which they are found and so leaue him in a state wherein hee hath nothing in himselfe that can or wil procure him pardon and other which though in themselues considered and neuer remitted they bee worthy of eternall punishment yet do not so farre preuaile as to banish grace the fountaine of remission of all misdoings All sinnes then in themselues considered are mortall a as Gerson doth excellently demonstrate First because euery offence against God may iustly bee punished by him in the strictnesse of his righteous iudgments with eternall death yea with annihilation which appeareth to be most true for that there is no punishment so euill and so much to be avoided as the least sin that may be imagined so that a man should rather choose eternall death yea vtter annihilation than committe the least offence in the world Secondly the least offence that can be imagined remaining eternally in respect of the staine and guilt of it though not in act as do all sinnes vnremitted must bee punished eternally for else there might some sinnefull disorder and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 remaine not ordered by diuine iustice But wheresoeuer is eternity of punishment men are repelled from eternall life and happinesse and consequently euery offence that eternally remaineth not remitted excludeth from eternall glorie and happinesse and is rightly iudged a mortall and deadly sinne All sinnes then are mortall in them that are strangers from the life of God because they haue dominion and full command in them or are ioyned withsuch as haue and so leaue no place for grace which might cry vnto God for the remission of them But the elect and chosen seruants of God called according to purpose doe carefully indevour that no sinnes may haue dominion ouer them therefore notwithstanding any degree of sinne they runne into they retaine that grace which can and will procure pardon for all their offences Thus all sinnes in themselues considered and neuer repented of forsaken nor remitted are mortall All sinnes that against the Holy Ghost excepted are veniall ex eventu that is such as may bee and oftentimes are forgiuen through the mercifull goodnes of God though there be nothing in the parties offending while they are in such state of sinne that either can or doth cry for remission The sinnes of the just not done with full consent and therefore not excluding grace the property whereof is to procure the remission of sinnes are said to be veniall because they are such and of such nature as leaue place in that soule wherein they are for grace that may and will procure pardon By that which hath beene said I hope it doth appeare that we teach nothing touching the difference of veniall and mortall sinnes that Bellarmine himselfe can except against and that wee differ very much from the Pelagians who thought that no sinfull defect can stand with grace or a state of acceptation and fauour with God For we reject this their conceit as impious and hereticall doe confesse that all sinnes not done with full consent may stand with grace and so be rightly named veniall CHAP. 33. Of the heresie of Nestorius falsely imputed to Beza and others THe next heresie it pleaseth this heretical Romanist to charge vs with is that of the Nestorians Let vs see how he indeauoureth to fasten this impiety vpon vs. First saith he the Nestorians contemned the Fathers and so doe the Protestants therefore they are Nestorians The consequence of this argument we will not now examine But the Minor proposition is most false For we reverence and honour the Fathers much more then the Romanists doe who pervert corrupt and adulterate their writings but dare not abide the tryall of their doctrines by the indubitate writings of antiquity Secondly saith he the Nestorians affirmed that there were two persons in Christ and so divided the vnity of his Person But the Protestants thinke so likewise Therefore they are Nestorians The assumption we deny and he doth not so much as indeavour to proue it but proceedeth particularly to proue Beza a Nestorian heretique in which hee hath as ill successe as he had in the rest of his slanderous imputations Beza saith he teacheth that there are two hypostaticall vnions in Christ Ergo two hypostases or persons which was the heresie of Nestorius The consequence of this argument is too weak to inforce the intended conclusion For when Beza saith There are two hypostaticall vnions in Christ the one of the body and soule the other of the nature of God and man hee doth not conceiue that the vnion of the body and soule doe in Christ make a distinct humane person or subsistence different from that of the Sonne of God for hee euery-where confesseth that the humane nature of Christ hath no subsistence but that of the Sonne of God communicated to it but hee therefore calleth it an hypostaticall vnion because naturally it doth cause a finite distinct humane person or subsistence and so would haue done here if the nature flowing out of this vnion had not beene assumed by the sonne of God and so prevented and stayed from subsisting in it selfe and personally sustained in the person of the sonne of God This doctrine is so farre from heresie that he may justly be suspected of more then ordinarie malice that will traduce it as hereticall Yet hath Beza to stop the mouthes of such clamorous aduersaries long since corrected and altered this forme of speech which hee had sometimes vsed CHAP. 34. Of the heresies of certaine touching the Sacrament and how our men denie that to bee the body of Christ that is carried about to bee gazed on THe sixteenth heresie imputed to vs is the heresie of certaine who what they were the Iesuite knoweth not nor what their heresie was as it should seeme by his doubtfull and vncertaine manner of speaking of it This vnknowen heresie defended by he knoweth not whom he sayth Caluine Bucer Melancthon and other worthy and renowned Diuines with whom he is no way matchable either in pietie or learning though hee weare a Cardinals hatte doe teach But what monster of heresie is it that these men haue broached Surely that Christs body is not in the Sacrament or sacramentall elements but in reference to the vse appointed by Almighty God nor longer than the Sacrament may serue for our instruction and the working of our spirituall vnion with Christ and that therefore it is not the body of Christ that dogs swine and mice doe eate as the Romanists are wont to blaspheme and that it is not fit to dispute as their impious Sophisters doe of the passage of it into the stomacke belly and draught of vomiting it vp againe and resuming it when it is vomited with infinite other like fooleries which euery modest man loatheth and shameth to heare mentioned Secondly that it is not the body of Christ which the Popish Idolaters carrie about in their pompous solemne and pontificall Processions to be
for one of the diuine Persons of the blessed Trinity So that as one drop of water that formerly subsisted in it selfe powred into a vessell containing a greater quantity of water by continuitie becommeth one in subsistence with that greater quantity of water as a braunch of a tree which being set in the ground left to itselfe would bee an entire independent tree becommeth one in subsistence with that tree into which it is graffed they both lose their own bounds within which contayned they were distinctly seuered from other things the relation of being totall things so the individuall nature of man assumed into the vnity of one of the Persons of the blessed Trinity loseth that kinde of being that naturally left to it selfe it would haue had which is to bee in for it selfe not to depend of any other getteth a new relation of dependance being in another And as it is continuitie that maketh the former things one with them to which they are joyned so here a kinde of spirituall contact betweene the Diuine Person the nature of man maketh GOD to be Man For as situation and position is in things corporall so is order and dependance in things spirituall There are many similitudes brought by Diuines to expresse this vnion of the Natures of God Man in the same Christ as of the soule body of a flaming fierie sword of one man hauing two accidentall formes lastly of a tree a braunch or bough that is graffed into it The similitude of the soule body making but one man is very apt vsed by the Ancient yet is it defectiue imperfect first for that the soule body being imperfect natures concurre to make one full perfect nature of a man secondly for that the one of them is not drawne into the vnity of the subsistence of the other but both depend of a third subsistence which is that of the whole whereas in Christ both natures are perfect so that they cannot concurre to make a third nature or subsistence but the Eternall Word subsisting perfectly in it selfe draweth vnto it personally sustaineth in it the nature of man which hath no subsistence of it owne but that of the Son of God communicated vnto it Touching the similitude of a fiery flaming sword it most liuely expresseth the vnion of the two Natures in Christ in that the substances of fire of the sword are so nearely cōjoyned that the operations of thē for the most part concurre there is in a sort a cōmunication of properties from the one of them to the other For a fiery sword in cutting dividing wasteth burneth in wasting and burning cutteth and diuideth and we may rightly say of this whole thing wherein the nature of the fire and the nature of the Steele or Iron whereof the sword is made doe concurre meete that it is fire that it is steele or Iron that this fiery thing is a sharpe piercing sword and that this sharpe piercing sword is a fiery devouring thing But this similitude is defectiue because the nature of Iron is not drawne into the vnity of the subsistence of fire nor the fire of Iron so that we cannot say this fire is steele or Iron or this steele or Iron is fire The third similitude of one man hauing two qualities or accidentall formes as the skill of Physicke and Law hath many things in it most aptly expressing the personall vnion of the two Natures of God Man in Christ. For first in such a man there is but one person and yet there are two natures concurring and meeting in the same the qualities are different and the things had not the same But hee that hath and possesseth them is the same Secondly the person being but one is denominated from either or both of these different formes qualities or accidentall natures and doth the workes of them both and there is a communication of properties consequent vpon the concurring of two such formes in one man For wee may rightly say of such a one This Physitian is a Lawyer and this Lawyer is a Physitian This Lawyer is happy in curing diseases and this Physitian is carefull in following his Clients causes Scotus especially approueth the similitude of the subject and accident first taking away that which is of imperfection in the subject as that it is potentiall in respect of the accident to be informed of it and in a sort perfected by it Secondly that which is of imperfection in the accident as that it must be inherent for otherwise the nature of man is joyned to the Person of the Son of God per modum accidentis for that advenit enti in actu completo that is it commeth to a thing already complete and perfect in it selfe In which sort one thing may bee added and come to another either so as not to pertaine to the same subsistence as the garments that one putteth on or so as to pertaine to the same subsistence but by inherence or thirdly so as to pertaine to the same subsistence without the inherence of the one in the other by a kind of inexistence as the branch is in the tree into which it is graffed which is the fourth similitude and of all other most perfect For there are but two things wherein it faileth and commeth too short whereof the first is for that the branch hath first a seperate subsistence in it selfe and after looseth it and then is drawne into the vnity of the subsistence of that tree into which it is implanted the second for that it hath no roote of it owne and soe wanteth one part pertaining to the integrity of the nature of each tree But if a branch of one tree should by diuine power bee created and made in the stocke of another this comparison would faile but onely in one circumstance and that not very important seeing though the humane nature want noe part pertaining to the integrity and perfection of it as the implanted branch doth of that pertaineth to the integrity of the nature of a tree in that it hath no roote of it owne yet the humane nature in Christ hath no subsistence of it owne but that of the Sonne of God communicated vnto it and therefore in that respect it is in some sort like to the branch that hath noe roote of it owne but that of the tree into which it is implanted communicated vnto it This comparison is vsed by Alexander of Hales and diuers other of the Schoole-men and in my opinion is the aptest and fullest of all other For as betweene the tree and the branch there is a composition not Huius ex his but huius ad hoc that is not making a tree of a compound or middle nature and quality but causing the branch though retaining it owne nature and bearing it owne fruite to pertaine to the vnity of the
those things which euery one that hath saluted the Schooles doth know The vnion of the natures of God and man in Christ sayth Cardinall Caietan is to be considered vel quantum ad relationem quam significat vel quantū ad coniunctionem in personâ ad quam consequitur quoniam plus differunt haec duo quam caelum terra Vnio enim pro relatione est ens reale creatum Vnio antem pro coniunctione naturae humanae in personâ diuina cum consistat in vnitate que est inter naturam humanam personam filij Dei est in genere seu ordine Substantia non est aliquid Creatum sed Creator quod ex eo constat quòd Vnum non addit supra Ens naturam aliquam vnumquodque per illudmet per quod est Ens est Vnum c. Bc per hoc natura humana in Christo quia per esse substantiale subsistentia filii Dei est iuncta naturae divinae oportet quod illud unum esse in quo indivisae sunt natura diuina humana in Christo sit esse unum substantiale divinum verè sic est quia esse subsistentiae filii Dei in quo non distinguuntur ambae naturae Substantia est Deus est quia verbum Dei est Vnà eâdem quippe Subsistentiâ subsistit filius Dei in natura Divina in natura humana consequenter natura divina et humana in Christo sunt indivisae in illa subsistentiautrique communi quamvis inter se valdè distinguantur The summe of that he saith is this for I will not stand exactly to English his wordes that the vnion betweene the nature of God and Man in CHRIST in respect of that being of actuall existence and subsistence wherein they are conioyned which is the same and common to them both to wit the subsistence of the Sonne of God communicated to the nature of man prevented that it should not haue any created or finite subsistence of it owne is no finite or created thing but infinite and diuine but in respect of the attaining of the same in time and the relation of dependance the humane nature hath vpon the Eternall Word it is finite and therefore whereas there are two kindes of grace in Christ the one of vnion the other habituall the latter is absolutely a finite and created thing but the former in respect of the thing giuen which is the personall subsistence of the Son of God bestowed vpō the nature of man is infinite though the passiue mutatiō of the nature of man lifted vp to the personal being of the Son of God the relation of dependance it hath on it be finite in the number of created things From that which hath beene said it may be concluded vnavoydably that the humanity of Christ in respect of personall vnion and in that being of actuall existence or subsistence which it hath which is infinite and diuine is euery-where as God himselfe is euery-where But saith Higgons there is an vnion Hypostatical betweene the soule body all the parts of it yet is not the foot or hand euery where where the soule is which is whole intire in euery part because it is not in the head The poore fellow I see hath yet learned but a little Diuinity and that maketh him thus to talke at randome For howsoeuer the comparison of the soule and body be brought to expresse the personall vnion in Christ yet it is very defectiue as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth First because the body and soule are imperfit natures Secondly because they concurre to make one nature Thirdly because neither of them draweth the other into the subsistence it hath but both depend on a third subsistence which is that of the whole but in the mysterie of the Incarnation the Eternall Word subsisting perfitly in it selfe draweth vnto it the nature of man so that the humanity of Christ hauing the same actuall existence that the Eternall Word hath must needes bee in respect of the same being whore-soeuer the Word is But there is no necessitie that each part of the body should be where-soeuer the soule is which is intirely in the whole body and intirely in euery part because the body and the parts of it haue neither the same being of essence nor existence that the soule hath But saith Higgons the properties of the diuine nature are by vertue of the personal vnion attributed to the persō in concreto not to the humane nature in abstracto so that though the Man Christ may be said to be euery-where yet the humanity cannot For answere to this obiection wee must note that the communication of properties is of two sorts the first is the attributing of the properties of either nature to the person from which nature soeuer it be denominated The second is the reall communication of the properties of the Deity to the nature of man not formally and in it selfe but in supposito in the person of the Sonne of GOD bestowed on it in which sense Bellarmine confesseth that the glory of GOD and all power both in Heauen and in earth are giuen to the humane nature of CHRIST Non in ipsa sed in supposito id est per gratiam unionis And so the Diuines of Germany doe say the humanity of CHRIST is euery-where in the being of subsistence cōmunicated to it the Man CHRIST properly and formally By this which hath beene said the intelligent reader I doubt not will easily perceiue the folly of silly Higgons who being ignorant of the very principles and rudiments of Christian Doctrine traduceth that as a pseudo-theologicall determination and heresie which is the resolued determination of all the principall Schoole-men and best Diuines that euer treated distinctly of the personall vnion of the two natures in Christ. Yet as if all were cleare for him and against Mee encouraged by his good successe in this particular hee proceedeth to the matter of the Sacrament perswading himselfe hee shall be able to find such and so many essentiall differences therein as neither I nor any man else shall euer be able to reconcile whereas notwithstanding if he had beene so much conuersant in the workes of Zanchius as hee pretendeth hee might haue found in him a most godly and learned discourse touching this point wherein all that hee or any of his companions can say is answered already and the Diuines of Germany and those other in shew opposite in such sort reconciled that our Aduersaries if any thing would satisfie them might lay their handes on their mouthes and be silent In this discourse first hee sheweth that there is no question touching the preparation of them that desire to bee worthy partakers of this heauenly banquet neither concerning the vse of this blessed Sacrament Secondly that it is agreed that the very body and blood of Christ are to be receiued by such as desire to be
bound of all his desires and yet in a sort not being come vnto it because howsoeuer he was perfectly joyned with God affectione iustitiae that is with that affection that yeeldeth vnto God the praise honour and loue that is due vnto him and saw him face to face with cleare and perfect vision yet hee was not so fully joyned to him as he is to be enjoyed affectione commodi that is with that affection that seeketh after pleasing delight but that hee suffered many bitter grieuous and vnpleasant things fasting watching weeping wearying himselfe in all which respects being extra terminū that is not yet come to the vttermost extent bound of that is desired he was in state of meriting But because the enduring of these bitter grieuous afflictiue euils may seem rather to pertain to the nature of satisfactiō then merit therfore they adde that howsoeuer in respect of the perfectiō of his Diuine Heauenly vertues he were in termino that is come to the vttermost bound extent thereof yet in the expressing of the actions of thē he fitted himself to the conditiō of men here below as appeared in the actiōs of his loue obediēce in that he gaue himself for the pacifying of his Fathers wrath the satisfying of his Iustice the promeriting of our good besides he had the actiōs of many vertues that are proper to the conversation of this world whereof there is no vse in Heauen or in Heauen-happinesse but in the way and journey towardes Heauen as Temperance Sobriety Fortitude Patience and the Obseruation of the ceremoniall and judiciall Law in which respect he may very properly be said to haue been in a state of meriting and to haue merited Wherefore presupposing that Christ might and did merite let vs see whether hee merited any thing for himselfe The Papists impute I know not what impiety to Caluine because he saith Christ merited not for himselfe but for vs onely vrge against him that saying of the Apostle when he saith that Christ humbled himselfe was made obedient vnto death euen the death of the Crosse and that therefore God exalted him and gaue him a name aboue euery name Wherefore let vs take a view of that they teach touching this point that so wee may the better discerne whether Caluine be justly blamed by them or not The Schoolemen generally agree that Christ neither did nor could merite the grace of personall vnion the habituall perfections of his humane Soule or the vision of God because hee possessed all these from the beginning it would haue beene a matter of more imperfection to haue wanted any of them at the first then of perfection to haue gotten them by merite afterwards Yet the Master of Sentences others resolue that hee did procure vnto himselfe by his merite the impassibility and glorification of his Body But Scotus very acutely and wittily objecteth against them that so think that Christ cannot be sayd to haue merited the impassibility glorification of his body because they would haue beene found in it from the very first instant of the vnion of the Natures of God and Man in him by vertue of that union before any act of his had not the naturall consequence and flowing of them from that vnion beene stayed and hindered by speciall dispensation for the working of our saluation and therefore he sayth that if we will defend the Ma ster of Sentences from errour in this point we must soe construe his words as that Christ did not directly merit glorification and impassibility but onely the remouing of that miraculous stay of the naturall redundance of glory from his Soule filled with the happy vision of his Deitie into his body But surely this fauourable construction will not helpe the matter for seeing the miraculous stay of the redundance of glory from the Soule of Christ into his body was of it selfe to cease when that should be performed for the effecting whereof such stay was made he could no more merit such remoue of stay then the glory it selfe that in respect of the grace of personall vnion would as naturally haue beene communiated to his body as it was in his Soule had not God for speciall purpose stayed and hindred such redundance So that wee shall find that how soeuer the Papists do presse certaine testimonies of Scripture as if they would proue out of them that Christ meritted the name aboue all names and the fullnesse of all power both in heauen and in earth which hee could no more merit then to be God yet in the end they are forced to confesse soe great is the truth which will euer preuaile that he neither meritted the personall vnion of his two natures the perfection of his habituall graces the vision of God nor the glorification of his body but onely the remouing of that stay and impediment that hindred the flowing of Glory from his soule into his body finding that this stay or hinderance was to cease of it self so soon as the work of our Redēptiō should be wrought consequētly that he could not merit it they flie for helpe to a distinctiō of merits which they make to be of 3 sorts For there is as they say one kind of merit that maketh a thing due which was not due before another that maketh a thing more due thē it was before a 3d that maketh a thing more waies due thē at first it was The 2 first kinds of merit they cōfesse did not agree to Christ there being nothing that was not due vnto him in as high degree in the beginning as euer it was afterwards But they say that he merited in the 3d sort or kind in that he made those things that were due vnto him as consequents of the personall vnion of his 2 natures to be due vnto him as a reward of his passion This truly is a very silly evasiō seeing that cānot be a reward of a mans labors that was due to him in as high degree before as after his work is don He that labouteth in the field or vineyard of another man she that nourisheth a child that is not her owne trauaile both in hope of reward but that reward must of necessity be some thing that was not due to them before such trauaile yea he that dresseth his owne vine she that nourisheth her owne children looke to the recompense of reward but that reward is no other thing but the prosperity and increase of their fields and vineyards and the grouth of their children like the Oliue branches round about their their table which without such paines and trauaile they could not looke for In like sort a Man may say to his child this land shall be the reward of thy dutifull behauiour if he haue power to put it from him if his behauiour be not dutiefull but if he haue not it is ridiculous to promise it as a reward seeing a
which motion expresseth the condition of those things to the which God hath denied the knowledge and immediate enioying of himselfe which are established in the perfection of their owne nature and therein rest without seeking any further thing Some with circular motion by which they returne to the same point whence they began to mooue The motion of these expresseth the nature and condition of men and Angels who only are capable of true happinesse whose desires are never satisfied till they come backe to the same beginning whence they came forth till they come to see God face to face and to dwell in his presence None but immortall and incorruptible bodies are rolled with circular motions none but Angels that are heavenly spirits and men whose soules are immortall returne backe to the sight presence and happy enioying of God their Creator Each thing is carried in direct motion by natures force in circular by heavenly movers Every thing attaineth natures perfection by natures force and guidance but that other which is Divine and supernaturall consisting in the vision and fruition of God they that attaine vnto it must impute it to the sweete motions and happy directions of Divine grace This grace God vouchsafed both men and Angels in the day of their creation thereby calling them to the participation of eternall happinesse and giuing them power that they might attaine to the perfection of all happie and desired good if they would and everlastingly continue in the ioyfull possession of the same But such was the infelicitie of these most excellent creatures that knowing all the different degrees of goodnesse found in things and having power to make choise of what they would ioyned with that mutability of nature which they were subiect vnto in that they were made of nothing they fell from the loue of that which is the chiefe and greatest good to those of meaner qualitie and thereby deprived themselues of that sweete and happy contentment they should haue found in God and denying to be subiect to their great soveraigne and to performe that duty they owed vnto him were iustly dispossessed of all that good which from him they receiued and vnder him should haue enioyed yea all other things which were made to do them seruice lost their natiue beautie and originall perfection and became feeble weake vnpleasant and vntractable that in them they might find as little contentment as in themselues For seing nothing can prevaile or resist against the lawes of the omnipotent Creatour no creature is suffered to denie the yeelding of that which from it is due to God For either it shall be forced to yeeld it by right vsing of that which from him it receiued or by loosing that which it would not vse well and so consequently if it yeeld not that by dutie it should by doing and working righteousnesse it shall by feeling smart and miserie This then was the fall of men and Angels from their first estate in that by turning from the greater to the lesser good they depriued themselues of that blessednesse which though they had not of themselues yet they were capable of might haue attained vnto by adhering to the chiefe and immutable good and so by their fault fell into those greevous evils they are now subject vnto yet in very different sort and manner CHAP. 3. Of the Church consisting of those Angels that continued in their first estate by force of grace vpholding them and men redeemed THe Fall of Angels was irrecouerable For without all hope of any better estate or future deliverance out of those euils into the bottomlesse gulph whereof by their rebellious sinne they plunged themselues they are reserued in chaines of darkenesse to the iudgment of the great day But concerning the sonnes of men the Lord knew whereof they were made and remembred that they were but dust Hee looked vpon them with the eye of pitty and in the multitude of his compassionate mercies said of them as it is in the Prophet Ieremie Shall they fall and shall they not arise shall they turne away and shall they not returne as high as the heauens is aboue the earth so great was his mercie towards thē As farre as the East is from the West so farre remoued hee their sins from them hee redeemed their life from hell and crowned them with mercie and compassion The reason of this so great difference as the Schoolemen thinke is First for that the Angels are not by propagation one from another but were created all at once so that of Angels some might fall and others stand But men descend by generation from one stocke or roote and therefore the first man falling and corrupting his nature deriued to all his posteritie a corrupted and sinfull nature if therefore God had not appointed a redemption for man hee had beene wholy depriued of one of the most excellent creatures that ever hee made whereas among the Angels notwithstanding the Appostasie of some he held still innumerable in their first estate Secondly the Angels fell of themselues but man by the suggestion of another Thirdly the Angels in the height of their pride sought to be like vnto God in omnipotencie which is an incommunicable property of diuine being and cannot be imparted to any creature But men desired only to be like vnto God in omniscience and the generall knowledge of all things which may be communicated to a creature as in Christ it is to his humane soule which notwithstanding the vnion with God yet still remaineth and continueth a created nature and therefore the degree of sinnefull transgression was not so greevous in the one as in the other Fourthly the Angels were immateriall and intellectuall spirits dwelling in heavenly palaces in the presence of God and the light of his countenance and therefore could not sinne by error or misperswasion but of purposed malice which is the sinne against the holy Ghost and is irremissible But man fell by misperswasion and being deceiued by the lying suggestion of the spirit of errour Fiftly the Angels haue the fulnesse of intellectuall light when they take view of any thing they see all that any way pertaineth to it and so doe all things with so full resolution that they never alter nor repent But man who findeth out one thing after another and one thing out of another doth dislike vpon farther consideration that which formerly he liked Wherevpon the Schoolemen note that there are three kinds of willes The first of God which never turneth nor altereth the second of Angels that turneth and returneth not the third of men that turneth and returneth Sixtly there is a time prefixed both to men and Angels after which there is no possibility of altering their estate bettering themselues or attayning any good Now as death is that time prefixed vnto men so was the first good or badde deliberate action to the Angels that who would might be perpetually good who would not no grace should
of them Fourthly that the deity and humanity of Christ are not all one Fiftly they confesse that it may truely bee said the Diuinity of Christ is aliud natura that is a thing of different condition and nature from his humanity Sixtly that they are not of the same nature and substance Seaventhly that their properties are not the same the one being finite and the other infinite So that this is it which they say that the 2 natures which were vnited in Christ remaine after the vnion without mixtion confusion or conuersion in their distinct being of essence and properties but are become one first in the being of subsistence 2 in respect of mutuall inexistence and 3 in communion of mutuall operation in that the one doth nothing without the communion and concurrence of the other And in this sort is that saying of Cyrill to be vnderstood when hee sayth there are not 2 natures in Christ but one nature of the Word incarnate that is the 2 natures vnited are not 2 and distinct but one in subsistence For the nature of man hath no subsistence but that of the Word communicated vnto it in which they are one And so it is expounded in the 8 Canon of the fifth generall Councell Leonardus Bishop of Sidonia reporteth that when hee conferred with the Patriarch of the Iacobites to this purpose hee cleerely accursed Eutyches confounding the natures of God and man in Christ but yet affirmed that they are so vnited that there is one personated nature arising out of 2 natures not personated Professing that they thinke as the Latines doe touching the thing it selfe but differ from them in forme of words more aptly expressing the thing as they suppose Tecla Abissen saith the Aethiopians thinke there is but one nature in Christ. Being asked whether they thinke there is one nature resulting out of the two natures that were vnited Hee answereth that they say no such thing but that they professe simply that there is one nature and that is the diuine nature meaning as it seemeth that the diuine nature onely subsisteth in its owne subsistence and that the humanity is drawne into the vnity of the same Thomas à Iesu reporteth that in the time of Gregorie the 13th there were certaine learned men sent into Aegypt to winne the Christians of those parts to joyne in communion with the Roman Church And that in the yeare 1582 a Synod was holden at Cair where at the third meeting after six houres disputation touching the 2 natures of Christ all with one consent by Gods happy direction decreed as the truth is touching the thing it selfe anathematizing all them that should spoile him of either nature who being God and man receiued his deity from the Father and his humanity from his mother And though the Christians of Aegypt refuse to say there are 2 natures in Christ yet they confesse him to bee God and man Nicetas sayth the Armenians are Monophysits and that Immanuell the Emperour in the yeare 1170 sent Theorianus to conferre with their Catholicke or chiefe Bishop and to reclaime them if it might bee from that heresie The disputation betweene them hee setteth downe at large But Genebrard feareth not to censure him pronouncing that both hee and Theorianus were deceiued if that bee indeede the answere of the Armenian Bishop to the objections of Theorianus as is there put downe For nature beeing sometimes taken for a part sometimes for the whole consisting of the severall parts as in Aristotle sometimes it importeth the whole sometimes the parts of which the whole consisteth the Armenian Bîshop sayd truely the things whereof Christ consisteth are of different nature or difference in nature and that they are but one nature in that they are so joyned put together that they are one in the being of subsistence that one of them inexisteth in the other and either of them hath a communion of operation with the other But hee in no sort imagineth that they are so one as if a compounded nature did arise out of the putting of them together in such sort as the nature of man is a compound nature arising out of the putting together of the soule and body So that these Christians are vnjustly charged with the heresie of the Monophysits aunciently condemned For they imagined that the two natures vnited in Christ are become one in the being of essence and property but these confesse them to remaine distinct in both these respects and to become one onely in respect of the being of subsistence mutuall inexistence and the communion the one hath with the other in action and operation comparing this vnion to that of the iron and fire Neither is it to bee marvailed at that they are thus wronged For as Genebrard noteth the Greekes often thus wrong the orientall Christians laying an imputation of heresie vpon them out of sinister respects So that they are to bee suspected as often as writing of the Syrians Maronits Aetbiopians Persians Indians Georgians Aegyptians they call them Iacobits or Nestorians For they that travell into these parts finde them to bee orthodoxe and right beleeuers differing from other parts of the true Church rather in certaine ceremonies then in substance Hauing thus cleered these Christians from the imputation of heresie vndeservedly layd vpon them let vs proceed more particularly to consider of the specialties of religion professed by them and first of the religion of the Iacobits The Iacobits haue their name from one Iacobus of Syria surnamed Zanzalus liuing about the yeare of our Lord 530. Who amongst others that rejected the Councell of Chalcedon laboured greatly to perswade the people of Syria to refuse the same and taught them to beleeue that the two natures which were vnited in Christ after the vnion are become one not in such sort as Eutiches imagined who confounded them into one but as Dioscorus taught who made them to bee one by adunation without mixtion or confusion That this was his opinion it is evident by his followers Who honour Dioscorus as a Saint and condemne Eutyches as an hereticke These as Leonardus Bishop of Sidonia reporteth are dispersed thoroughout the câ—…ties regions and townes of Syria Mesopotamia and Babylon mixt with other sects and their number is so great that there are fifty thousand families of them They chiefely inhabite in Aleppo of Syria and in Caramit They haue and long haue had a Patriarch of their owne to whom they yeeld obedience For wee reade of the Patriarch of the Iacobits in the time of Heraclius the Emperour This Patriarth resideth in Caramit but the Patriarchicall Church is in the monastery of Zafra without the city Moradin in Mesopotamia They were before the breach subject to the Patriarch of Antioch but when they fell off from other Christians in opinion they departed from the Patriarch that then was and entitled one of their owne making to that honour supposing the other to be in errour and themselues right
Iesabel which called her selfe a Prophetesse to deceiue the people of God make thē cōmit fornication eate things sacrificed vnto Idols c. yet it is not to be thought that all that were of these Churches with one consent denied the resurrection fell into al the errours euils aboue mentioned For then doubtlesse these societies had ceased to be the true and Catholicke Churches of God so though sundrie dangerous and damnable errours were broached in the midst of the Church and house of God in the dayes of our Fathers which did fret as a canker as Gerson confesseth yet were they not with full approbation generally receiued but doubted of contradicted refuted and rejected as vncertaine dangerous damnable and hereticall And as in the reformation of those Churches of Corinth Galatia Pergamus and Thyatira if some had still persisted in the maintenance of those errours and abuses reproued by the Spirit of God and the blessed Apostles of our Sauiour Christ whiles other moued by the admonition of the Spirit of God and the wordes of the holy Apostles reformed themselues and so a diuision or separation had growen it had beene a vaine challenge for the stiffe maintainers of errours and abuses to challenge the reformed part for noueltie to aske of them where their Church was before this reformation began seeing it was euen the same wherein in one communion they formerly liued together with toleration of all those euills which the one part still retained and the other justly rejected So when many Princes Prelates and great States of the Christian world haue in our dayes shaken off that yoke of miserable bondage whereof our fathers complayned remooued those superstitious abuses they disliked condemned those errours in matters of doctrine which they acknowledged to bee daungerous and damnable fretting as a canker and insnaring the consciences of many It is no lesse vaine and friuolous for the Patrons of errour to aske vs which and where our Church was before the reformation beganne for it was that wherein all our Fathers liued longing to see things brought backe to their first beginnings againe in which their predecessours as a daungerous and wicked faction tyrannized ouer mens consciences and peruerted all things to the endlesse destruction of themselues and many others with whom they prevayled If they shall further reply that that Church wherein our fathers liued was not ours because there were many things found in it which wee haue not who seeth not that this reason stands as strong against them as against vs For there are many errours and superstitions which they haue reiected and doe not retaine at this day which were in being in the dayes of our Fathers And besides this obiection would haue serued the Patrons of errour in the Church of Corinth Galatia and the rest For they might haue sayd after those Churches were reformed that they were new and not the same that were before For that in the former the resurrection of the dead was denied circumcision vrged and practised discipline neglected and the Apostles of Christ contemned which things afterwards were not found in them As therefore this had beene a shamelesse objection of those erring miscreants against the godly and well-affected in those times so it is in ours And as those errours were not generall in those Churches so were not they which we haue condemned in the Churches wherein our Fathers liued As those errours and heresies were not the doctrines of the Churches of Corinth Galatia and the rest but the lewde assertions of some perverting and adulterating the doctrine of the Churches so likewise the errours which wee condemne at this day whereupon the difference groweth betweene the Romish faction and vs were neuer generally receiued nor constantly deliuered as the doctrines of the Church but vncertainly and doubtfully disputed and proposed as the opinions of some men in the Church not as the resolued determinations of the whole Church CHAP. 7. Of the seuerall points of difference betweene vs and our adversaries wherein some in the Church erred but not the whole Church FOr neither did that Church wherein our Fathers liued and died holde that Canon of Scripture which the Romanists now vrge nor that insufficiencie they now charge it with nor corruption of the originals nor necessitie of following the vulgar translation nor the heresies touching mans creation brought into the Church by certaine barbarous Schoolemen as that there are three different estates of men the first of pure nature without addition of grace or sinne and two other the one of grace the other of sinne That all those euils that are found in the nature of man since his fall as ignorance concupiscence contrariety betweene the better and meaner faculties of the soule difficulty to doe well and pronenesse to doe euill were all naturall the conditions of pure nature that is of nature as considered in it self it would come foorth from God That these euils are not sinfull nor had their beginnings from sinne that they were the consequents of Nature in the state of creation but restrained by addition of supernaturall grace without which the integrity of nature was full and perfect That men in the state of pure nature that is as they might haue beene created of GOD in the integritie of Nature without addition of grace and in the estate of originall sinne differ no otherwise but as they that neuer had and they that haue lost rich and precious cloathing so that originall sinne is but the losse of that without which natures integrity may stand that no euils are brought in by the fall but Nature left to her selfe to feele that which was before but not felt nor discerned while the addition of grace bettered Nature None of these errours touching the estate of mans creation were the doctrines of the Church but the private fancies and conceits of men So likewise touching originall sinne there were that taught that it is not inherent in each particular man borne of Adam but that Adams personall sinne is imputed onely that the propagation of sinne is not generall Mary being conceiued without originall sinne That the punishment of it is not any sensible smart or positiue euill but privatiue onely and that therefore there is a third place neither hell nor heauen named Limbus puerorum which is a place where as some thinke they who are condemned thither though they bee excluded from the kingdome of Heauen and all possibility of euer comming thither yet are in a state of naturall happinesse and doe enioy the sweet content of eternall life These Pelagian heresies were taught in the Church of God but they were not the doctrines of the Church being condemned rejected and refuted as contrary to the Christian verity by many worthy members and guides of the Church who as they neuer receiued these parts of false doctrine so likewise the Church wherein they liued neither knew nor approved that distinction and difference of veniall and mortall sinnes
daies For behold there are many that peruert the holy Scriptures and deny the sayings of the holy Fathers reiecte the Canons of the Church and ciuill constitutions of the Emperours which molest persecute bring into bondage and without mercy torment and afflict euen vnto death them that defend the trueth And that I may conclude many things in fewe words with harlâ—…ttes foreheades and execrable boldnesse doe endeavour to subuert imperiall and regall power and to ouerthrow all lawes both of GOD and man Neither are these young men or vnlearned but they are the elders of the people High Priests Scribes Pharises and Doctours of the Law as they were that crucified Christ so that wee may rightly say of our times that which Daniel long since pronounced in his 13 Chapter Iniquity is gone out from Babylon from the elders and iudges which seemed to governe and rule the people For many that should bee pillars in the Church of God and defend the truth euen vnto bloud doe cast themselues headlong into the pit of heresies Thus spake he in his time of the corrupt 〈◊〉 of the Church wherein so damnable a faction prevailed daungerously pervâ—…ting all things that in the end he submitteth all his writings to the judgment correction of the true and Catholicke Church but not of the Church of malignant miscreants heretickes schismatickes and their favourers CHAP. 9. Of an Apostasie of some in the Church THus then we thinke with Lira that as there was an Apostasie or revolt of many kingdomes from the Romane Empire and of many Churches from the communion of the Romane Church so there hath beene an Apostasie from the Catholick faith in the midst of the Church not for that all at any time did forsake the true faith but for that many fell from the sinceritie of the faith according to the saying of our Sauiour a when the time of Antichrist draweth on iniquity shall abound and the charity of many shall waxe cold and that 1 Timoth. 4 In the last times some shall depart from the faith attending to spirits of errour and 2 Timoth. 3. In the last dayes there shall bee perilous times men shall be louers of themselues men of corrupt mindes reprobâ—…e concerning the faith This hee speaketh of an Apostasie in the middest of the Church it selfe answerably to that of â— Nazianzen who saith that as when one taketh water into his hand not onely that which hee taketh not vp but that also which runneth forth and findeth passage betweene his fingers is divided and separated from that which he holdeth inclosed in his hand so not onely the open and professed enemies of the Catholicke verity but they also that seeme to bee her best and greatest friends are sometimes divided one from another There is no cause then why it should seeme so strange to our Adversaries that our Divines affirme there hath beene an Apostasie from the Faith not of the whole Church but of many in the Church dangerously erring and adulterating the Doctrine of Faith deliuered by Christ and his blessed Apostles And that some say this Apostasie began sooner some later For if wee speake of those grossest illusions wherewith men were abused in these latter ages surely that degree of Apostasie did not enter into the Church in former times For there was no thought in any Christian man liuing sixe hundred yeares agoe that the Pope could dispense the merits of the Saints and giue pardons that hee might depose Princes for supposed heresie that the Sacrament not receiued but elevated gazed on and adored is a sacrifice propitiatorie for the quicke and the dead that Mary was conceiued without originall sinne that the people are to be partakers of the Sacrament but onely in one kinde and sundry other things of like nature But if we speake of a declination from the sincerity of the Christian Faith it is certaine it began long agoe euen in the first ages of the Church Of this sorte was the errour that the soules of the iust are in some part of hell till the last day as Tertullian Irenaeus and sundry other of the auncient did imagine that they see not God nor enjoy not heauens happines till the generall resurrection which was the opinion of many of the Fathers That all Catholicke Christians how wickedly soeuer they liue yet holding the foundation of true Christian profession shall in the end after great torments endured in the world to come be saued as it were by fire This was the errour of sundry of the auncient who durst not say as Origen that the Angels that fell shall in the end be restored nor as some other mollifying the hardnesse of Origens opinion that all men whether Christians or Infidells nor as a third sorte that all Christians how damnably soeuer erring in matter of faith shall in the end be saued but thought it most reasonable that all right beleeuing Christians should find mercy whatsoeuer their wickednesse were This opinion was so generall in Augustines time that very fearefully he opposed himselfe against it and not daring wholly to impugne that which he found to haue so great and reuerend authours he qualified it what he could and so doubtingly broached that opinion which gaue occasion to the Papists of their heresie touching Purgatory For saith he if they would onely haue vs thinke that the soules of men liuing wickedly heere in this World may through the goodnesse of God and the prayers of the liuing find some mitigation of their paines in hell or haue their punishments suspended and differred for a time yet so that they be confessed to be eternall I would not striue with them yea saith he it may be that men for some lighter sinnes and imperfections cleauing to them while they are here may finde pardon remission in the world to come and be saued as by fire which whether it be so or whether there be no other purging but in this life by the fire of tribulation he professeth he knoweth not nor dareth not pronounce Of this sorte was the opinion of a double resurrection the first of the good who should liue in all happinesse on the earth a thousand yeares before the wicked should be awaked out of the sleepe of death and another after the thousand yeares expired when the wicked also should rise and goe into euerlasting fire and the good into euerlasting life which they supposed to bee the second resurrection How generally this errour spread it selfe in the true Church they that haue but looked into the writings of the fathers and monuments of antiquitie cannot bee ignorant The opinioÌ„ of the necessity of infants receiuing the sacrament of the Lords body and blood as well as Baptisme did possesse the mindes of many in the Church for certaine hundreds of yeares as appeareth by that Augustine writeth of it in his time and Hugo de sancto victore so
what time and against what persons he pleaseth and no otherwise and is author ordinis in malo though not mali When we say he openeth the way passage for wickednesse to break forth wee must vnderstand that he doth this in two sorts either by not hindring it from breaking forth in some one kinde which hee suffereth no otherwise to shew it selfe or in that he positiuely inclineth it hither rather then thither not by way of cause but of occasiō offered In which sense it is that Dauid saith God commanded Shemei to curse him not as if God had eyther inwardly or outwardly perswaded him so to do But because finding him full of malice against Dauid he so prospered Dauid before that he durst not reuile him not had no cause to insult vpon him But now he presented him to his eyes in such a miserable estate forsaken of many and pursued by his owne sonne as he knew would occasion these words of insultation and bitter malediction Thus then God commanded Shemei to curse Dauid not by precept outwardly requiring him so to do nor by perswasiō inwardly inclining him to so vile an actiō but by direction inclining him by words of malediction to expresse his bitter affection which long before desired to vent it selfe now at this time and for the punishment of Dauids sinnes rather then at an other time and in another sort So when wicked men had spoyled Iob he sayd The Lord hath giuen the Lord hath taken away imputing it to God not as if he had made them to become Robbers but for that being such hee directed their wickednesse and vsed it to the triall of his servant opening a passage for their wickednesse and presenting to them such things as hee knew would occasion this outrage As lakewise the Iewes in crucifying Christ are said to haue done nothing but that which God had before resolutely determined not as if God had purposed their wickednesse but only because knowing what was in them he was pleased to direct guide and turne their wickednesse and furious malice to the effecting of his owne purposes The third action that wee attribute vnto God is that hee punisheth one sin by an other In punishments Hugo de sancto victore noteth three things The matter with which a man is punished the contrariety betweene it and the party punished and the order of consequence that where such an offence went before such an euil shall follow to make the party offending feele the smart of it In those punishments which be punishments onely not sinnes God is the author and cause of all these three things implyed in the nature of punishments in those which be punishments and sinnes God is author only of the order of consequence the contrariety between them the nature of the parties punished not of the matter wherwith they are afflicted punished As for exāple Pride is punished by envie Enuie is not of God but the contrarietie betweene it and the soule of man which maketh it bitter and afflictiue is And the order of consequence that where pride went before enuy must follow Neither doth God only punish one sinne with another when there is such a dependance of one vpon the other that where one goeth before the other must follow But oftentimes when there is no such necessary dependance yet he withdraweth his grace and for the punishment of one sinne letteth men runne into another In this sense there are three things attributed to God in the punishment of wicked and godlesse men The blinding of their vrderstanding The hardning of their hearts and the giuing of them vp vnto a reprobate sense These things God is said to doe three wayes First by subtraction and deniall of that grace which should lighten the vnderstandings and soften and mollifie the hearts of men Secondly by giuing leaue to Sathan to work vpon them no way either strengthning them against him or weakning his force Thirdly occasionally and by accident when God doth that which is good which yet hee knoweth through the euill disposition that is in men will increase their wickednesse and make it greater then it was before CHAP. 24. Of the heresies of Origen touching the Image of God and touching hell falsely imputed to Caluin IN the third place the Iesuite fearing that men should thinke hee were neere driuen and wanted store hee chargeth Caluin at once with two heresies of Origen The first concerning the Image of God the second touching Hell and the punishments of it Touching the first it is true that Epiphanius chargeth Origen with heresie For saying that Adam lost the Image of God by his disobedience and sinne but how iustly it is very doubtfull Seeing neither Hierome nor Theophilus Alexandrinus most diligently noting his errours make any mention of it And therefore it may bee probably thought as Alphonsius à Castro noteth that if any such thing was found in the workes of Origen it was so deliuered by him as that it might carrie a good construction and free from heresie But leauing it vncertain what it was that Origen meant by the losse of Gods Image For the cleering of Caluin wee must note that which Thomas Aquinas no hereticke I hope in Bellarmines iudgment beeing a Canonized Saint of the Romish Church hath fittely obserued to this purpose Hee noteth first that the Image of God consisteth in the eminent perfection which is found in men expressing the nature of God in an higher degree then any excellencie of other creatures doth Secondly that this perfection is found principally in the soule Thirdly that it is threefold First naturall which is the largenesse of the naturall faculties of vnderstanding and will not limitted to the apprehension or desire of some certaine things only but extending to all the conditions of beeing and goodnesse whose principall obiect is God So that they neuer rest satisfied with any other thing but the seeing and enioying of him The second kind of this perfection is supernaturall when the soule actually or at the least habitually knoweth and loueth God aright though not so perfectly as hee may and shall bee loued hereafter The third is when the soule knoweth and loueth God in fulnesse of happinesse The first is of nature the second of grace and the third of glory The first of these is neuer lost no not by the damned in hell The second Adam had but lost it and it is renued in vs by grace The third wee expect in heauen To thinke the Image of God considered in the first sort to be lost is heresie but Caluin is free from it To thinke it lost in the second sort is the Catholique doctrine of the Church for who knoweth not that man hath lost all right knowledge and loue of God by Adams fall Some restraine the name of the Image of God to the excellency of the soules nature framed to know all things and neuer to rest
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
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
these proceede from the putting of the powers of the soule by the losse of grace out of that course which by the law of GOD and nature they were to hold For doth not the condition of mans nature require that amongst things inquired after thought of and knowne God should be the first and amongst things desired and loued nothing should be desired and loued more or before him nor otherwise then for him and is it not cleare and euident that if God be the first thing that is thought of sought after and loued and that nothing be sought after or respected but after and for GOD that there will bee noe pronenesse to euill difficultire to doe good contrariety betweene the powers of the soule and rebellion of the meaner and inferiour against the better and superiour surely there is none that can or will make question of it Now it is confessed by the best learned amongst the Schoolemen that howsoeuer it be not soe in the course of our vnderstanding in this state wherein wee are yet according to the course of the nature of our vnderstanding simply considered it should bee soe that GOD should bee the first thing sought after and knowne by vs. Secundum naturam sayth Scotus Deus est primum cognitum quia naturalis cognitio procedit ab indeterminato ad determinatū indeterminatū negatiuè est magis indeterminatum quam priuatiue indeterminatum ergo praeconcipitur illi illud indeterminatum priuatiue secundum nostram cognitionem praeconcipitur determinato quia ens res prima impressione imprimuntur in animâ nostrâ secundum Auicennam 1. Metaphys c. 5. ergo indeterminatum negatiue omnino primo est objectum nostro intellectui At rationalitèr posterius creaturâ cognoscitur quia primo concipitur hoc bonum deinde bonum vniuersale abstractum secundâ abstractione puta quod est indeterminatum priuatiuè deinde bonum primâ abstractione abstractum quod scilicet est indeterminatum negatiuè And therefore it is noted by the learned that there is a double knowledge and apprehēsion of things the one distinct the other confused in the confused knowledge of things that is first apprehended by vs that first affecteth the sense but in distinct knowledge cognitorum primum est communissimum quae propinquiora sibi sunt priora quae remotiora posteriora quia nihil concipitur distinctè nisi quando concipiuntur omnia quae includuntur in ratione eius essentiali And to the same purpose it is that Bonauentura hath Cum non esse priuatio sit essendi non cadit in intellectum nisi per esse esse autem non cadit per aliud quia omne quod intelligitur aut intelligitur vt non ens aut vt ens in potentia aut vt ens in actu si igitur non ens non potest intelligi nisi per ens ens in potentiâ non nisi per ens in actu esse nominat ipsum purum actum entis esse igitur est quod primo cadit inintellectum illud esse est quod est purus actus sed hoc non est esse particulare quod est esse arctatum quia permixtum est cum potentiâ nec esse analogum quia minime habet de actu eò quòd minimè est restat igitur quod illud esse est esse diuinum mira igitur est coecitas intellectus qui non consider at illud quod prius videt sine quo nihil potest cognoscere sed sicuti oculus intentus in varias colorum differentias lucem per quam videt caetera non videt si videt non tamen aduertit sic oculus mentis nostrae intentus in ista entia particularia vniversalia ipsum esse extraomne genus licet primo occurrat menti per ipsum alia tamē non aduertit vnde verissimè apparet quod sicut oculus vespertilionis se habet ad lucem ita se habet oculus mentis nostrae ad manifestissima naturae Quia assuefactus ad tenebras entium phantasmata sensibilium cum ipsam lucem summi entis intuetur videtur sibi nihil videre non intelligens quod ipsa caligo summa est mentis nostrae illuminatio sicut quando videt oculus puram lucem videtur sibi nihil videre By this which hath bin sayd it is euident that according to the course of nature not disordered nor put out of course the first thing that is inquired after thought of and knowne is GOD and that hee is the first good that is desired loued that no other thing is desired or loued but after him for him So that none of the things formerly mentioned can bee found in the nature of man vnlesse it be put out of course Whence groweth the contrarietie betweene the meaner and better superiour and inferiour faculties of the soule but from hence that the soule in this state of her aversion from God taketh the beginning of all her knowledge from the senses apprehendeth particular things as good vpon the first view to be desired which afterwards vpon better consideration in respects not considered at the first shee findeth are not good nor desirable And whence is the rebellion of the inferiour against the superiour but from hence that the superiour hauing cast off the dependance it formerly had vpon God respect vnto him the inferiour also casteth off the respect it had to it Quid iustius esse poterat quam talionem recipere Vita Deus animae est ipsa corporis peccando voluntariè volens perdidit vivere nolens perdat vivificare sponte repulit vitam-cùm vivere noluit non valeat eam dare cui vel quatenus voluerit noluit anima regi à Deo non queat regere corpus si non non paret superiori inferiori cur imperet Invenit conditor suam sibi rebellem creaturam inveniat animasuam sibirebellem pedissequam transgressor inventus est homo divinae legis inveniat ipse aliam legem in membris suis repugnantem legi mentis suae captivantem se in legem peccati porrò peccatum separat inter nos Deum separet proinde mors inter corpus nostrum nos From hence likewise is that danger of erring whereunto man is subject for apprehending particular things first his knowledge is imperfect and confused not without much labour and danger of erring doth he come to the distinct knowledge of any thing And hence also floweth that ignorance that is found in men for taking the beginning of all the knowledge they haue from the senses they know no more touching any thing then may bee discerned by the accidents and outward effects of it and so neuer come to know any thing in the essence of it or immediatly as it is in it selfe So that according to that which before I noted out of the booke called Destructorium vitiorum as a man may know in the
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
of the Church by the Ministery whereof they were appointed and not from the words of forme as the other doe Hence also it commeth that they are variable both in their matter and forme The Apostles sayth Alexander of Hales confirmed with the onely imposition of their hands without any certain forme of wordes or outward matter or Element but afterward it was otherwise ordayned both in respect of the one and the other the formes of Baptisme and the Eucharist being appoynted by Christ are kept inviolably without all change but touching the wordes of forme to be vsed in any other of the supposed Sacraments there is no certainty but they are diversly and doubtfully desiuered The reason whereof is because they are of humane devising By this which hath beene sayd it may appeare that the other pretended Sacraments are not of the same nature with Baptisme and the Eucharist as euen Bellarmin himselfe is forced to confesse the sacred or holy things sayth he which the Sacraments of the new Law signifie are threefold the grace of Iustification the Passion of Christ and eternall life as Thomas teacheth touching Baptisme and the Eucharist the thing is most evident concerning the other it is not so certaine CHAP. 16. Of the being of one body in many places at the same time THE possibility of the being of one body in many places at the same time was euer denyed by many worthy members of the Church and consequently the locall presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament whether definitiue or circumscriptiue was likewise reiected as a thing impossible To affirme sayth Aquinas that one body may be locally in this place and yet also in another at the same time implyeth a contradiction and therefore the power of God extendeth not to the effecting of any such thing Scotus confesseth that Egidius Godfredus de font Alanus and Henricus are of the same opinion with Thomas Durandus sayth that which is present in one place definitiuely or circumscriptiuely cannot in any such sort be in many places at the same time Whervpon he pronounceth that the body of Christ is no otherwise in the Sacrament but by reason of a certaine habitudinary vnion betweene it and the sacramentall elements whence it was wont to be sayd that Christs body is personaliter in verbo localiter in coelo sacramentaliter in Eucharistia Personally in the eternall word locally in heauen sacramentally in the Eucharist The first that taught otherwise and brought in the locall presence was Scotus whom Occam followed though he deny not but the former opinion had great fauourers CHAP 17. Of Transubstantiation THe conuersion of the bread and wine into Christs body and blood all of us sayth Caietane do teach in words but in deede many deny it thinking nothing lesse These are diuersly diuided one from another for some by the Conuersion that is in the sacrament vnderstand nothing but Indentity of place that is that the bread is therefore sayd to be made the body of Christ because where the bread is the body of Christ becomes present also others vnderstand by the word Conuersion nothing else but the order of succession that is that the body succeedeth and is vnder the vailes of those accidents vnder which the bread which they thinke to be annihilated was before This opinion in substance Scotus followeth though in the maner of his speech he seemeth to decline it Some admit both the word and thing but yet not wholy but only in part as Durandus Bonauentura sayth that some seeing the accidents to remaine both in their being and operation thinke the matter of the sacramentall element still remaineth Other the forme but that the more Catholike or generall opinion is that the whole substance of the elements is turned into Christs body and blood We see he maketh the doctrine of Transubstantiation to be but an opinion Occam sayth there are three opinions of Transubstantiation of which the first supposeth a couersion of the sacramentall elements the second an annihilation the third affirmeth the bread to be in such sort transubstantiated into the body of Christ that it is no way changed in substance or substantially cōuerted into Christs body or doth cease to bee but onely that the body of Christ in euery part of it becomes present in euery part of the bread This opinion he sayth the Master of sentences mentioneth not much disliking it yet is it not commonly holden Cameracensis sayth that the more common opinion is that the substance of bread doth not remaine but wholly ceaseth and that though this opinion be not euidently deduced from the scriptures nor concluded out of any determination of the vniuersall Church for ought he can see yet he is resolued to follow it Waldensis sayth hee found in a certaine old booke of decrees that in the yeare 1049. there was a meeting of Archbishops Bishoppes and other religious persons in a Synode and that when they were come together they beganne to speake of the body and bloud of Christ some saying one thing some another but that before the third day of meeting they that denyed the substantiall conuersion of the sacramentall elements were silent But in the same booke he reporteth out of Christopolitanus Zacharias his booke intituled Quatuor vnum that there were some perhaps many but hardly to be discerned and noted that thought still as Berengarius did whom they then condemned and yet condemned him with the rest in this respect onely disliking him for that refusing the forme of wordes the Church vsed with the nakednesse of his maner of speaking hee gaue offence not following the vse of the Scriptures which every where call things that are signes by the names of things signifyed especially in the matter of Sacraments the more liuely to expresse their vertue and efficacie these men ceased not to charge others secretly that they knew not the nature of figuratiue speaches therefore not without grosse errour killing the soule tooke signes for the things whereof they are signes scorning not a little the folly of them that say the appearing accidents of bread and wine after the conuersion doe hang in the ayre or that the senses are deceiued In the same place he sayth that Guitmundus reporteth some other that were not of the faction of Berengarius but with great vehementie contrary and opposite vnto him to haue beene of opinion that the bread and wine in part are changed and in part remaine these supposed so much onely to bee changed as is to serue for the communicating of the worthy receiuers others thought the whole to be changed but that when vnworthy men come to communicate the body and blood of Christ cease to bee present and the substances of bread and wine returne and are there present to be receiued by them But that it may yet more clearely appeare that the opinion of Transubstantiation neuer passed currantly in the Church let vs adde another testimony
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
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
one by vnity wherein there are not many things foūd which neither cōsisteth in many things nor of many things in which sort God only is most properly sayd to be One in whom there is neither diuersity of natures nor multiplicity of parts nor composition of perfection and imperfection being and not being as in all creatures One by vnion is that which either consisteth in many things or of many things and is either in a sort only or simply One. In a sort onely a thing consisting in or of many things is sayd to be one three waies First when neither the one of the things whereof it consisteth hath denomination from the other nor the property of it as when stones are layd together to make one heape 2ly When the one hath the property of the other but no denomination from it as is the vnion betweene the hand and those sweete spices it holdeth in it Thirdly when the one hath denomination from the other but no property of the other as a man is sayd to be apparelled from his apparell but noe property thereof passeth from it vnto him as the sauour of the sweete spices doth into the hand Vnion simply is of diuerse sorts First when one of the things vnited is turned into the other this falleth out soe often as there is a repugnance betweene the things vnited and one is predominant and preuailing as when a drop of water is poured into a whole vessell of wine Secondly when both the things vnited are changed in nature and essence and that commeth to passe so often as the the things vnited haue a repugnance betweene themselues and yet no preuailing of one ouer the other In this sort the elements are vnited to make mixt or compound bodies Thirdly when there is no transmutation of the things vnited but the constitution of a third nature out of them because they haue no repugnance but mutuall dependance Of this sort is the vnion of the soule and body Fourthly when there is neither transmutation of the natures vnited nor constitution of a third out of them but onely the founding setling and staying of the one of the things vnited in the other and the drawing of it into the vnity of the personall being or subsistence of the other this commeth to passe when there is neither repugnance nor mutuall dependance of one of the things vnited vpon the other but a dependance of another kinde so the braunch of a tree being put vpon the stocke of another tree is drawne into the vnitie of the subsistence of that tree into which it is put and whereas if it had beene set in the ground it would haue growne as a separate tree in it selfe now it groweth ◅n the tree into which it is grafted and pertayneth to the vnitie of it Here is neither mixture of the natures of these trees nor constitution of a third out of them but only the drawing of one of them into the vnity of the subsistence of the other so that here is not Compositio huius ex his but Huius ad hoc that is not a composition of a third thing out of the things vnited but an adioyning of one of the things vnited to the other And this kinde of vnion doth of all other most perfectly resemble the personall vnion of the natures of God and man in Christ wherein the nature of man that would haue beene a person in it selfe if it had been left to it selfe is drawen into the vnity of the diuine person and subsisteth in it being preuented from subsisting in it selfe by this personall vnion and assumption This that wee may the better conceiue we must consider what the difference is betweene nature and person and what maketh an indiuiduall nature to bee a person Some thinke that nature and person differ as that Quod est and Quo est that is as the thing that is and that whereby it is Other that the condition of personall being addeth to an indiuiduall nature a negation of dependance or beeing susteined by another but to leaue all vncertainty of opinions to bee this or that is indiuiduall to bee this or that in and for it selfe is personall being to be this or that in and for another is to pertaine to the person or subsistence of another so that euery thing that is in or for it selfe is a subsistence or thing subsisting and euery such rationall indiuiduall nature is a person Amongst those created things which naturally are apt to make a subsistence or to subsist in and for themselues there is very great difference for some naturally may become parts of another more entire thing of the same kinde as wee see in all those things wherein euery part hath the same nature and name that the whole hath as euery droppe of water is water and being left to it selfe is a subsistence in it selfe and hath that beeing quality and nature that is in it in and for it selfe but being joyned to a greater quantity of water it hath now no beeing quality or operation but in and for that greater quantity of water into which it is powred Other things there be that cannot naturally or by the working of naturall causes put themselues into the vnity of any other thing but by the helpe of some forreine cause they may be made to pertaine to the vnity of another thing different in nature kind So the braunch of a tree of one kinde which put into the ground would bee an entire distinct tree in it selfe growing mouing and bearing fruite in and for it selfe may by the hand of man be put into the vnity of the subsistence of a tree of another kind and sort and so grow moue and beare fruite not distinctly in and for it selfe but joyntly in and for that tree into which it is implanted A third sort of things there are which being left to themselues become subsistences and cannot by force of naturall causes nor the helpe of any forreine thing euer become parts of any other created thing or pertaine to the vnity of the subsistence of any such thing such is the nature of all liuing things and such is the nature of man which cannot be brought by force of any cause to pertaine to the vnity of any created subsistence because it cannot haue such dependance on any created thing as is required to make it pertaine to the subsistence thereof yet by diuine and supernaturall working it may bee drawen into the vnitie of the subsistence of any of the Persons of the blessed Trinitie wherein the fulnesse of all being and the perfection of all created things is in a more eminent sort then in themselues For though all created things haue their owne being yet seeing God is nearer to them then they are to themselues and they are in a better sort in him then in themselues there is no question but that they may be preuented and stayed from being in for themselues caused to bee in
not according vnto that whence the person is denominated This explication or limitatioÌ„ is theÌ„ specially to be added wheÌ„ such properties of one nature are attributed to the persoÌ„ denominated from the other as seeme to exclude the properties of the other so when we say Christ the Son of God is a creature we must adde that wee neither scandalize them that heare vs nor giue any occasion of errour that hee is a creature in that hee is man Now it followeth that wee speake of the second kinde or degree of communication of properties which is in that the actions of Christ are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deiuiriles Divinely-humane Humanely-diuine each Nature so worketh it owne worke according to the naturall propertie thereof that it hath a kinde of communion with the other But lest we fall into errour touching this point we must obserue that the actions of Christ may bee said to bee Theandricall that is Diuinely-humane three wayes First so as if there were one action of both Natures and so we must not vnderstand the actions of Christ to be Diuinely-humane for this is to confound the Natures whereas we must vndoubtedly beleeue that Omnia in Christo sunt duplicia naturae proprietates voluntates operationes solâ exceptâ subsistentiâ quae est una that is that all things in Christ are twofold or double as his Natures properties wils actions his subsistence only or Person excepted which is but one Secondly the actions of Christ may be said to be Theandricall that is Diuinely-humane for that both the actions of Deitie Humanity though distinct yet concurre in one work to which purpose Sophronius in that notable Epistle of his which we read in the â—…6 t generall Councell doth distinguish 3 kinds of the works of Christ making the first meerely diuine as to create all things the second meerely humane as to eate drink sleep the third partly diuine partly humane as to walke vpoÌ„ the waters in which worke vvalking vvas so humane that the giuing of firmnes soliditie to the vvaters to beare the vveight of his Body vvas an action of Deitie Thirdly the actions of Christ may be said to be Theandrical that is Diuinely-humane in respect of the Person that produceth bringeth theÌ„ forth which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God-man In either of these two latter senses the actions of Christ may rightly be vnderstood to be Theandricall that of Leo is most true coÌ„cerning Christ. In Christo utraque forma operatur cum alterius coÌ„munione quod propriuÌ„ est that is in Christ both natures do work that which is proper vnto them with a kind of coÌ„munioÌ„ the one hath with the other for this saying is true first in respect of the Person the coÌ„munion which either nature hath with other therein Secondly in respect of the work effect wherunto by their seuerall proper actions they coÌ„curre though in different sort as in healing of the sick not only the force of Deity appeared shewed it self but the humane nature also did coÌ„curre in respect of the body in that he touched those that were to be healed laid his hands vpon theÌ„ spake vnto theÌ„ in respect of the soul in that he desired applauded rejoiced in that which by diuine power he brought to passe thirdly in that the actions of humane nature in Christ haue in them a greater perfection then can be found in the actions of any meere man from the assistance of the Deity that dwelleth bodily in him CHAP. 14. Of the third kind of communication of properties and the first degree thereof NOw let vs come to the third kind of coÌ„municatioÌ„ of properties which is that whereby diuine precious things are really bestowed on the nature of man The things which are thus coÌ„municated bestowed are of 2 sorts The first finite created as qualities or habites formally habitually subjectiuely inherent in the humane nature the 2â— the essentiall attributes of the diuinity it self coÌ„municated to the humane nature not formally by physicall effusion or essentiall confusioÌ„ but by dispensatioÌ„ of personal vnioÌ„ Touching the things of the first sort there is no questioÌ„ but that they vvere bestovved vpon the nature of man in all perfectioÌ„ vvhen it vvas vnited to the Person of the Sonne of God so that in it vvas found the fulnesse both of grace vertue according to that of S. Iohn The word was made flesh dwelt amoÌ„gst vs. we saw the glory of it as the glory of the only begotten Son of God full of grace truth The fulnes of grace as the Schoolemen excellently note is of tvvo sorts first in respect of grace it selfe and secondly in respect of him that hath it The fulnesse of grace in respect of grace it selfe is then vvhen one attaineth to the highest and vttermost of grace both quoad essentiam virtutem intensiuè extensiuè in the Essence and vertue of it intensiuely and extensiuely that is vvhen he hath it as farre forth as it may be had and vnto all effects and purposes wherevnto grace doth or can extend it selfe as he is said to haue life perfectly or the fulnesse of life that hath it not onely in the essence but according to all the operations and acts of life sensible rationall intellectuall spirituall and naturall in which sort man onely hath the perfection and fulnesse of life in him and no other thing of inferior condition This kinde of fulnesse of grace is proper to Christ onely Of whose fulnesse wee all receiue The fulnesse of grace in respect of the subiect or him that hath it is then when one hath grace fully and perfectly according to his estate and condition both intensiuely to the vttermost bound that God hath prefixed to them of such a condition and extensiuely in the vertue of it in that it extendeth to the doing and performing of all those things that may any way pertaine to the condition office or estate of such as are of his place and Ranke In this sort Stephen is said to haue beene full of the holy Ghost who is the fountaine of grace and Marie the blessed Virgine the mother of our Lord is by the Angell pronounced Blessed amongst women and full of grace for that shee had grace in respect of the Essence of it intensiuely in as perfect sort as any mortall creature might haue it and in respect of the vertue of it extending to all thinges that might any way pertaine to her that was chosen to bee the sacred vessell of the incarnation of the Sonne of God So that there was neuer any but Christ whose graces were no way stinted and to whom the spirit was not giuen in measure that was absolutely full of grace which fulnesse of grace in Christ the Diuines doe declare and cleare vnto vs wherein it consisted by distinguishing a double grace in Christ the one of
vnion the other of vnction or habituall and doe teach that the grace of vnion in respect of the thing giuen which is the personall subsistence of the Sonne of God bestowed on the nature of man formed in Maries wombe whence that which was borne of her was the Sonne of God is infinite howsoeuer the relation of dependance found in the humane nature whereby it is vnited to the person of the Sonne of God is a finite created thing Likewise touching the grace of vnction they teach that it is in a sort infinite also for that howsoeuer it be but a finite and created thing yet in the nature of grace it hath no limitation no bounds no stint but includeth in it selfe whatsoeuer any way pertayneth to grace or commeth within the compasse of it The reason of this illimited donation of grace thus without all stint bestowed on the nature of man in Christ was for that it was giuen vnto it as to the vniuersall cause whence it was to be deriued vnto others Frō the fulnesse of grace in Christ let vs proceed to speake of the perfection of his vertues also Vertue differeth from grace as the beame of light frō light for as light indifferently scattereth it self into the whole aire all those things vpon which it may come but the beame is the same light as it is directed specially to some one place or thing so grace replenisheth filleth perfecteth the whole soule spirit of man but vertue more specially this or that faculty or power of the soule to this or that purpose or effect In respect of both these the soule of Christ was perfect being full of vertue as wel as grace wherevpon the Prophet Esay saith The Spirit of the Lord shall rest vpon the flowre of Ishai the Spirit of wisedome and vnderstanding the Spirit of counsell strength the Spirit of knowledge of the feare of the Lord. Wisedome is in respect of things diuine vnderstanding of the first principles science of conclusions counsell of things to be done feare maketh men decline from that which is ill and strength confirmeth them to ouercome the difficulties wherewith weldoing is beset So that seeing the spirit that is the giuer of all these vertues within the compasse whereof all vertue is confined is promised to rest on our Sauiour Christ we may vndoubtedly resolue that there is no vertue pertayning to man neither including in it imperfection as Faith Hope nor presupposing imperfection in him that hath it as Repentance which presupposeth the penitent to bee a sinner but it was found in Christs humane nature reasonable soule that euen from the very moment of his incarnation How is it then will some man say that the Scripture pronounceth that he increased in the perfections of the mind to wit both in grace wisedome as hee grew in stature of body And here that question is vsually proposed handled whether Christ did truly and indeede profit and growe in knowledge as not knowing all things at the first as he grew in stature of body from weake beginnings or only in the farther manifestation of that knowledge hee had in like degree of perfection from the beginning For the clearing whereof wee must note that there were in Christ two kinds of knowledge the one diuine and increate the other humane and created Touching the first there is no doubt but that being the eternall Wisdome of the Father by whom all things were made hee knew eternally all things that afterwards should come to passe and therefore the Arrians impiously abused those places of Scripture which they brought to proue that Christ grew in knowledge and learned something in processe of time which he knew not before in that they vnderstood them of his diuine knowledge which he had in that he was God and thereby went about to proue that he was not truly and properly God nor consubstantiall with the Father but soe only and in such a sense as that wherein the Apostle sayth There are many Lords and many Gods The later kind of knowlege found in Christ which is humane the Schoolemen diuide into two kinds the one in verbo the other in genere proprio that is the one in the eternall Word wherein he seeth all things the other that whereby he seeth things in themselues for he hath an immediate and cleare vision of the Godhead and in it of all things and hee hath also the knowledge and sight of things in themselues By vertve of the first of these two kinds of humane knowledge the soule of Christ beholding the diuine Essence in it seeth all things in respect of that they are and taketh a perfect view of the Essence and nature of euery thing that is may be or is possible to be as in that sampler according to which God worketh all things but the actuall being of things it cannot know by the vision and sight of Gods Essence but meerely by his voluntary reuelation and manifestation of the same seeing though the Essence of God be naturally a sampler of all things that are or may be according to which all things are wrought yet he produceth things voluntarily and according to the good pleasure of his will not naturally necessarily so that that kind of knowledge which consisteth in the vision of God is more perfect then any other onely maketh men happie because it is in respect of the best and most noble object Yet the other kind of knowledge that maketh vs take a view of things in themselues is more perfect in that it maketh knowne vnto vs the actuall being of things and particular facts which that happie kind of knowledg of things seen in the glasse of the diuine Essence doth not These things thus distinguished it is easie to conceiue how and in what sort Christ grew and increased in grace and wisdome and how hee was full of the same from the moment of his incarnation soe that nothing could bee afterwards added vnto him For concerning his diuine knowledge the perfection of it was such and so infinite from all eternitie that it is impious once to thinke that hee grew and increased in the same Touching the humane knowledge he had of things seene in the eternall word and in the cleare glasse of the diuine Essence it is most probably thought by some of excellent learning that though the soule of Crist had at the first and brought with it into the world a potentiall hability and aptnesse to see all things in God soe soone as it should conuert it selfe to a distinct view of them that yet it did not actually see all things in the Essence of God at once from the beginning but afterwards in processe of time and for the other kind of knowledge and apprehension of things which he had as beholding them in themselues they thinke it was perfect in habit from the first moment of his incarnation but
not in actuall apprehension wherein he did truly increase and and grow as also in experimentall knowledge For the humane knowledge that was in Christ was by conuersion to those Phantasmata sensible representations of things that from without are by the senses presented vnto the Soule was discursiue though not proceeding from things known to find out things altogether vnknowne yet from things actually known to such as he knew but habitually only and not actually before That the humane knowledge Christ had of things in thēselues was discursiue by conuersion to the sensible representations of them from without it is euident in that all perfectiōs are receiued according to the condition capacitie of the receiuer Now the condition of the Soule of man in the state of this life is to know nothing but by conversion to the sensible appearances of the same that not onely in respect of things naturall but mysticall also and supernaturall Quia impossibile est saith Dionysius Areopagita nobis aliter superlucere radium diuinum nisi sacrorū velaminū varietate circumuelatū that is because it is impossible the beame of divine light should shine on vs vnlesse it be vailed on euery side with the variety of sacred vailes Thus then wee see how it may be truely said that Christ grew in wisedome and knowledge as he did in stature of body non quoad habitus essentiam extensionem sed quoad actualem cognitionem experimentum that is not in respect of the essence or extension of the habit but of actuall knowledge experience That which Thomas others haue that Christ knew all things at first by an infused knowledge afterwards attained another kinde of knowledge of the same things which they named acquisite is not so fit for two formes or qualities of one kinde cannot bee in the same subject Now as the sight which is in men naturally that which once lost is restored againe by miracle is of the same nature condition so is that knowledge of things that is by infusion that which is acquisite howsoeuer these men seeme to make them of two kindes Wherefore passing by this conceipt as not probable to conclude this point euen as touching the condition of children which should haue been borne in the state of innocency there are diuerse opinions some thinking they should haue had the vse of reason perfection of knowledge at the very first so that they should haue grown encreased afterwards only in experimētal knowledge others that they should haue had no vse of reason at the first a third sort that so soon as they had bin borne they should haue had the vse of reason so farre forth as to discerne outward things good or euill seeing euen the little lambes by natures instinct doe know the Wolfe fly frō him seeke the dugges of their dammes but not to discerne things concerning morall vertue the worship of God So likewise some thinke that the Babe IESVS euen in his humane soule had the actuall knowledge of all things euen frō the beginning that he grew only in experimentall knowledge but there are other of as good judgment as great learning who think that howsoeuer he had the habit of al knowledge frō the beginning brought it with him out of the womb yet not the act vse of it this is all that either Luther or Calvine say yet we know how clamorously some inveigh against them as if they had broached some damnable heresie But some man will say if we grant that Christ in his Humane Soule knew not all things frō the beginning but in processe of time learned that which before he actually knew not wee fasten on him the disgracefull note of ignorance consequently bring him within the confines cōpasse of sin Hereunto Hugo de S. Vict. answereth sheweth the folly of this silly objection peremptorily resoluing that non omnis qui aliquid nescit aut minus perfectè scit statim ignorantiam habere seu in ignorantiâ esse dicendus est quia ignorantia non dicitur nisi tunc solùm cum id quod ignorari non debuisset nescitur that is we must not say that euery one that knoweth not a thing or doth lesse perfectly know it is ignorant or in ignorance because ignorance is only the not knowing of such things as should haue beene knowne Neither is there any distinction more triuiall or ordinary in the Schooles then that of nescience ignorance and therefore howsoeuer some in the heat of their distempered passions lay a heavy imputation of horrible impiety vpō Luther Caluin and others for that they say there were some things which Christ in his humane soule did not actually know from the beginning yet Maldonatus a man as ill conceited of them as any other confesseth that though some say Christ profited in wisdome and knowledge not in his owne person but in his mysticall body which is the Church others that his growing and increasing was onely in the manifestation of that which in all perfection was found in him from the beginning or in experimental knowledge of those things which in generall contemplation he knew before yet many of the ancient Fathers answering the objections of the Arrians and other like heretiques and rejecting as impious their conceit who thought Christ was absolutely ignorant of any thing denied not but that there were some things which Christ in his humane nature did not actually alwaies know This saith Maldonat I suppose Luther Caluin and the rest knew not for had they known that the Fathers taught that Christ did truly grow in humane knowledge and wisdome and that he knew not all things actually frō the beginning to be contrary to the Fathers they would haue been of another mind How charitable this his surmise and conjecture is let the Reader judge Howsoeuer we haue his cleare confession that many of the Fathers were of opinion that Christ in his humane nature did not alwayes actually know all things Yea vpon the 24 of Matthew hee testifieth that many of them sayd plainely that Christ as man knew not the day appointed for the generall judgement of the quicke and dead when he said That day and houre knoweth no man no not the Angels nor the Son himselfe but the Father onely It is true indeede that he goeth about notwithstanding this his cleare confession of the truth to construe the words of some of the Fathers in such sort as if they had not meant simply that Christ in his humane soule knew not that houre and time but onely that he knew it not by force of his humane nature but this commentarie I feare will not agree with their texts For Origen in his third tract vpon Matthew saith that Christ knew not the time and day of judgement when he sayd Of that day and houre knoweth no man no not the Sonne but that
though the times would be such as that many swords would not suffice to defend them yet that these two were enough because he meant to vse none at all but to suffer all that the malice of his enemies could doe vnto him This Maldonatus deliuereth to be the literall sense of Christs wordes sheweth a mysticall sense of them also out of Beda much more apt then that of Bonifacius Duo gladii saith Beda sufficiunt ad testimonium sponte passi Salvatoris Vnus qui Apostolis audaciam pro Domino certandi evulsà ictu eius auriculâ Domino etiam morituro pietatem virtutemque doceret inesse medicandi Alter quinequaquam vaginâ exemptus ostenderet eos nec totum quod potuere pro eius defensione facere permissos that is Two swords are sufficient to giue testimony vnto our Sauiour that he suffered willingly The one of which might shew that the Apostles wanted no courage to fight for their Master and by the eare that was cut off by the stroke thereof and healed againe by the Lord that he wanted neither piety to compassionate the miserable nor vertue and power to make him whole that was hurt though now hee were ready to dye And the other which neuer was drawne out of the sheath might shew that they were not permitted to doe all that they could haue done in his defence It is not to be denyed but that S. Bernard mystically expounding the words of Christ saith the Church hath two swords of authority But he thinketh it hath them in very different sort For it hath the vse of the one and the benefite of the other The one is to bee drawne by it the other for it So that this is all that hee saith that the sword of ciuill authority is to be vsed by the Souldiers hand at the commaund of the Emperour by the direction and at the suite of the Church From Bonifacius they passe to Innocentius the third who in the vacancy of the Empire willed those that were wronged in their rightfull causes to haue recourse either to some Bishop or to himselfe And Clemens the fifth who professeth to intermeddle with certaine secular businesses affaires and to determine certaine ciuill causes vpon three seuerall grounds Whereof the first is his greatnesse making him superiour to the Emperour The second his being in steed of the Emperour in the vacancy of the Empire And the third the fulnesse of power which Christ the King of Kings and Lord of Lords gaue vnto Peter and in him to his successours Whatsoeuer wee thinke of the former of these two Popes who seemeth to ground his intermedling in ciuill affaires vpon some law of the Empire and concession of ciuill Princes accordingly as we reade of Theodosius that he permitted any Lay-men hauing ciuill differences among themselues to referre the same to Ecclesiasticall Iudges if they listed Which concession proceeding ex pietate not ex debito that is out of piety and not out of any right or necessity that it must bee soe is long since growne out of vse the state of Church-men beeing much changed from that it was when hee granted them that priuiledge as Duarenus sheweth Yet Pope Clemens can by no meanes be excused from hereticall impiety affirming that which is most vntrue as may appeare by the many fold reasons brought before to proue the contrary nor from Antichristian pride in seeking to tread vnderneath his feete the crownes and dignities of Kings and Princes and to lift himselfe vp aboue all that is called God CHAP. 45. Of the Popes vnjust claime to intermeddle with the affaires of Princes and their states if not as soueraigne Lord ouer all yet at least in Ordine ad spiritualia and in case of Princes failing to do their duties THAT Christ was no earthly King that he left no Kingly power to Peter and that the Pope hath no meere temporall power in that he is Christs Vicar or Peters successor it is most euident out of the former discourse and the Cardinall Iesuite confesseth so much and yet he thinketh the Pope hath a supreme power to dispose of all temporall states and things in ordine ad bonum spirituale that is in a kinde of reference to the procuring and setting forward of the spirituall good But this fancy is most easily refuted by vnanswerable reasons presupposing his former concession For first no man can take away limit or restraine any power or the excercise of it but he in whom it is in eminent sort and from whom it was receiued But the ciuill power that is in Princes is not in the Pope neither did it proceede and come originally from him therefore it cannot be restrained limited or taken away by him The maior proposition is euident the assumption is proued because ciuill power is in heathen infidels who no way hold of the Pope Secondly because it is agreed by all Diuines of worth and learning that the ciuill power in the first originall of it is immediately from God or if not immediately by his owne deliuery thereof yet by no other mediation then that of the law of nature and nations The Emperours know saith Tertullian who gaue them the Empire they know that it was euen the same God who gaue vnto them to be men and to haue humane soules They well perceiue that he onely is God in whose onely power they are à quo sunt secundi post quem primi ante omnes super omnes Deos that is After whom they are in order the second but among all other the first before and aboue all Gods And againe Inde est Imperator vnde homo antequam Imperator inde potest as illi vnde spiritus that is From thence is the chiefe ruler and Emperor whence he was a man before hee was an Emperour from thence hath hee his power from whence he receiued the spirit of life The Author of the answer to the reports of a great and worthy Iudge among vs who hath lately written in the defence of the Popes ouerspreading greatnesse seemeth in part to agree with Tertullian and telleth vs that ciuill power is receiued from God not immediately by his owne deliuery thereof but mediately rather by the mediation of the law of nature and nations For by the law of nature God hath ordained that there should be politicke gouernment which the law of nations assuming hath transferred that gouernment to one or more according to the diuers formes thereof And Occam proueth at large that Imperiall power is not from the Pope and that it is hereticall to say that all lawfull ciuil power is from the Pope Our second reason is this Absolute soueraigne ciuill Princes while they were infidels had true dominion rule and authority holding it as immediatly from God not depending on any ruler of the church as hath beene shewed before But when they become Christians they still remaine in the
this immunity And Sixtus Senensis saith that Hierome speaketh not of that tribute which subiects pay to their Princes here in this world but of that which we all owe to CHRIST so that this is that he saith why doe not we wretched men professing our selues to be the servants of Christ yeeld vnto his Maiesty the due tribute of our seruice seeing Christ so great and excellent payde tribute for our sakes S. Austine in his first book of Questions vpon the Gospels saith that Kings sons in this world are free that therefore much more the sonnes of that Kingdome vnder which all kingdomes of the World are should bee free in each earthly Kingdome which words Thomas and Sixtus Senensis vnderstand of a freedome from the bondage of sin but Iansenius rejecteth that interpretation because Austine saith the children of Kings are free from tribute and thinketh that Austines meaning is that if God the King of Heauen Earth had many naturall sonnes as hee hath but one only begotten they should all be free in all the Kingdomes of the world and other apply these words to cleargy-men though there bee nothing in the place leading to any such interpretation But whatsoeuer we thinke of the meaning of Austine Bellarmine saith it cannot bee inferred from these his wordes that cleargy-men by Gods Law are free from the duty of paying tribute because as Chrysostome noteth Christ speaketh only of naturall children and besides prescribeth nothing but onely sheweth that vsually among men Kings sonnes are free from tribute and therefore whereas the authority of Bonifacius the Eighth who affirmeth that the goods persons of Cleargy-men are free from exactions both by the law of God and man is brought to proue the contrary Hee answereth first that haply the Pope meant not that they are absolutely freed by any speciall graunt frō God but only that there is an example of Pharaoh an Heathen Prince freeing the Priests of his Gods mentioned in Scripture which may induce Christian Kings to free the Pastours of Christs Church Secondly that it was but the priuate opinion of the Pope inclining to the iudgment of the Canonistes and that he did not define any such thing So that men may lawfully dissent from him in this point So that we see by the testimonies of Scripture and Fathers and the confession of the best learned among our aduersaries themselues that Almighty God did not by any special exemption free either the goods or persons of Cleargy-men from the command of Princes and that in the beginning they were subiect to all seruices iudgements payments burdens that any other are subiect to and required by Christ the Sonne of God and his blessed Apostles to be so But some man happily will say that though Christ did not specially free eyther the goods or persons of Cleargy-men from the subiection to Princes yet there are inducements in reason and in the very light of nature such and so great to moue Princes to set them free that they should not do well if they did not so Whereunto wee answere that there is no question to be made but that the Pastors of the Church that watch ouer the soules of men are to bee respected and tendered more then men of any other calling and so they are and euer were where any sence of religion is or was The Apostle Saint Paul testifieth of the Galathians that they receiued him as an Angell of God yea as Christ Iesus himselfe that they would haue euen plucked out their eyes to haue done him good The Emperour Constantine honoured the Christian Bishops with the name and title of Gods acknowledged himselfe subject to their iudgment though he swayed the scepter of the World and refused to see what the complaintes were that they preferred one against another or to read their bils but professed that to couer their faults he would euen cast frō him his purple Robe Whence it came that many priuiledges were anciently graunted vnto them both in respect of their persons goods For first Constantine the Great not onely gaue ample gifts to the Pastors of the Churches but exempted them also from those seruices ministeries and imployments that other men are subiect to His Epistle to Anelinus the Proconsul of Africa wherein this graunt was made to them of Affrica is found in Eusebius Neyther is it to be doubted but that he extended his fauours to the Bishops of other Churches also aswell as to them The words of the Grant are these Considering that the due obseruation of things pertaining to true religion and the worshippe of God bringeth great happinesse to the whole state of the Common-wealth and Empire of Rome For the incouragement of such as attend the holy Ministery and are named Cleargy-men my pleasure is that all such in the Church wherein Caecilianus is Bishop be at once and altogether absolutely freed and exempted from all publicke Ministeries and Seruices Neither did the Emperors only exempt them from these seruices but they freed them also frō secular iudgements vnles it were in certaine kindes of criminall causes Wherein yet a Bishop was not to be cōuēted against his wil before any secular Magistrate without the Emperors cōmand Neyther might the temporall Magistrates condemne any Cleargy-man till hee were degraded by his Bishoppe howsoeuer they might imprison and restraine such vpon complaints made And answerably hereunto the Councell of Matiscon prouideth that no Cleargy-man for any cause without the discussion of his Bishop shall bee wronged imprisoned by any Secular Magistrate that if any Iudge shal presume to doe soe to the Cleargy-men of any Bishoppe vnlesse it be in a criminall cause hee shall bee excommunicated as long as the Bishoppe shall thinke fitte This was all the immunity that Cleargy-men anciently had by any grant of Princes and as much as euer the Church desired to enjoy but that which in latter times was challenged by some and in defence of the claime whereof Thomas Becket resisted the King till his bloud was shedde was of another kinde For whereas it was not thought fitte by the King and State of the Realme at that time that Church-men found in enormous crimes by the kings Iustices should be deliuered ouer to their Bishoppes and so escape ciuill punishment but that confessing such crimes or being clearely conuinced of them before the Bishoppe the Bishoppe should in presence of the Kings Iustices degrade them and put them from all Ecclesiasticall honour and deliuer them to the Kings Court to be punished Becket was of a contrary minde and thought that such as Bishoppes degraded or putte out of their Ministery of the Church should not bee punished by the ciuill Magistrates because as hee sayd one offence was not to be punished twice The occasion of this controuersie betweene the King and the Arch-bishoppe was giuen by one Philip Brocke a Canon of Bedford Who beeing brought before
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
it is time for mee to looke about mee for I heare a horrible outcry as if Hanniball were at the gates of the cittie Theophilus Higgons causeth it to be proclaymed with sound of Trumpet that I haue shewed my selfe a notable trifler in the question of Purgatory and prayer for the dead to the vtter confusion of my booke and the Protestanticall Church When Moyses came downe from the Mount and heard the noyse in the Campe he sayd It was not the noyse of them that ouercome in battel nor of them that are ouercome but of singing So is this hideous clamor but the venting of the boyish vanity of a foolish youth in sporting sort calling companie to come and play with him for all that he saith will be found to be lesse then nothing The occasion of this strange out-crie is this In the Appendix to the third booke I shewe that there was nothing constantly resolued on in the Romane Church in the dayes of our Fathers before Luther beganne touching that Purgatory that is denied by vs and defended by the Papists which I haue demonstrated in such sort that this fellow hath nothing to oppose against it but flourishes of his youthfull Rhetoricke For the more cleare and perfit vnderstanding whereof the Reader must obserue that wee all acknowledge a purging out of sinne in the dissolution of soule and bodie and in the first enterance of the soule into the state of the other world But all the question is of the nature kinde qualitie of it Luther saith Bellarmine admitteth a kind of Purgatory but of most short continuance For hee supposeth that all sinnes are purged out by the dolours of death or by the very separation of soule and body wrought by death Which opinion of Luther wee all follow and the same was embraced by many in the Romane Church in the daies of our Fathers before Luther was borne who taught then as wee doe now that all veniall sinnes are done away and purged out in the moment of dissolution and in the first entrance into the other world as I haue shewed before So that concerning Purgatorie properly as it serueth to purge out the impuritie of sinne there was nothing resolued on in the daies of our Fathers but that which wee willingly admitte But the Papists at this day deny that all veniall sinnes are purged out in the dissolution of soule and body and the first enterance into the state of the other world They imagine that they are long in purging out that they are purged in materiall fire and that the place of their purging out is below in the earth nearely bordering vpon the Hell of the damned This is the true difference betweene Protestants and Papists and rightly deliuered by me howsoeuer it please Master Higgons to say I yeeld not the true difference in this matter nor propose the question as in learning and honesty it became me It is true that he saith that wee must distinguish matter of substance from matter of circumstance and that it is sufficient to haue fundamentall vnity in the first howsoeuer there may be accidentall diversitie in the second But it is a matter of substance whether all sinnefulnesse bee purged out in the moment of dissolution they deny it wee affirme it and are well assured they canne neuer proue that all our fathers agreed with them in this matter of substance and therefore Master Higgons may soone be answered when hee asketh where that man is who in the time of our fathers denied Purgatorie or shewed any doubtfulnesse therein against the essentiall Doctrine in which the true difference betwixt Papists and Protestants doth stand most eminently at this day seeing there were found very many as I haue shewed before who not onely doubted of the circumstances of materiall fire place and instruments of punishment but taught as wee doe against the Papists in the most substantiall point of all other that all sinnefulnesse is purged out of the soules of men departing hence in the state of grace not by materiall fire in a place of Purgation vnder the earth or neare Hell nor by being afflicted by the ministerie of Deuills or otherwise but by the completion of the state of grace getting full dominion in the soule vpon her diuiding from the body in the moment of dissolution Now if all impurity and staine of sinne bee purged out in the moment of dissolution by the taking away of impediments and leauing grace to her selfe that shee may fill all with her diuine effects as many of our fore-fathers beleeued and taught there is no such Purgatorie as the Papists at this day imagine If it be said that though all sinne be purged out by death in respect of the staine or sinfull impurity yet the punishment remaineth and so there is a kinde of Purgatorie wherein men are to suffer the punishments due to sinnes past though now perfectly blotted out It will easily be answered that whatsoeuer is of force to doe away all impurity of sinne offending God is likewise able to reconcile God vnto vs so perfectly as that no guilt of punishments shall remaine For seeing it is the nature of grace to expell sinne offending God and to make men acceptable to God that stood in termes of disfauour before where grace is so perfect as that it expelleth all sinfulnesse there it must needes worke and procure a perfect reconciliation with which guilt of punishment cannot stand Besides charity implieth a dislike of all that which is displeasing to God whom we loue and a sorrow that wee haue offended him therefore charitie in such perfection as is able to purge out all impuritie of sinne implieth dislike of that which in sinning was ill affected and desired before and sorrow for the same aequivalent to the pleasure and delight taken in sinning and consequently doth satisfie God in such sort as that no punishment shall come vpon him that so sorroweth Thirdly the punishments of men pure and cleane from sinne for such sinnes as they formerly committed if any such be imagined cannot be named Purgatory punishments but satisfactory onely So that if all sinfulnesse be purged our there remaineth afterwards no Purgatory properly so named Lastly if it were doubtfull in the dayes of our Fathers as Master Higgons confesseth it was whether the fire bee materiall or not in which men are to satisfie GODS displeasure what kind of suffering it is that is to satisfie whether of sorrow onely or some thing inflicted from without and likewise how long it doth continue it is evident that notwithstanding any thing resolued on in former times God may be so satisfied by the first conversion of the soule vpon her separation turning vnto him in mislike of her former misdeeds as that all guilt of punishments may be vtterly taken away in the very moment of dissolution Whence it will follow that nothing was constantly certainely and genelally resolued on in the dayes of our Fathers
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