to speake of any other but it seemeth the pooreman knoweth not well what hee saith for hee will haue Gregorie to meane by iust men men of singular sâ—…ctity and not generally all that are in the state of grace and yet denieth that all the sins of these are purged out in death so casting into purgatorie not only those of the middle sort but the best and perfittest also contrary to the opinions of his owne Diuines So that wee see here is much a doe about nothing and as the poore man said when he shore his Sowe heere is a great crie and a little woolle For I doe not absolutely say that Gregory fully agreeth with these worthy Diuines before mentioned who thinke all sinnefullnesse to be vtterly abolished and remoued out of the soule in the very moment of dissolution but that hee seemeth to agree vnto them or that in consequence of reason hee should agree vnto them in that hee maketh the very feare that is found in men dying to purge out their lesser sins when it is found in them though alwayes it be not found in them which is not my priuate conceit but the Grecians in their Apology touching Purgatory long before deliuered
the very same more peremptorily namely that Gregory by this saying and some other found in him doth vtterly ouerthow that Purgatory which hee is thought to teach And if hee will bee pleased to peruse the Schoole-men hee shall finde in Alexander of Ales that the best of them thought Gregorie to bee of opinion as they also were that all sinne in respect of the staine or fault is purged out in death some interpreting his wordes where hee speaketh of remission of sinnes after this life of that remission which is in the last instant of this life and the first of the next and â—…her â—…herwise And therefore Master Higgons might well haue spared his taxation of me and omitted his marginall note that many such tricks were found by the Bishoppe of Eureux in the writings of the Lord Plessis Mornay For in all that which I haue written touching this point there is not so much as the least shadow of any ill dealing and for that worthy Gentleman against whom that Bishoppe soâ—…ght aduantage by cauilling against some parts of his allegations it will bee found that hee hath more sincerely handled the controuersies of religion then euer any Romanist did That if any mistaking be found in him there are many moe and more materiall in farre lesse compasse in the writings of Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe and that in his anatomy of the Masse the booke excepted against by the Bishoppe of Eureux hee hath in such sort cutte in sunder the sinewes not onely of the Masse but of the whole masse of Romish religion that all the rabble of Romanists will neuer bee able orderly to answere that whole booke howsoeuer it is easie to cavill against some parts of any thing neuer so well written But to returne to the matter in hand whatsoeuer wee thinke of Gregory of whom I say onely that hee seemeth to agree vnto the opinion of those Diuines who thinke all sinnefulnesse to be purged out of the soules of men dying in the state of grace in the moment of dissolution it is certaine that exceeding many of best esteeme in the Romane Church informer times were of that opinion and the same is proued by vnanswerable reasons Whence it will follow ineuitably that there remaineth no punishment to bee suffered after death by men dying in the state of grace For they are propositions of Saint Bernard that all the world cannot except against that when all sinne shall bee wholly taken out of the way no effect of it shall remaine that the cause beeing altogether remoued the effect shall bee no more and that all punishment shall hee as farre from the outward man as all fault shall bee from the inward Now that all sinfulnesse is purged out in the very dissolution of soule and body is confirmed as I said by vnaunswerable reasons for seeing the remaines of naturall concupiscence the pronenesse to euill difficultie to doe good and contrarietie betweene the better and meaner faculties of the soule are wholly taken out of the soules of all them that die in the state of grace in the moment of dissolution euen in the iudgement of our aduersaries themselues there being nothing in the fault or staine of sinne but the acte desire purpose which cannot remaine where concupiscence the fountaine thereof is dried vp or the habituall liking and affecting of such things as were formerly desired purposed or done ill which cannot be found in a soule out of which all naturall concupiscence inclining to the desiring of things inordinately is wholly taken away and it selfe turned to the entire desiring of God alone and nothing but in and for him as is euery soule out of which concupiscence inclining to affect finite things inordinately is wholly taken away It is more then euident that all sinnefulnesse is wholly taken out of the soule of each good man in the very moment of his death dissolution and departure hence See then the absurditie of Romish Religion the soule of a good man in the moment of death is wholly freed from all sinnefulnesse there is nothing found in it that displeaseth God charitie and grace making those in whom it is acceptable to GOD is perfect in it and yet it must bee punished to satisfie the iustice of GOD because it was sometimes sinnefull Truely Ieuer thought whereas there are two things in sinne the fault deformity or staine and the punishment that Christ who is the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world by the working of his sanctifying grace purgeth out the one and by vertue of his satisfactory sufferings freeth such as he purgeth from the impuritie of sinne from the punishment due vnto it and that in proportionable sort he purgeth out the one and by vertue of his satisfactory sufferings freeth vs from the other So that when sinne is onely so purged out that it is no more predominant there remaineth no condemnation but yet some punishment as in the case of Dauid and when it is wholly taken away there remaineth no punishment at all which whosoeuer contradicteth is iniurious to the sufferings of Christ the Iustice of God who will not require one debt to be twise paid For it is most certain that Christ suffered the punishments not only of those sins that men commit in the time of ignorance 〈◊〉 and the state of Nature before Baptisme and Regeneration but of all sinnes and that the reason why notwithstanding godlesse men are subiect to all kindes of punishments as before is because they doe not become one with CHRIST nor are made partakers of his sanctifying Spirit purging out the sinfulnesse that is in them that they might enjoy the benefite of his satisfaction as likewise the reason why good men such as Daâ—…id turning to God by repentance are still subject to some punishments in this life notwithstanding their vnion with CHRIST is because they are not so fully conjoyned to CHRIST and made partakers of his Spirit as to be purged from all sinne For if they were they should be freed from all punishment by his sufferings he hauing suffered for all them that become one with him all that the Iustice of God requireth This is that heresie of the Papists which I speake of namely that to satisfie Gods Iustice the soules of men dying in the state of grace must suffer punishments answereable to the sinnes they some-times committed though now pure from all sinne This conceipt neuer any of the Auncient had howsoeuer some of them supposed that sinfull men in hell may be eased or deliuered thence and some other as Augustine such as followed him in the Latine Church were doubtfull whether some impuritie might not remaine to be purged out of the soules of men dying in the state of grace by afflictions and chastisements after this life And therefore it is vntrue that M Higgons saith This imputation of heresie cleaueth as fast to the Fathers whom we pretend to honour and reuerence as to
any Papist at this day If Gerson or any other whom I honour held this heresie they held it not heretically as the Romanists now doe euen as Cyprian helde the heresie of rebaptization and sundry of the Auncient the heresie of the Millenaries but not heretically so that Vincentius Lyrinensis saith The Fathers were saued and the children condemned the authors of errours acquited the followers of them in the same cast into the pit of hell But Mr Higgons saith Bernard whose sayings touching the not punishing of such as are freed from the impurity of sin I alleadge thereby to ouerthrow the erroneous conceipt of Papists touching Purgatory admitteth Purgatory therefore I traduce the Testaments of the dead to establish such doctrines as they impugne For answer whereunto I say that whether Bernard admit Purgatory or not yet may hee haue a sentence which supposing all sinfulnes to be purged out in the moment of dissolution proueth that there is no Purgatory to which purpose I alledge him therfore traduce not the testaments of the dead to establish any Doctrines they impugned as M ◠Higgons vntruely vnjustly chargeth me For my distilling our Church out of the writings of learned men liuing vnder the Papacie I shall haue a sitter place to answere him when I come to his Appendix where I will make it appeare that the Israel of God hath not binforced as he vntruely saith it hath to seeke to the Philistines as the distressed Israelites did for the sharpening of their tooles when there was no Smith in Israel but that the Israel in Canaan deriueth it self from that Israel that sometimes was in Egypt in misarable bondage enjoyeth the jewels and treasures fighteth against the enemies of God with the weapons brought from thence And thus much touching Gregory §. 2. IN the next place hee commeth to Augustine whom he saith I haue likewise abused The words wherein the supposed abuse is offered vnto him are these The Romish manner of praying for the dead hath no certaine testimony of antiquity for no man euer thought of Purgatory till Augustine to avoide a worse error did doubtingly runne 〈◊〉 after whom many in the Latine Church embraced the same opinion but the Greeke Church neuer receiued it to this day 〈◊〉 inwhich words he saith I note the temerity irresolution and folly of Augustine the Reader I doubt not will note his temerity and folly in censuring me thus without a cause for I note not Saint Augustine for temerity nor make him the Author of a new fancy as hee falsely chargeth mee but shew that whereas there were very dangerous opinions in the Church in his time touching the state of the departed many of great esteeme thinking that men dying in mortall sinne and adjudged to hell shall in the end come out thence and be saued hee sought to qualifie the matter in the best sort hee could with least offence vnto them and to bring them from that error and therefore sayth If they would acknowledge the punishments of such to be eternall and thinke onely that they may bee mitigated or suspended for a time or that men dying in the state of grace yet in some lesser sinnes are afflicted for a time in the other world though he know not whether these things be so or not yet he would not striue with them This is not to be the author of a new fancy but in hope to reclaime men from a great extremity to leaue something lesse dangerous in the same kind doubtfull and this is all that I say of Saint Augustine neither is this my priuate fancy but the Graecians in that learned Apology before mentioned haue the same obseruation to wit that hee wrote not those things which hee hath touching Purgatory out of a certaine perswasion and as vndoubtedly holding them to be true but as it were in a sort inforced and for the avoiding of a greater euill which was this that there is a purging of all sinnes after death as some then thought So that as it seemeth thinking it something a violent course directly to go against the opinion of many and fearing his words would not seeme probable if whereas others thought all sins may be purged out after death he on the contrary side should say none may be purged hee chose rather to goe in a middle way not contradicting that which is lesse absurd and inconuenient that so he might more easily bring them he had to deale with from that which was farre more inconuenient then too much to exasperate thē This was the apprehension the Grecians had of Augustines writings touching this point which whosoeuer shall without any sinister affection peruse will find to bee righte and true Touching irresolution it was farre from Augustine in matters pertaining to the rule of faith but in other things wherein men may bee ignorant and doubtfull and dissent one from another without danger of eternall damnation no man was more slow to resolue no man more inclined to leaue things doubtfull But howsoeuer that hee was doubtfull and vnresolued in the points concerning the state of the dead it is euident in that he sayth If they whose mercifull error he refuteth would onely thinke the paynes of them that are in hell to bee mittigated or suspended hee would not greatly striue about it though I am well assured hee would not willingly haue resolued that these things are so The like may be sayd touching the temporall affliction of good men dying in the state of grace but yet with some lesser sinnes for hee was euer doubtfull concerning the same and neuer resolued that they are vndoubtedly in a state of temporall afflictions as Maister Higgons vntruly reporteth and thence inferreth many things childishly against mee but that they are in a state wherein prayers may auaile thē which two things are very different For the Graecians in their Apology before cited admit remission of sinnes after this life and yet deny that there is any estate of temporall affliction And I haue shewed before how sinnes may be sayd to bee remitted after this life in the enterance into the other world without admitting Purgatory-punishmēts But it cannot be excused that I say Augustine fearefully opposed himselfe against the error of thē who thought all right-beleeuing Christians how wickedly soeuer they liued shall in the end bee saued Surely the Graecians said as much before and are in good hope to be excused and therefore I am in some hope that I may be also for I do not say that he so feared any thing as to conceale any truth he was thorowly resolued of and which hee held necessary to be knowne of all but that he feared to offend them hee dealt with farther than of necessity hee must and therefore resolued to yeeld to them as farre as possibly hee might without impugning knowne and resolued truthes they being many and of great esteeme that were otherwise minded then he was Thus
of prayer for the dead vndertaketh to proue the conspiring of the present Romane Church with the true Catholique Church that was of olde this he saith may be proued by producing the sayings and sentences of the Fathers touching euery particular controversie now on foote but because this would be a tedious course he saith there is another shorter and certainer way by demonstrating out of the confession of Protestant Writers first that the points now defended by Papists are the doctrines of all the Auncient secondly that the doctrine of the Protestants was condemned by the Auncient Church Touching the first hee goeth about to proue that Protestants confesse the points of Popish doctrine to bee the doctrine of the Auncient because Caluine in his Institutions when hee oppugneth the assertions of Papists confesseth that in so doing he opposeth himselfe against all Antiquity Amongst other particulars he giueth instance of prayer for the dead So that the thing which the Cardinall is to proue is this that Caluine impugning the Popish manner of prayer for the dead to deliuer men out of Purgatory confesseth himselfe in so doing to be opposite to all Antiquity and consequently that all Antiquity beleeued Purgatory and admitted a necessity of praying for the deliuerance of men out of it This he doth not but is forced to confesse that Caluine affirmeth that the doctrine of Purgatory and prayer to deliuer men thence was vnknowne to all Antiquity whence it followeth vnavoydably that the Cardinall doth nothing but trifle for if to talke idlely and not to conclude the thing intended be to trifle he is found to do so most grossely Neither doth it helpe the matter that Caluine confesseth that many of the Fathers were led into errour in the matter of prayer for the dead as namely such as thought they might suspend mitigate or wholly take away the paines or punishments of men in hell for these errors the Romanists condemne dislike as much as wee but saith Master Higgons Master Caluine confesseth the action of praying for the dead was performed by the Auncient howsoeuer he litigate about the intention It is true he doth so but his confession maketh neither hot nor cold to any thing now in controuersie and question betweene Vs and the Papists Whereforeto silence this pratler that multiplyeth vaine wordes without all sense or reason first wee say that neither Calvine or any of vs did euer simply condemne all prayer for the dead for wee all pray for the resurrection publike acquitall in the day of CHRIST and perfit consummation of them that are dead in the LORD and therefore the generall practise and intention of the Ancient in praying for the dead is not condemned by vs. Secondly we say that some of the Auncient prayed for the dead in such sort as neither wee nor the Romanists dare allow as for the suspension mitigation or releasing of the paines of such as are in hell and so were carryed into errour as Calvine rightly noteth Thirdly we say that neuer any man amongst the Auncients knew any thing of Purgatory or the Popish manner of praying to deliuer men thence So that I trifle not in accusing Bellarmine and defending Calvine as hee is pleased to tell mee I doe in the front and title of his next ensuing Chapter but he talketh idlely as his manner is §. 6. HIs next challenge is that I make an vntrue construction of the Heresie of Aerius condemning the commendations of the dead vsed in the Church at that time For the clearing whereof wee must make a difference betweene the generall practise and intention of the Church and the priuate opinion and conceipt of some particular men in the Church The generall practice of the Church was first to name the names of the dead and to keepe a commemoration of them to signifie expresse the assurance that resteth in the liuing that they are not extinct but that they are and liue with God that their spirits and soules are immortall and that their bodies shall rise againe Secondly to offer the sacrifice of the Eucharist that is of praise and thanksgiuing for them to desire of God the destroying of the last enemy which is death the raising of them vp againe in the last day the publique remission of their sins in the iudgement of that great day and their perfit consummation and blisse which Aerius could not condemne without iust note of hereticall temerity and rashnesse and all these things are excellently deliuered by Epiphanius and rightly iustified by him as right and good Some there were that extended these prayers farther supposing that men dying in the state of sinne may be relieued by the piety and deuotion of the liuing whose erroneous conceipt Aerius hauing an eye vnto rather then to the generall practise and intention of the Church inferred that if it bee soe men may doe what euils they will and be freed from the punishments of them by the meanes of such friends as they think good to procure assure to thē in the end to make prayers for them after they are gone To which obiection Epiphanius answereth that though the prayers of the liuing cutte not off the whole punishment of sinne yet some mercie is obtained for sinners by them at the least for some mitigation or suspension of their punishments of which opinion as I haue shewed before many other were as well as Epiphanius and Saint Augustine seemeth not much to dislike it saying if the mercifull men of his time would haue contented themselues with an opinion of the onely mitigation or suspension of the punishment of the damned he would not haue striued much with them about the matter so that if Aerius his reprehension had reached onely to this erroneous conceipt hee had neuer beene condemned for his censure but in that vppon the consideration of the error of some particular men hee presumed to condemne a generall custome that was lawfull and good hee was iustly condemned himselfe as rash and inconsiderate which things considered the contradiction which this simple fellow would faine force vppon vs is easilie auoided for his reprehension of the particular erroneous conceipt and sinister intention of some men misvnderstanding the Churches prayers is rightly iustified by Doctor Humphrey and the rest named by him and his reprehension of the generall practise and intention of the Church is rightly condemned by mee and others and the Church of that time defended against his rash and inconsiderate censure Neither let this foolish Fugitiue thinke that he can blow vp all with the breath of his mouth and put away this distinction by the sound of his bare word and by only saying I vainely excuse the folly of Protestants which sheweth it selfe in the diuersity of their censures touching the heresie of Aerius nor by sporting himselfe with the soueraigne plaister applied by me for it will be found to haue vertue to heale a greater wound then he can cause §. 7. BVt
hellish blasphemies which we accurse to the pit of hell many things no doubt were written by Wickliff in a good godly sense which as they were wrested by his Adversaries were heretical damnable For example it is a damnable heresie to think that Kings Bishops cease to be that they were if they fall into mortal sin or that reprobats cānot be truly Kings or Bishops neither did Wickliff euer hold any such opiniō but as Iohn Hus shewed he thought that godles persons howsoeuer officio in office place they be Kings Bishops yet merito that is in merit they are neither because they are vnworthy to be either and are of such quality as that if GOD would take the forfeiture they might iustly bee depriued not of dignitie alone but of life and beeing also Now then this is the goodly Argument which Maister Higgons frameth Gerson condemned such hereticall and impious Articles as were presented to him and other assembled in the Councell of Constance as taken out of the writings of Wickliffe and disliked some other that were indeed his and might haue a good sense because they were deliuered in a dangerous forme of speech as likewise such as rather bewrayed his too passionate dislike of things amisse carrying him too farre into contrary extremities then an aduised and wise consideration of the meanes whereby they might bee amended therefore hee would neuer haue allowed that reformation of religion that now is This Argument I thinke will not holde because we also condemne many of the Articles attributed to Wickliffe noe lesse then Gerson and yet are no enimies to the Protestanticall reformation as Maister Higgons calleth it But Maister Higgons sayth I must needes be found contrary to my selfe in that I acknowledge Wickliffe Husse Hierome of Prage and the like to haue beene the worthy seruants of Christ and holy Martyrs and confessours and yet praise Gerson as a worthy guide of Gods Church and one that desired the present reformation who consented to the condemnation of Wickliffes Articles We are wont to say Distinguish times and the Scriptures will soone be accorded so let Maister Higgons distinguish aright things that differ one from another and this seeming contrariety will bee found to bee none at all For Wickliffe Husse might be worthy seruants of God in that they reproued the intollerable abuses of those times which Gerson neuer approued and yet Gerson though as zealous and religious as eyther of them might condemne as impious some positions falsely imputed to Wickliffe not knowing but that they were his and dislike other that indeede were his as not deliuered in such sort and such formes of words as was fitte or sauouring of too much passion and violence and therefore like a right wise and moderate man he interposed himselfe betweene Wickliffe and such as he was opposite to disliking the one sort as attributing too much to the Cleargy and the other as detracting too much from it Touching Iohn Husse and Hierome of Prage I could neuer yet finde in what point of faith they dissented from the Doctrine of the Church then constantly resolued on but they bitterly inueighed against the ambition pride couetousnesse and negligence of the Cleargy they vrged the necessity of oftner preaching then was vsuall in those times and desired to haue the Communion in both kindes according to the ancient custome of the Primitiue Church and could not be induced simply and absolutely to condemne the articles of Wickliffe but thought many of them might carry a good sence and that the author of them was a man that carried a good minde how-soeuer hee might faile in some things Neither was there any matter worthy of death proued against them but they were vniustly charged with things they neuer thought of so that Luther said truly that they were Murderers and seauen times Heretickes that condemned the innocent men Iohn Husse and Hierome of Prague For it is most euident to any one that will consider the acts of that Councell that things were carried in it in a most violent and tumultuous manner with clamours and out-cries against those poore men standing in their iust defence clearing them-selues from any thing their Aduersaries themselues accounted to bee hereticall And particularly concerning Hierome of Prage it appeareth the Cardinalls that were cheefe Presidents of that Councell sought all possible meanes to lette him goe free as Pilate did to acquite Christ but the crye of the multitude preuailed And therefore I thinke it will not bee easily proued by Maister Higgons that Gerson had any hand in the turbulent and furious proceeding against the persons of these men howsoeuer he might mislike some things which they were charged with So that hee is neither pronounced to be an Hereticke nor a murderer by Luther as Maister Higgons vntruly sayth hee is What manner of proceeding there was in the Councell Gerson himselfe reporteth shewing his dislike of the courses holden in it and confessing that many intollerable things were done there which neither could nor would haue beene indured if men had not beene content to endure any thing in hope of vnitie and peace after soe many calamities of the Church most pittifully torne and rent in sunder by the former Schismes There is onely one thing more remaining in this chapter that toucheth Me that is that speaking of the tyranny of the See of Rome such as withheld the truth of God in vnrighteousnesse being named Christians serued Antichrist I adde as Bernard complained of some in his time in which addition Maister Higgons chargeth Mee with fraudulency saying that I goe about to make the world beleeue that they against whome Iohn Husse Hierome of Prage and the rest opposed themselues serued Antichrist euen by the verdit of Saint Bernard himselfe If Bernard say not expresly that many euen exceeding many so that they were without number of the pretended friendes and louers of the Church of Rome and such as possessed high places of rule and gouernement in the same serued Antichrist lette him charge Mee with ill dealing at his pleasure but if hee doe let Maister Higgons know he hath wronged Mee in a very high degree Let vs heare therefore what Bernard will say Woe sayth he to this generation because of the leauen of the Pharizees which is hypocrisie if yet it may be named hypocrisie which in respect of the greatnesse of it cannot and in respect of the impudencie it is growne vnto seeketh not to be hid A filthy rotten running soare secretly passeth along thorough all parts of the body of the Church the more largely the more desperately it spreadeth it selfe and the more inwardly the more dangerously for if an open ene◅ by professed heresie opposing himselfe should rise vp hee would be cast out an◅◅iolent enemie should seeke to oppresse the Church Men would hide themselues from him but now whom should the Church cast out or from whom should she
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
to the purpose of Gods will doe euer retaine that grace that can and will procure pardon and remission of all their sins Surely euen as much as there is betweene these Paul sometimes was an enemy to Christ and Christians and a Persecutor And Paul after his calling was neuer an enemy to Christ nor Christians nor neuer persecuted any of them but suffered persecution himselfe together with them The second supposed contradiction is this All sins done with full consent exclude grace Dauid who was an elect and chosen seruant of God sinned with full consent after his calling and yet Dauid neuer fell totally from grace Heere truly there is a reall and true contradiction but one of these assertions is none of mine for I deny that Dauid euer sinned with full consent after his calling though his sinnes were very grieuous and highly displeasing to Almighty God For the better clearing whereof we must obserue that there are three degrees of sin The first is of those motions to euill that arise in men and sollicite them to the doing of that which is displeasing vnto God yet so that no consent is yeelded to them The second is when the violence impo◅nity of those ill motions is such that men chuse rather to giue way vnto them then to be any longer disquieted and tormented by them and yet wish they were free from such sollicitations and provocations In those that thus sin there is a deliberate consent but it is not absolute and full but mixt Such was the sinne of Peter denying his Master which proceeded from feare whereunto hee so consented that he still retained the good opinion he formerly had of him and loue towards him and wished no doubt from the depth of his Soule there might neuer any such thing haue fallen out that might draw him to doe that he did And such was the sin of Dauid who chose rather to cōmit that vile act with the wife of Vriah then to be tormented any longer with the importunity of those burning inflamed desires that violently seized on him though he wished in his heart that neuer any such motiōs might in such violent sort haue arisen in him The third degree of sin is in thē that absolutely and fully consent to the motions of euil as making thē their cheef delights contentments In them who sin only in the first degree grace not only remaineth but keepeth her standing resisting against euill entreating for pardon of that which it cannot avoid In thē that sin in the 2d degree it remaineth but carried into captivity In the 3d it hath no place at all To the same purpose it is that some worthy Diuines of our profession make three kinds of the being of sin in vs for first it is inhabiting only 2dly it is regnant yet not as a king who ruleth raigneth with the loue liking of his subiects but as a Tyrant that they hate would depose if they knew how 3dly it is regnant as a king welcommed joyfully receiued into al the powers faculties of the soule In the first sort it is in thē that giue no consent to the motions of euill that arise in them In the second in them that giue consent but not free and absolute but mixt In the third in them that giue it the whole heart In the first it neither excludeth grace nor driueth it from the standing and commaund it should haue in the soule of a good man In the second though it exclude it not yet i◅◅eth and hurteth it sore scattering the forces of it leauing it but disseuered desires no entire good affections so that they are neuer able to recouer themselues againe without forraine helpe But when such succour commeth these remaines of good begin to recollect themselues againe to take heart and to joyne with the same as we see in Dauid reproued by Nathan The third contradiction that Master Higgons would fasten on me is betweene that saying of mine The elect and chosen Seruants of God doe carefully endeauour that no sinnes may haue dominion ouer them and therefore notwithstanding any degree of sinne they runne into they retaine that grace that can and will procure pardon and that in the Articles of religion agreed on in the beginning of her late Maiesties raigne that after we haue receiued the holy Ghost we may depart from grace giuen and by the grace of God rise againe Which is no contradiction in trueth and in deede but in the misconstruction Master Higgons maketh of things well meant For when the Article faith we may depart from grace the meaning of it is that the elect of God called according to purpose may swerue from the directions of grace in some particular things and fall into grieuous sinnes out of which they are to be raised by repentance and not that they may totally fall from it Neither doe I deny but that the elect may commit sin yea grieuous sinnes and such as are in their owne nature mortall though not mortall in that not obtayning full consent they cannot bring death vpon the doers of them Wherefore to conclude this point into which Master Higgons digresseth after his idle manner and to send him backe to the matter he hath in hand I say that there is no contradiction betweene any assertion of mine and the Articles of Religion agreed on in the conuocation and farther adde that there is no Papist of iudgment and consideration that can possibly dissent from vs in this point touching the constant perseuerance of the elect and chosen seruants of God called according to purpose and their neuer wholly falling from grace For first they all agree together with vs that they cannot finally depart away Secondly that some good motions and affections will euer remaine in them after they haue beene once seasoned with the liquor ofrenuing and sanctifying grace Thirdly that they loose not their right to the rewardes which God in the couenant of mercy promised to their former vertuous and good endeauours nor the benefit of their repenting from dead works formerly repented of when they fall into sinne though they can make no vse thereof while they continue in such an estate of sinne For saith Scotus as a man that hath much owing vnto him vpon good assurances and is possessed of things of good valew being excommunicated or out-lawed still retaineth the interest and right to all things that formerly he had though he can make no vse thereof nor by course of law force them to doe him right that goe about to do him wrong nor recouer that which is due vnto him if it bee detained from him but all prosecution of his right is suspended till hee procure himselfe to bee freed from the sentence of excommunication or out-lawry So the remission of originall sinne the right to eternall life obtayned in Baptisme the force and vertue of former repentance conuersion from sins past the right to the rewards
of actions of vertue formerly done remaine still in the elect and chosen called according to purpose when they fall into grieuous sinnes tyrannizing ouer them though during the time of their being in such grieuous sins the actuall claime to the benefit of these things and the enioying of them be suspended which vpon their repentance for those particular sinnes that caused such suspension is reuiued and set afoote againe in such sort that the repentance past sufficeth for remission of former sinnes and the good actions past shall haue their rewards So that a man elect and chosen of God and called according to purpose that hath done good vertuous actions though they be deaded in him for the present by some grieuous Sinne yet still they remaine in diuine acceptation and he still retaineth the right title he had to the reward of eternall life promised to those workes of vertue done by him though he can make no actuall claime to the same while he remaineth in such an estate of sinne but after that such sinne shall cease and bee repented of hee recouereth not a nâ—…w right or title but a new claime by vertue of the old title Wherefore if it bee demaunded whether Dauid and 〈◊〉 â—…hen they fell into those grieuous sinnes of vncleanesse and abnegation of Christ continued in a state of iustification We answer that they did in respect of the remission of their sinnes and the title they goâ—… to eternall life in their first conuersion which they lost not by those their sinnes committed afterwardes For the remission of all their former sinnes whereof before they had repented remained still and Gods acceptation of them to eternall life notwithstanding these sinnes vpon the condition of leauing them together with his purpose of rewarding their well-doings but in respect of the actuall claime to eternall good things they were not as men once iustified are notwithstanding lesser sinnes wâ—…h though they cause a dislike yet neither extinguish the right nor suspend the claime to eternall life Thus hauing runne through all those passages of Master Higgons his booke that any way concerne Mee I leaue him to be-thinke himsâ—…fe whether hee had any reason to traducâ—… Mee in such sort as hee hath done and remitte the wrongs he hath done Mee without cause to the righteous iudgement of God to whom hee must stand or fall The end of the first part THE SECOND PART Concerning the Authour of the Treatise of the grounds of the Olde and Nevv Religion and such exceptions as haue beene taken by him against the former Bookes HAuing answered the frivolous objections of Master Higgons I will leaue him and passe from him to his friend and collegue the Author of the Treatise of the grounds of the Olde and New Religion who also is pleased in his idle discourses to take some exceptioÌ„s against that which I haue writteÌ„ But because hee is a very obscure Author such a one as the world taketh little notice of I will not much trouble my selfe about him nor take so much pains in discouering his weaknesse as I haue done in dismasking the new convert a man as it seemeth of more esteeme Yet that the world may see what goodly stuffe it is that these namelesse and Apocryphall Booke-makers dayly vent amongst our seduced countrymen I will briefly and cursorily take a view of all such passages ofhis Treatise as any way concerne me Amongâ—… which the first that offereth it selfe to our view is in his Preface to the Reader where hee citeth with great allowance and approbation that which I haue in my Epistle Dedicatory That all men must carefully seeke out which is the true Church that so they may embrace her communion follow her directions and rest in her judgement but presently chargeth Mee that in my fourth Booke following I bereaue her of almost all such prerogatiues as I formerly yeelded vnto her so that men may not safely follow her directions nor rest in her judgement in that I say that Generall Councels may erre in matters of greatest consequence and free the Church her selfe from errour onely in certaine principall points and Articles of Christian Religion and not generally in all This is a bad beginning being a most shamelesse vntruth For in the places cited by him I lay downe these propositions First that the Church including in it all faithfull ones since CHRIST appeared in the flesh is absolutely free from all errour and ignorance of diuine things Secondly that the Church including all those beleeuers that are hauebeene since the Apostles times is simply free from all errour though happily not from all ignorance Thirdly that the Church including onely the beleeuers liuing at one time in the world is free not onely froÌ„ error in such things as men are precisely bound expressely to know beleeue but froÌ„ pertinaciously erring in any thing that any way pertaineth to Christian faith and religion Fourthly that wee must simply and absolutely without all doubt or question follow the directions and rest in the iudgment of the Church in eyther of the two former senses Fifthly that we must listen to the determinations of the present Church as to the instructions of our Elders and fatherly admonitions and directions but not so as to the things contained in Scripture or beleeued by the whole Vniuersal Church that hath bin euer since the Apostles times Because as Waldensis noteth the Church whose faith neuer faileth is not any particular Church as that of Africa or Rome but the Vniuersall Church neyther that Vniuersall Church which may bee gathered together in a generall Councell which is found sometimes to haue erred but that which dispersed through the world from the Baptisme of Iohn continueth to our times Sixtly that in the iudgment of Waldensis the fathers successiuely are more certaine iudges in matters of faith then a generall Councell of Bishops though it be in a sort the highest Court of the Church as the Treatiser sayth All these propositions are fouÌ„d in Waldensis who wrote with good allowance of Pope Martin the Fift and the whole consistory of Cardinals so that the Treatiser cannot charge Me with any wrong offered to the Church in bereauing her of her due prerogatiues but he must condemn him also and blame the Pope and his Cardinals for commending the writings of such a man to the world as good profitable and containing nothing contrary to the Catholike verity that forgotte himselfe so farre as to bereaue the Church of almost all her prerogatiues which he cannot doe but he must condemne Vincentius Lyrinensts likewise a man beyond all exception who absolutely concurreth in iudgement with Waldensis touching these points assuring vs that the state of the present Church at sometimes may be such as that we must be forced to flye to the iudgment of Antiquity if we desire to find any certaiue direction A iudgement of right discerning sayth OckaÌ„ there is euer fouÌ„d in the Church
thē but to the defect of the light of naturall reasō foūd in thē or the want of due consideratiō right proceeding in the searching out of such things as are so to be known so likewise it is not to be imputed to the want of evidence of the truth of the things or at least of Gods speaking in the word of Heauenly Truth that all men beleeue not all the bookes that are diuine canonical the things contained in thē but to thedefect of spirituall light in thē that should discerne such things or the want of due cōsideratiō right proceeding in the searching out of such things Secondly he laboureth to proue that none of the articles of faith or things beleeued by vs are evident vnto vs in the light offaith whereas yet notwithstanding Hugo de sancto Victore sayth expresly that in some the light of diuine reason causeth approbation of that they beleeue that in other the purity of the heart conscience causeth a fore-tasting of those things which hereafter more fully shall be enioyed And Alexander of Ales pronounceth that the things apprehended by vs in diuine knowledge are more certainly discerned by such as are spirituall in the certainty of experience in the certainty which is in respect of affection by way of spirituall taste feeling then any thing is discerned in the light of naturall vnderstanding according to that of the Prophet How sweet are thy wordes O Lord vnto my mouth they are sweeter then the hony and the hony combe Wherefore that wee may the more distinctly conceiue these things wee must obserue that there are some things which though without revelation we could not know yet after they are revealed are evident vnto vs in the light of grace As first that the defects euils that are found in the nature of man the blindnes of his vnderstanding the way wardnes of his affections and perverse inclination of his will were not from the beginning that hauing beene in all the sonnes of men the first parents of mankind fell from their originall primitiue estate and that seeing these euils are found in all euen in litle infants new borne the propagation of them is naturall and not by imitation Secondly that the very inclinations of our hearts beeing naturally euill in this corrupt state of nature nothing can change them to good but GOD by a speciall worke aboue and beyond the course of Nature which therefore may rightly be named grace Other thinges there are which are discerned by spirituall taste and feeling as the remission of sinnes the joy and exultation of heart that is there found where God is present in grace And a third sort of thinges there are which being not discerned to bee true eyther of these two wayes are beleeued notwithstanding because deliuered vnto vs by God whom wee discerne to speake in the word of heavenly trueth So that the two former sortes of thinges are euident in themselues to them that are spirituall the latter in respect of that Medium by force whereof they are beleeued which is Diuine authority deliuering them vnto vs which thing Hugo de Sancto Victore excellently expresseth Credit fides saith he quod non vidit non vidit quod credit vidit tamen aliquid per quod admonita est excitata credere quod non vidit Deus sic ab initio notitiam sui ab homine temperauit vt sicut nunquam quid esset totum poterat comprehendi sic quod esset nunquam prorsus posset ignorari Oportuit vt proderet se occultum Deus ne totus celaretur propsus nesciretur rursum ad aliquid proditum se agnitum occultaret ne totus manifestaretur vt aliquid esset quod cor hominis enutriret cognitum rursus aliquid quod absconditum prouocaret That is Faith beleeveth that it neuer saw and it neuer saw that which it doth beleeue yet it saw something by which it was admonished and stirred vppe to beleeue that which it saw not God from the beginning did so temper the revealing of himselfe to bee knowne of men that as it could never bee wholly comprehended what he was so it might neuer be altogether vnknowne that he was It was fitte therefore that God should manifest himselfe formerly hid that hee might not bee wholly hidden and no knowledge had of him and againe that having in some sort reuealed and made himselfe knowne hee should so hide himselfe as not wholly to bee manifested that there might bee something which being knowne might nourish the heart of man and againe something which being hid might prouoke and stirre men vp to a desire of attayning some farther thing These things it seemeth the Treatiser thought not of and therefore denyeth that there is any motiue sufficient to make a man beleeue the articles of the fayth setting aside the meane supernaturall by which they are propounded and therevpon asketh Mee what maketh Me beleeue the articles of the Trinity the two distinct natures in Christ in the Vnity of the same person and the resurrection of the dead Wherevnto I answere that the thing that moueth mee so to beleeue is the authority of the Scripture which is the Word of God and that I beleeue it to bee the Word of God because I doe most certainely discerne him to speake in the same and a certaine diuine force and Majesty to present it selfe vnto Mee though the prophane Treatiser professeth hee knoweth not what that authority and Majesty of God is which is discerned in the sacred Scriptures nor how wee discerne it which is not to bee marvayled at seeing blind men cannot discerne the difference of colours but that there is something more then humane discernable in the Scripture all deuout and religious men will acknowledge with vs. Beleeue Mee sayth Picus Mirandula there lyeth hidde in the Scripture a secret vertue strangely altering and changing them that in due sort are conversant in the same So that the reason that all doe not discerne the Majesty of God in all bookes that are diuine and that some doubt of such as other admitte is not because such a diuine power is not discernable in them but because there is some defect in the parties not discerning the same To the former most weake reasons brought to proue the insufficiency of those inducements or reasons by which wee thinke the Spirit of GOD setleth vs in a perswasion of the truth of thinges contayned in the Scripture First hee addeth an vntruth to witte that I deny those parts of Scripture which rehearse matters of fact to bee knowne to be divine by the authority of God himselfe discerned to speake in the Word of faith And secondly an objection that men cannot know the Scripture to be diuine by discerning the Majesty of God speaking in them vnlesse they reade or heare euery part of them read ouer which is very hard to bee
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
truth whose communion we must embrace follow her directions rest in her iudgement liuing and dying therein to haue eternall life men might here by my censure and advice confine themselues and wade no further in so many intricate controversies of religion the second that I am or must bee of opinion that all those bookes which the church of Rome receiued for canonicall are indeede canonicall For answere to the former of these allegations First I professe before God men and Angels that I neither do nor euer did thinke the present Romane church to be the true church whose communion wee are bound to embrace but an hereticall church with which we may not communicate Secondly I professe in like sort that though I did and doe acknowledge the church wherein our Fathers liued before Luthers time to haue beene the true church of God in respect of the best and indeede the principall parts thereof which held a sauing profession of the truth in Christ howsoeuer many and they greatly prevailing erred damnably yet I neuer thought it to be that church in whose iudgement we are to rest without any farther doubt or question nor that it was safe to follow the greater part of the guides and rulers of it but the church in whose iudgement wee must absolutely and finally rest is that whole and entire societie of Holy ones which beginning at Hierusalem and filling the world continueth vnto this day To refuse the iudgement of this church or to resist against any thing deliuered ab omnibus ubique semper in all places at all times by all Christian pastors and people not noted for heresie or singularitie were extreame folly and madnesse so that as I noted in answer to the first chapter out of Waldensis it is not any particular church as the church of Africa nor the particular Romane church but the vniuersall church not gathered together in a generall councell which hath sometimes erred but the whole catholique church dispersed through the world from the baptisme of Christ vnto our times which doth vndoubtedly holde the true faith and faithfull testimony of IESVS and in whose iudgement we must absolutely rest without any farther question oâ—… doubting and hereunto agreeth t Vincentius Lirinensis prescribing this course to bee followed in matters questioned touching faith and religion If errour creepe into one part of the Church we must looke vnto other that still are sound and pure if into almost the whole present church we must looke vp higher into former times and the resolutions of them that haue beene since the Apostles times Thus I hope the Reader will easily perceiue that this first allegation is friuolous For I doe not thinke the present Church of Rome to be the true church of God whose communion we must embrace nor that the particular Romane church when it was at the best was that church in the judgement whereof we are absolutely to rest and therefore let no man confine himselfe here without farther wading into particular controuersies but let euery man as he tendreth the saluation of his owne soule looke to the judgement of other churches also and to the resolutions of former times Now let vs proceede to his second allegation concerning canonicall and apocryphall bookes of Scripture His words are The Protestant surueyor of the Communion-booke affirmeth plainely that the Protestants of England must approue for Canonicall all those bookes which the Romane Church doth and Doctour Field is of the same opinion or must be for thus he writeth The ancient and true-beleeuing Iewes before the comming of Christ especially such as liued in Greece and nations out of Iury commonly called Hellenists receiued those bookes for canonicall Scripture It is well hee saith not absolutely that I am of that opinion but that I am or must be for he is well assured I am not but he knoweth how to force me to bee whether I will or not by falsly reporting my wordes and making me say that I neuer thought nor said For doe I any where say the ancient and true â—…euing Iewes before the comming of Christ receiued those bookes for canonicall especially such as were dispersed among the Gentiles No surely but the contrary namely that the ancient church of the Iewes did receiue those only as diuine and canonicall which we doe and not those other in question I am verily perswaded these men thinke lying to be no sinne for otherwise it were not likely that bragging so much of their good workes and trusting to the merit thereof they would wittingly runne so often into such a sinne as we silly men thinke it to be and as the spirit of God assureth vs it is being of the number of those that shut men out of the kingdome of God and Christ according to that in the Reuelation Without shall be dogges and inchanters and whore-mongers and murtherers idolaters and whosoeuer loueth or maketh lies But let vs see if hee deale not better in that which followeth Surely no hee is constant and euer like himselfe for hee saith Doctour Field writeth thus The ancient and true-beleeuing Iewes before the comming of Christ especially such as liued in Greece and nations out of Iury commonly called Hellenists receiued those bookes for canonicall Scripture and to vse his owne wordes Hence it came that the Iewes deliuered a double canon of Scripture to the Christian Churches Surely this is not to vse but to abuse my words For I was not so senselesse as to say the auncient and true-beleeuing Iewes receiued the bookes in question for Canonicall and that thence it came that they deliuered a double Canon of Scripture to the Christian Churches For if the Iewes generally had receiued all these bookes for canonicall but especially the Hellenists then they could not haue deliuered a double canon of Scripture but one onely Wherefore my words are not as hee reporteth them but hauing spoken of the 22 bookes of the old Testament I adde These onely did the auncient Church of the Iewes receiue as diuine Canonicall and that other bookes were added vnto these whose authoritie not being certaine and knowne are named Apocryphall fèll out in this sort The Iewes in their latter times before and at the comming of Christ were of two sorts some properly named Hebrewes commorant at Hierusalem in the holy land other named Hellenists Iewes of the dispersion mingled with the Grecians these had written sundry bookes in Greeke which they made vse of together with other parts of the old Testament which they had of the translation of the Septuagint but the Hebrewes receiued onely the 22 bookes before mentioned Hence it came that the Iewes deliuered a double Canon of the Scripture to the Christian Church the one pure indubitate diuine which is the Hebrew Canon the other in Greeke inriched with or rather adulterated by the addition of certaine other bookes written in those dayes when God raised vp no more Prophets among his people So that the
Christ in the world are of two sorts for some were planted by the Apostles themselues or their coadiutors the Euangelists by their directions which are named Apostolicall churches and some other there are that receiued not the faith immediately from the Apostles or their coadiutors but from the Churches which the Apostles had planted The former of these were euer esteemed to be mother churches in respect of the latter So the churches of Alexandria Antioche Ephesus and the like were mother churches to many famous churches in those parts of the world and so the Romane church is a mother church to many churches of the West that receiued their Christianity and faith from her neither may the daughter churches as his Maiesty excellently obserued depart farther from those mother churches from which they receiued the faith then they are departed from themselues in their best estate first establishment but as the Romanists thinke it lawfull for the daughter churches of the East to depart from those their mother churches from which they receiued their faith because as they suppose they are gone from their first faith so wee thinke with his Maiesty that we may iustly depart from our mother church of Rome because shee hath forsaken her first faith commended by the Apostle and is so farre changed that a man may seeke Rome in Rome and not finde it That which he addeth that no rules can leade vs to the finding out of any traditions that aduantage vs is most vntrue For the certaine and indubitate tradition whereby the Scriptures are deliuered vnto vs from the Apostles of Christ doth aduantage vs so much that thereby the Papacy is almost shaken to peeces and besides the forme of Christian doctrine and catholicke interpretation of Scripture brought downe vnto vs from the Apostles discouereth vnto vs the nouelties and singularities of the Romanists to our great aduantage and confirmation in the truth of our profession Hauing thus in his fancie engrossed all traditions appropriated them to the present Romane church hee goeth forward and inferreth out of my admitting some kinde of traditions and assigning rules to know them that diuers particular thinges which hee specifieth are traditions The two first instances that hee giueth are the signe of the crosse and the mingling of water with wine in the holy Sacrament whereof I haue spoken before The third is the reuerence of Images which hee saith is by my rules proued to be an Apostolicall tradition It is well he dareth not say the worshipping of Images is proued to bee Apostolicall for that by Saint Gregory and the Fathers it will be proued to be rather a Diabolicall then an Apostolicall tradition Wherefore let vs see what those rules are that proue the reuerence of Images to be Apostolicall seeing it is euident the church had them not at all for a long time and Eusebius assureth vs the making and hauing of them was by imitation of Heathenish custome The rules saith hee that proue this are the Pastors of the Apostolicall Churches in the second Nicene Councell and old custome but these are no rules assigned by me For I neuer admit the iudgement of the present Pastors of Apostolicall churches or custome to bee rules to know true traditions by and therefore much lesse make the Bishops in the second Councell of Nice to bee rules of this sort but the consenting profession of the Pastours of an Apostolicall Church successiuely from the beginning and the generall and perpetuall obseruation of a thing from the time that Christianity was first known in the world by neither of which he shal euer proue either the worshipping or reuerencing of Images to be Apostolicall The fourth thing that he saith by my rules is found to bee an Apostolicall tradition is sacrifice and prayer for the dead but herein he is deceiued or goeth about to deceiue others as in the rest For it is true indeede that the offering of the sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing the naming of the dead and prayer for their and our ioynt consummation and publicke acquitall in the day of CHRIST is such an Apostolicall tradition as hath ground in Scripture but he can neuer proue that the offering of a propitiatory sacrifice for the dead or prayer to deliuer them out of Purgatory paines was deliuered as a tradition from the Apostles by any of my rules to wit consent of Fathers from the beginning or continued practise from the Apostles times The like I say of his fifth instance for hee cannot proue the vow of single life in Priests to haue beene from the beginning but I haue largely proued the contrary in my fifth booke of the Church So that the vow of single life is not proued out of any of the rules set downe by mee to bee an Apostolicall tradition Wherefore let vs proceede to the rest of his instances He telleth vs in the next place that we may resolue with the ancient Fathers that Reliques are to bee reverenced is a tradition because M. Willet telleth vs Vigilantius was condemned of heresie for denying it Surely it is greatly to bee doubted that he is not a sound and perfect Romish Catholique for that hee dareth not to say the worshipping of Images and Reliques is a tradition but minseth the matter and saith onely the reverencing of them is a tradition For touching the reverence of Reliques if hee meane nothing else thereby but the reverent and honourable laying vp of such parts of the bodies of Gods Saints as come to our hands it is a Christian duty that we stand bound vnto so that not onely M. Willet but we all think Vigilantius was iustly condemned if he either despised or contemptuously vsed the dead bodies of the Saints Neither neede we flye to vnwritten tradition to seeke proofes for the necessitie of this duty for they are plentiously found in Scripture but if he meane by the reverencing of Reliques the shewing of them to be touched and adored we think it impiety and know it was forbidden by S Gregory who condemneth the bringing forth of any parts of the bodies of Gods Saints departed into the sight of men to bee seene or handled of them That particular and personall absolution from sinne after confession is an Apostolicall and godly ordinance which is his next instance we make no doubt but deny that it is an vnwritten ordinance neither can this good man proue it so to bee For doth Christ in Scripture giue the keyes of the kingdome of heauen to the Apostles and their successors with power to binde and power to loose with power to remit and power to retaine sinnes and is it not a written veritie that particular absolution is necessary His Maiestie on whom he fathereth this tradition did most learnedly and excellently distinguish in the conference he mentioneth three kindes of absolution from sinne making the first to bee the freeing of men from such punishments of Almighty God as sinne subiecteth them vnto