seene him and talked with him they professed that they beleeved not for her saying any longer for themselues had heard him speake and did know that hee was the Saviour of the world indeed So men at the first beginne to beleeue moued so to doe by the authority of the Church but rest not in it but in the infallible assurance of diuine trueth Vpon the mistaking of this saying of S. Augustine and an erroneous conceit that our faith stayeth wholly vpon the authority and testimony of the Church hath growne that opinion that the authority of the Church is greater than the authority of the Scriptures CHAP. 10. Of the Papistes preferring the Churches authority before the Scripture TOuching which odious comparison I find some shew of difference amongst the Papistes but none indeede Some affirme that the authorities of the Church and of the Scripture being in divers kindes may in diverse sorts and respects either of them be sayd to be greater then the other to wit the one in nature of an euidence the other of a Iudge and that therefore the comparing of them in authority is vnfit and superfluous Others say that the Church is greater then Scriptures The Rhemists seeme to be of the first sort seeking to conceale that which indeede they thinke because they would not incurre the dislike and ill opinion of men naturally abhorring from so odious a comparison Yet in the same place they doe make the comparison and preferre the Church before the Scriptures 1. In respect of antiquity in that it was before them 2. In excellencie of nature in that the Church is the spouse of Christ the Temple of God the proper subject of God and his graces for which the Scriptures were and not the Church for the Scriptures 3. In power of judging of doubts and controversies the Church hauing judiciall power the Scripture not being capable of it 4. In euidence the definition of the Church being more cleare and evident then those of the Scriptures Stapleton sayth the comparison may be made and the Church preferred before the Scriptures foure wayes 1. So as if the Church might define contrary to the Scriptures as shee may contrary to the writings of particular men how great soeuer In this sense they of the Church of Rome make not the comparison neither doe we charge them with any such thing though Stapleton be pleased to say so of vs. 2. So as the Church may define though not contrary to yet beside the Scripture or written Word of God This comparison is not made properly touching the preheminence of one aboue another in authority but the extent of one beyond the other as Stapleton rightly noteth In this sense the Romanists make the Church greater in authority than the Scriptures that is the extent of the Churches authority larger than of the Scriptures to bring in their traditions but this wee deny and will in due place improue their errour herein Thirdly in the obedience they both challenge of vs where they all say that we are bound with as great affection of piety to obey and submit our selues vnto the determinations of the Church as of the Scriptures both being infallible of diuine and heauenly authority against which no man may resist and that it is a matter of faith so to thinke Yea some of them as Stapleton in the same place are not ashamed to say that wee are bound with greater certaintie of faith to subscribe vnto the determinations of the Church than of the Scriptures and that it is the authority of the Church that maketh vs accept embrace and beleeue the Scriptures Fourthly in the nature of the things themselues in which respect they preferre the Church before the Scriptures as being in it selfe more excellent then the Scriptures as the subject by which the spirit worketh is more excellent then the thing hee worketh by it CHAP. 11. Of the refutation of their errour who preferre the authority of the Church before the Scripture THat wee may the better discerne what is to bee resolued touching these two latter comparisons betweene the Church and the Scriptures wee must remember that which I haue before noted touching them both For first the name of the Church sometimes comprehendeth onely the beleeuers that now presently are liuing in the world Sometimes not onely these but all them also that haue beene since the Apostles times Sometimes all that are and haue beene since Christ appeared in the flesh If the comparison bee made betweene the Church consisting onely of the faithfull that now are and the Scripture wee absolutely deny the equality of their authority and say it is impiety to thinke that both may challenge an equall degree of obedience and faith to bee yeelded to them for it cannot bee proued that the Church thus taken is free from errour nay themselues with one consent confesse that generall Councels representing this Church may erre though not in matters of substance which they purposely meete to determine yet in other passages and in the reasons and motiues leading to such determinations and consequently the whole Church may erre in the same things the one in their opinion being no more infallible than the other Yea some of them feare not to pronounce that Popes and generall Councells may erre damnably and that the Church itselfe may erre in matters not fundamentall though without pertinacy as Picus in his theoremes and Waldensis who freeth only the vniuersall Church consisting of the faithfull that are and haue beene from errour and not the present Church as I shewed before We are so farre then from preferring the Church thus taken as Stapleton in the place aboue mentioned professeth he taketh it in authority before the Scripture that we thinke it impiety to imagine it to be equall That the authority of the Church maketh vs to beleeue with an humane and acquisite faith we deny not but that it maketh vs to beleeue with a diuine faith we deny as before If the comparison be made between the Church consisting of all the faithfull that haue bin since besides the Apostles writers of the holy Scriptures though we think the Church thus taken to be free from any error yet dare we not make it equall to the Scripture For that the Scripture is infallibly true as inspired immediatly frō the spirit of truth securing the writers of it from errour The Church not in respect of the condition of the men of whom it consisteth or the manner of the guiding of the spirit each particular man being subject vnto errour but in respect of the generality and vniversality of it in euery part whereof in every time no errour could possibly be found And for that whatsoeuer is vniuersally deliuered by it is thereby prooued to be from the Apostles of whose faith wee are secure Thus then the whole Church thus taken is subiect to the Scripture in all her parts and hath her infallibility from it and therefore in her
so to whom Flavianus replied that not they but the fathers required him so to professe and therefore if he did so beleeue hee should anathamatize all that thought otherwise To whom Eutiches answered he had never hitherto professed so to beleiue yet would now for their sakes but would never be induced to anathematize them that thinke otherwise for that if hee should he must as he supposed accurse the holy Fathers and Scriptures which doe so speake that they deny Christs body to be of the same substance with ours When Flavianus heard him thus speake hee put him out of the order of Presbyters and remoued him from his office and dignity of an Abbot Eutiches thus degraded and depriued resorted oft to the Emperour complaining that he was wronged by Flauianus wherevpon Theodosius then Emperour called a Councell at Ephesus that it might be there examined whether Eutyches were duely proceeded against or not and made Dioscorus Bish. of Alexandria president of the Councell who caused the proceedings of Flauianus to be read but suffered him not to say any thing in his owne defence neither would he giue him leaue to aske any question if any doubt arose for Eusebius who was to accuse Eutiches he would not so much as suffer him to speake The conclusioÌ„ was he deposed Flavianus restored Eutiches Things being thus violeÌ„tly carried they that supplied the place of the B. of Rome returned home and made all known to Leo the Bish. He preseÌ„tly went to Valentinian who wrote to Theoâ—…osius to call another Councell but he refused so to do thinking Dioscorus had duely proceeded But after his death Martianus called a Councell at Chalcedon In the first Session of this Councell Dioscorus appeared where he clearely anathematized those that bring in either a confusion conversion or commixtion of the Natures of God and man vnited in Christ. So condemning Eutyches whom out of partiality and sinister respect he had formerly acquitted But yet professed that after the vnion wee must not say there are two Natures but one Nature of the Sonne of God incarnate and told them he had to this purpose sundry testimonies of the holy Fathers Athanasius Gregory and Cyrill For confirmation of this his saying Eustathius Bishop of Beretum produced an Epistle of Cyrill to Acacius Bishop of Melitinum Valerianus of Iconium and Successus Bishop of the Province of Diocaesarea wherein more fully explaining certaine things contained in his former Epistles he saith expressely wee must not say there are two natures in Christ but one nature of the Sonne of God incarnate Which when they of the East disliked he brought forth the booke reade the very same words vnto them and after the reading of them brake forth into these wordes Whosoeuer saith there is one nature to deny the flesh of Christ which we beleeue to be consubstantiall with ours let him be anathema and whosoeuer saith there are two natures to make a division in Christ let him be accursed also adding that Flavianus admitted this doctrine of Cyrill and therefore that he was vnjustly condemned by Dioscorus But Dioscorus answered that he condemned him because he affirmed that there are two natures in Christ after the vnion whereas the Fathers tell vs wee must not say there are two natures after the vnion but one of the Word incarnate And after this time he refused to appeare any more in the Councell Wherevpon for his former violent and sinister proceedings and for his present contumacie he was condemned and deposed and not for heresie as is expressely deliuered by Anatolius in the Councell For whereas there was a forme of Confession composed which Asclepiades recited in the Councell wherein was contained that Christ consisted of two natures there arose presently a great doubt amongst the Bishops the Nobles and great men therefore that moderated spake vnto them in this sort Dioscorus saith that Christ consisteth of two natures Leo that he consisteth in two natures without mutation confusion or division whom follow yee to whom the Bishops rising vp answered with one voice as Leo so we all beleeue accursed bee Dioscorus At the hearing hereof Anatolius said Dioscorus was not deposed for erring in faith but because he excommunicated Leo Bishop of Rome and refused to come into the Councell when as hee was required so to doe Neither was the forme of Confession recited by Asclepiades rejected as ill but as imperfect That which some alledge that Dioscorus had beene condemned as an Hereticke if he had appeared is childish For if the Fathers there assembled had judged his sayings hereticall they might and no doubt would haue condemned him as an hereticke though absent aswell as the Councell of Ephesus condemned Nestorius though absenting himselfe and asmuch as in him lay declining their judgment So the Councell of Chalcedon condemned Eutyches as an Hereticke and deposed Dioscorus for his contumacie and other sinister violent and disordered proceedings in that second Councell wherein he was President so ended But after the ending thereof there arose woful distractions divisions in the Christian world For besides those that followed Eutyches in his Heresie there were many found who though they were far froÌ„ adhering to cursed Eutyches yet disliked the proceedings against Dioscorus and stifly maintained that forme of Confession that was published by Asclepiades not only as good but as perfect sufficient Affirming that 2 natures were vnited in Christ without mutatioÌ„ conversioÌ„ coÌ„mixtion or confusioÌ„ but that being vnited they are no longer two but one So that we may say Christ coÌ„sisted of 2 natures but wee must not say hee consisteth in 2 natures as Leo and the councell Vrging to this purpose that authority of Cyrill That wee must not say there are 2 natures in Christ but one of the Word incarnat His words are Post vnionem sublata in duo diuisione vnam esse credimus filij 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nestorianus agnoscit Verbum incarnatum sed dum duas nominat naturas diuidit seiungit ab invicem This opinioÌ„ prevailed mightily in those times continueth in many Christian Churches till this day For the Christians of Aegypt Aethiopia Armenia the Iacobites of Syria defend the same accursing Eutiches as an Hereticke and acquitting Dioscorus yea honouring him as a good and holy man Wherefore seeing it is against the law of charity to condemne so many millions of soules to hell vnlesse they bee cleerely convinced of heresie let vs more exactly consider what it is they say First therefore they teach that Christ is truely God and truely man that hee receiued his diuine nature of his Father before all eternity his humane nature from his mother in the fulnesse of time Secondly they accurse all them that spoile him of either of these natures Thirdly they say that these natures were so vnited that there was no confusion mixtion or conuersion of one of them into another nor such composition as that a third nature might arise out
merites of Christ was neuer knowne in the Primitiue Church nor any such forme of exorcising or blessing as they now vse That which the Rhemists alleadge touching the Liuer of a fish vsed by Tobie the piece of the holy earth where Christ was buried preseruing a mans chamber from the infestation of diuels and the force of holy reliques tormenting them maketh nothing to this purpose all these examples being miraculous Touching the harpe of Dauid quieting Saul there is a reason for it in Nature though the repressing of Sathans rage were miraculous That Infidels haue sometimes driuen away diuels by the signe of the Crosse it was by the speciall dispensation of Almighty God who would thereby glorifie his Sonne whose Crosse the world despised and not as if this Ceremonie had force ex opere operato to worke such effects That the name of Iesus did miraculously cast out Diuels in the Primitiue Church which is the next allegation who euer made doubt but what maketh this to the purpose That which they alledge that Saint Gregory did vsually send his benediction and remission of sins in and with such tokens as were sanctified by his blessing and touch of the Martyrs reliques as now his successours doe the like hallowed remembrances of religion is very vaine For Gregory did not send any such blessing of of his owne or remission of sinnes by force of it as nowe his successours do but onely certaine things that had pertained to Christ or his Apostles as part of the wood of the crosse of Christ or of the chaines wherewith the Apostles were bound and with them the blessing of Christ and those Apostles to such as should conforme themselues to his sufferinges or their faith That which they alledge out of the third Councell of Carthage touching the blessing of milke honey grapes and corne bewrayeth their ignorance For that Canon speaketh not of any such blessing but forbiddeth any thing besides bread and wine mingled with water for the matter of the Sacrament and grapes and corne to bee presented on the Altar The Canon of the Apostles is to the same effect forbidding any thing but newe grapes and corne in their season and oyle for the lights incense to be vsed in the time of the oblation to be presented on the Altar willing the first fruites to be carried to the Bishops house and prescribing what shall be done with such presents The sixt generall Councell finding that some did giue to the people with the Sacrament these grapes c forbad it and prescribed that being blessed they should be deliuered priuately to the Catechumens and others that they might praise God who hath giuen so good and pleasing things for the nourishment of mens bodies but speaketh nothing of blessing of them to be instruments of remission of sinnes and of the like spirituall and supernaturall effects Thus wee see our aduersaries cannot proue that the Church hath power to annexe vnto such Ceremonies and obseruations as shee deuiseth the remission of sinnes and the working of other spirituall and supernaturall effects which is the only thing questioned betweene them and vs touching the power of the Church So that all the power the Church hath more then by her authority to publish the Commaundements of Christ the sonne of God and by her censures to punish the offenders against the same is onely in prescribing things that pertaine to comelinesse and order Comelinesse requireth that not only that grauity and modesty doe appeare in the performance of the workes of Gods seruice that beseemeth actions of that nature but also that such rites and ceremonies be vsed as may cause a due respect vnto and regard of the things performed and thereby stirre men vppe to greater feruour and deuotion Caeremoniae Ceremonies are so named as Liuie thinketh from a Towne called Caere in the which the Romans did hide their sacred thinges when the Gaules inuaded Rome Other thinke Ceremonies are so named a Carendo of abstaining from certaine things as the Iewes abstained from swines slesh and sundrie other things forbidden by God as vncleane Ceremonies are outward acts of religion hauing institution either from the instinct of nature as the lifting vp of the hands and eyes to heauen the bowing of the knee the striking of the breast and such like or immediately from God as the sacraments or from the Churches prescription and either onely serue to expresse such spirituall and heauenly affections dispositions motions and desires as are or should be in men or else to signifie assure and conuey vnto them such benefits of sauing grace as God in Christ is pleased to bestowe on them To the former purpose and end the Church hath power to ordaine Ceremonies to the later God onely Order requireth that there be sette howres for prayer preaching and ministring the sacraments that there be silence and attention when the things are performed that womē be silent in the Church that all things be administred according to the rules of discipline Thus we see within what bounds the power of the Church is contained and how farre it hath authority to command and prescribe in things pertaining to the worship and seruice of God CHAP. 32. Of the nature of Lawes and how they binde Now it remaineth that wee examine how farre the band of such lawes extendeth as the Church maketh and whether they binde the conscience or onely the outward man For the clearing whereof first wee must obserue in what sense it is that lawes are sayde to binde and secondly what it is to binde the conscience Lawgiuers are sayd to binde them to whome they giue lawes when they determine and sette downe what is fitte to be done what things they are the doing whereof they approoue and the omission whereof they dislike and then signifie to them whom they command that though they haue power and liberty of choyse to doe or omitte the things prescribed yet that they will soe and in such sort limitte them in the vse of their libertie as that either they shall doe that they are commanded or be depriued of the good they desire and incurre the euils they would auoyd None can thus tye and limit men but they that haue power to depriue them of the good they desire and bring vpon them the contrary euils So that no man knowing what hee doth prescribeth or commandeth any thing vnder greater penalties then he hath power to inflict nor any thing but that whereof hee canne take notice whether it be done or not that so hee may accordingly reward or punish the doing or omission of it Hence it followeth that mortall men forget themselues and keepe not within their owne boundes when either they commaund vnder paine of eternall damnation which none but God can inflict according to that of our Sauiour Feare not them that can kill the body but feare him rather that hath power to cast both body and soule into hell fire
time of the Nicene Coūcell that either custome of the Church consent of Fathers or the testimony of an Apostolical Church giue the supremacie to the Popes 2ly It is false that hee saith that I make custome of the Church or the testimony of an Apostolicall Church rules whereby to finde out which are true traditions and which are not For first I doe not say that custome of the church obseruing a thing is a proofe that that thing which is so obserued was deliuered frō the Apostles but such a custome whereby a thing hath beene obserued from the beginning So that though the Popes had beene supreame in power and commaund before the Nicene Councell which all the Papists and diuells in hell shall neuer proue yet would it not follow that this their supremacy were by tradition from the Apostles Secondly I doe not make the testimony of an Apostolicall church to be a rule whereby to know true traditions from false as hee is pleased to bely me but I disclaime it in the very place cited by him My words are these The third rule whereby true traditions may bee knowne from false is the constant testimony of the Pastours of an Apostolicall church successiuely deliuered to which some adde the present testimonie of any Apostolicall Church but this none of the Fathers admit neither doe I The Churches of Corinth Ephesus and Rome are Apostolicall Churches whatsoeuer their Pastors haue successiuely deliuered as receiued from the Apostles is vndoubtedly Apostolicall but not euery thing that the Pastours of those Churches that now presently are shall so deliuer seeing they are contrary the one to the other in things of great importance Thirdly whereas he saith I acknowledge vnwritten traditions to bee of equall authority with the Scriptures he is like himselfe For I neuer acknowledge that there is any matter of faith of which nature the Popes supremacy is supposed to be deliuered by bare tradition and not written but say onely if any thing may be proued to haue beene deliuered by liuely voyce by them that wrot the Scriptures there is no reason but it should be of as great authority as if it had beene written Two more allegations there are yet behind in this chapter that concerne mee The first that I say and Protestants generally agree with mee that the Regiment of the West Churches among which this nation is belonged to the Pope of Rome It seemeth this man hath a great desire I should say so and some hope I will say so But I protest as yet I neuer wrote any such thing and therefore here againe hee referreth his Reader to no page of my Booke as in other places but citeth it at large wherein he sheweth more wit then honesty for it is good to put a man to seeke farre for that which can no where be found But what if I had said the Bishop of Rome was Patriarch of the West would that proue an vniuersall power ouer the whole Church or such a kind of absolute authority ouer the Churches of the West as in latter times by vsurpation hee exercised ouer them Surely I thinke not But saith hee Doctour Downame saith before the grant of Phocas the Church of Rome had the superioritie and preeminence ouer all other Churches excepting that of Constantinople and Doctour Field telleth him absolutely that the title of Constantinople was but intruded and vsurped and when the first Nicene Councell gaue such honour to the Romane Church there was not so much as the name of Constantinople This is the last allegation that concerneth mee in this chapter The place that hee citeth is neither to bee found in the first booke of the Church quoted by him nor any where else For I no where euer say that the councell of Nice gaue supreame commaunding authority ouer all the Churches to the Bishop of Rome but only that it confirmed the distinct iurisdictions of the three Patriarches of Rome Alexandria and Antioche And touching the title of Constantinople where of he speaketh if hee meane the title of being vniuersall Bishop it is most true that it was intruded and vsurped as also the like is at this day by the Bishops of Rome which Gregorie their predecessour disclaimed thinking it intollerable that one man should subiect to himselfe all the members of the body of Christ which is his Church But if hee meane the title of being a Patriarch in order the second hauing equall priuiledges with the Bishop of Rome farre be it from me to thinke it was intruded or vsurped or to condemne the acts of the Councels of Constantinople and Chalcedon two of those foure which Saint Gregorie receiued as the foure Gospels as the Romanists doe because they gaue priuiledges to the Bishop of Constantinople equall to those of the Bishop of Rome Nay hereby it appeareth to be true that S. Hierome was wont to say Orbis maior est vrbe For after that Constantinople before named Byzantium was enlarged by Constantine named after his name and made the seate of the Emperours though the very name of it was not at all heard of in the time of the Nicene Councell yet in the second generall Councell holden at Constantinople the Bishop thereof was made a Patriarch and set in order and degree of honour before the other two of Alexandria and Antioche and in the great Councell of Chalcedon where there were more then 600 Bishops assembled he was again confirmed in the dignity of a Patriarch and to haue equall priviledges with the Bishop of Rome Against this decree they that supplyed the place of Leo in the councell resisted and Leo himselfe would by no meanes admit that the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioche claiming from Peter the one because Marke was there placed by him the other for that in person he abode there for a time should be put lower and the Bishop of Constantinople who had not like pretence to sit aboue them Yet the Fathers of the councell not so much respecting the claime from Peter as the greatnesse of the city and thinking it was the greatnesse of the city of Rome during the Emperours presence there that caused the Fathers formerly to giue honour to the Bishop of that city supposed they might now for the same cause giue like honour to the Bishop of Constantinople being become equall in state and magnificence to olde Rome and named new Rome as euery way matching it and howsoeuer the succeeding Bishops of Rome stroue a long while about this matter yet in the end they were forced to yeeld and to take the Bishops of Constantinople for Patriarches in degree of honour set before the other two CHAP. 4. IN this chapter hee endeavoureth to proue by testimonies of Protestants that all bookes receiued for Scripture by the Romane church are canonicall and herein are two things that concerne me The first that the Romane church being the spouse of Christ his true church and pillar of
famous in all ages the testimony of the Pastors of an Apostolique church successiuely deliuered frō the beginning not the present testimony of an Apostolicall church Thirdly we will neuer admit any pretended traditions vnlesse they may be confirmed vnto vs by one of these rules if our Adversaries can proue any of their supposed traditions by these rules wee will willingly acknowledge them and therefore I know no reason why we may not make claime vnto them He addeth that I condemne priuate interpretations as if euer any Protestant had allowed any priuate interpretation in that sense that I dislike it or as if our Religion were grounded vpon priuate interpretations But the good man might haue beene pleased to remember that in the place cited by him I distinguish three kindes of private interpretations whereof one is named priuate for that they that so interprete neglect the common rules of direction rely vpon secret revelations knowne to none but themselues and despise the iudgment of other men Another because the person so interpreting is priuate and yet presumptuously taketh vpon him to force all others to embrace the same hauing no authority so to do The 3d is whē as the person is of private conditiō so he seeketh only to satisfie himself in it no way presumeth to prescribe to others to follow that he resolueth on farther then by reason higher authority he can inforce the same The first kind of private interpretations we detest accurse The 2. we condemne as presumptuous The 3d we approue so do our Adversaries for ought I know and therefore I know not to what purpose hee citeth this saying of mine that priuate men may not so propose their interpretations as if they would bind all other men to embrace and receiue them That which followeth that I make three kindes of interpretation and affirme that none haue authority so to interprete Scripture as that they may subject all that dissent from the same to excommunication and censures of like nature but Bishops assembled in a generall Councell is so true that neither hee nor any other in his right wits will euer deny it For who hath authority so to interprete Scripture as to subiect them to excommunication that dissent but the gouernors of the church and who so as to subject all that dissent but they that are the gouernors of the whole as are the Bishops of the whole Christian church assembled in a generall Councel But saith he Protestants haue neuer had any generall Councell therefore they haue no warranted interpretations of Scripture If this consequence be good the Christians for the space of 300 yeares after Christ had no warranted interpretations of Scripture for till the reigne of Constantine there was no generall councell But the Protestants can haue no generall councell therefore they haue not amongst them the highest supreme binding authority judgment Surely wee confesse that being but a part of the Christian church they cannot haue a Councell absolutely generall out of themselues alone and therefore not hauing the highest binding authority amongst them it being found only in the whole vniuersall church they do not take vpon thē so to interprete Scriptures as to subiect all to excommunication that refuse their interpretations but such particular churches persons only as are vnder their jurisdiction The Papists indeede in the heigth of their pride being but a part contemning all other interessed in the supreame binding judgement as well as themselues assume and appropriate it to themselues alone in which claime we may rather see the height of their pride thē the cleernesse of their right and therefore the Grecians impute all the diuisions and breaches of the Christian world vnto them in that they presumed of themselues without them to interprete the Scriptures and to define certain questions touching the faith in such sort that they subjected them to Anathema excommunication so casting them all into hell as much as lay in them These inconsiderate proceedings and rash censures did such harme that the wisest most religious moderate in the Latine Church wished they had neuer beene passed or that they were reuersed called backe again But saith he let any man enter into a serious consideration of Protestant doctrine in this point that vnder paine of damnation we are bound to find and follow the truth that generall Councels as before may subiect euery man disobeying their determinations to excommunication and censures of like nature the most terrible and fearefull punishment of this world and all iudgments Ecclesiasticall euen generall Councels may erre haue erred even in things pertayning to God as is defined in their Articles and is commonly taught beleeued with them this consideration is able to put men not regardlesse of saluation into more then a quaking palsey What the meaning of the good man is in this passage I doe not well conceiue For I see not but all these considerations may well stand together that the trueth is to be found out followed vpon paine of damnation that Councels may erre and yet haue power to subiect such as disobey their determinations to excommunication the most terrible and fearefull punishment of this world without any danger of causing men to fall into a quaking palsey For are they all in state of damnation that are excommunicated whether iustly or vniusty or may no man subiect men to excommunication but hee that cannot erre Surely all men knowe that not onely Popes and particular Bishops but euen generall Councels may erre in matters of fact and excommunicate a man vniustly for resisting their determinations And doth not Saint Augustine shew that by the meanes of preuailing factions men may be vniustly excommunicated and neuer restored to the outward communion of the church againe and yet die in state of saluation nay bee rewarded for the patient enduring of the wrongs offered them by them by whom they were excommunicate It is no such absurd thing then that they may erre who haue authority to excōmunicate But perhaps his meaning is that if Coūcels may erre there is no certaine way to find out the truth which yet euery man is bound vpon perill of damnation to find and follow and that it is the consideration hereof that is able to put a man into a quaking palsey Surely this man seemeth to feare where there is no feare for are there no other meanes to find out the truth when questions and doubts trouble the church and distract the mindes of men but generall Councels How did the Fathers in the Primitiue Church during the time of the first three hundred yeares satisfie themselues and such as depended of them in the midst of so many so horrible and damnable heresies as then rose vp Doth not Bellarmine from hence inferre that though generall Councells be a very fit and good meanes to end controversies and settle the differences that may arise in the church
some men in that Church adulterating the doctrine of heauenly trueth bringing in and defending superstitious abuses disliked by others and seruing as vile instruments to aduance the tyraÌ„ny of the Bishop of Rome Wherefore for the discouery of the vanity of their insolent boastings for the coÌ„firming of the weake the satisfying of them that are doubtfull and that all men may know that wee haue not departed from the auncient faith or forsaken the fellowship of the Catholicke Church but that wee haue forsaken a part to hold communion with the whole led so to doe by the most preuailing reasons that euer perswaded men and the greatest authority on earth I resolued to communicate to others what I had long since in priuate for mine owne satisfactien obserued touching the nature of the Church the notes whereby it may bee knowen and the priuiledges that pertaine to it These my simple labours most Reuerend in Christ I thought it my dutie to offer to your Graces censure before they should present themselues to the view of the world that so either finding approbation they might the more confidently make themselues publike or otherwise be suppressed like the vntimely fruit that neuer saw the Sunne The condition of the times wherein wee liue is such that manie are discouraged from medling with the controuersies of Religion because they are sure besides the vile slanders wicked calumniations and bitter reproches of the common aduersaries to passe the censures of those men who though they will doe nothing themselues yet in the height of a proud and disdainefull spirit with many a scornefull looke smile at the follies of other mens writings as they esteeme them The sinister iudgements of either of these sortes of men I shall the lesse regard for that it pleased your Grace so louingly to accept and soe fauourably to approue these my poore paines bestowed for the clearing of sundry questions concerning tâ—…â—…rch which by your direction and appointment I first entred into It hath biâ—… 〈◊〉 â—…he vaunt of the aduersaries of the Religion established amongst vs that 〈◊〉 written many bookes against vs and none haue beene found to oppose any â—…g against them that they desire nothing more then by writing or disputing to â—…ic the goodnes of their cause But I doubt not but this Nationall Church the gouernment whereof vnder our most gracious Soueraigne is principally committed to your fatherly care shall yeeld men more than matchable with the proudest of the aduerse faction who being animated and hartned by your fauour guided by your directions shall no longer suffer these proud Philistims to defie the armies of the Lord of Hosts For though they proclaime their owne praises with loude sounding trumpets that might haue beene piped with an oaten straw and though they magnifie themselues as if they were the only Paragons of the world and as if all wit learning had bin borne with them should die with them yet whosoeuer knoweth them will little regard the froath of their swelling words of pride and scorne seeing when they haue done vaunting they haue done their best and that which remaineth is little worth their allegations being for the most part nothing but falsifications their testimonies of antiquity the markes notes of their ancient forgeries their reasons sophismes their reports slanders and wicked calumniations their threats the venting of their malice and powring out of their impotent desires their predictions onely manifesting what they wish might be but no way shewing what shall be In the later daies of our late dread Soueraigne Elizabeth of famous blessed memory all their books were nothing but fearefull threatnings of bloody confusions and horrible dissipations of Church and common-wealth which they hoped for and looked after soe soone as it should please God to cut off the thread of her blessed life But he that sitteth in heaueÌ„ hath laughed them to scorne and branded them with the marke of false Prophets For Elizabeth is gathered to her fathers in peace full of daies and full of honour yet they haue not bathed their swords in blood as they desired but God hath disappointed all their purposes frustrated their hopes and continued our happinesse Iosua hath succeeded Moyses and Salomon Dauid and he that disposeth the kingdomes of men giueth them to whom he will hath set vpon the Throne of Maiesty amongst vs a King of a Religious Vertuous and peaceable disposition to whom he hath giuen a wise and vnderstanding heart large as the sands of the sea shore whose delight is in the Law of the Lord who hath chosen his testimonies to be his Counsellers whose constant resolution in matters of faith and Religion daunteth the enemies of it whose admirable vnderstanding in things Diuine more then for many ages the world hath found in any of his ranke giueth vs good assurance that no frauds of any deceiuers shall euer be able to seduce or misse-lead him whose blessed Progenie and Royall issue maketh vs hope that the felicity of these vnited kingdomes shall continue as longe as the Sunne and Moone endure which whosoeuer desireth and seeketh to procure Peace be vpon him vpon the Israel of God Thus crauing pardon for this my boldnesse and humbly beseeching Almighty God long to continue your Graces happie and prosperous estate and to make you a glorious instrument of much good to his Church I rest Your Graces in all dutie RICHARD FIELD WHAT THINGS ARE HANDLED IN THE BOOKES FOLLOWING The first Booke is concerning the Name Nature and Definition of the Church and the different sorts of them that do pertaine vnto it CHAP. 1. OF the Church consisting of men and Angels in the day of their creation pag. 1. Chap. 2. Of the calling of grace whereby God called out both men and Angels from the rest of his creatures to bee vnto him a holy Church and of their Apostasie 4. Chap. 3. Of the Church consisting of those Angels that continued in their first estate by force of grace vpholding them and men redeemed 5. Chap. 4. Of the Church of the redeemed 7. Chap. 5. Of the Christian Church 9. Chap. 6. Of the definition of the Church 11. Chap. 7. Of the diuers sorts of them that pertaine to the Church ibid. Chap. 8. Of their meaning who say that the Elect only are of the Church 13. Chap. 9. Of the difference of them that are in and of the Church 14. Chap. 10. Of the visible and inuisible Church ibid. Chap. 11. Of the diuerse titles of the Church how they are verified of it 17. Chap. 12. Of the diuerse sorts of them that haue not yet entred into the Church 18. Chap. 13. Of the first sâ—…rt of them that after their admission into the Church of God do voluntarily depart and goe from the same 19. Chap. 14. Of the second sort of them that voluntarily goe out from the people of God 20. Chap. 15. Of them whom the Church casteth out by excommunication 22. Chap.
Chap. 2. Of the sufficiencie of the Scripture 232. Chap. 3. Of the originall text of Scripture of the certainty and truth of the originals and of the authority of the vulgar translation 238. Chap. 4. Of the translating of the Scripture into vulgar languages and of the necessitie of hauing the publique liturgie and prayers of the Church in a tongue vnderstood ibid. Chap. 5. Of the three supposed different estates of meere nature grace and sinne the difference betweene a man in the state of pure and meere nature and in the state of sinne and of originall sinne 250. Chap. 6. Of the blessed virgins conception 264. Chap. 7. Of the punishment of originall sin and of Limbus puerorum 270. Chap. 8. Of the remission of originall sinne and of concupiscence remaining in the regenerate 272. Chap. 9. Of the distinction of veniall and mortall sinne 277. Chap. 10. Of free will 279. Chap. 11. Of iustification 290. Chap. 12. Of merit 324. Chap. 13. Of workes of supererogation and Counsels of perfection 331. Chap. 14. Of Election and Reprobation depending on the foresight of something in the parties elected or reiected ibid. Chap. 15. Of the seauen Sacraments 332. Chap. 16. Of the being of one body in many places at the same time ibid. Chap. 17. Of transubstantiation 333. Chap. 18. Touching orall Manducation 334. Chap. 19. Of the reall sacrificing of Christs body on the Altar as a propitiatory sacrifice for the quicke and dead 335. Chap. 20. Of remission of sinnes after this life ibid. Chap. 21. Of Purgatory 336. Chap. 22. Of the Saints hearing of our prayers 337. Chap. 23. Of the superstition and idolatrie committed formerly in the worshipping of Images 338. Chap. 24. Of Absolution ibid. Chap. 25. Of Indulgences and Pardons 339. Chap. 26. Of the infallibility of the Popes iudgment 340. Chap. 27. Of the power of the Pope in disposing the affaires of Princes and their states ibid. The fourth Booke is of the Priuiledges of the Church CHAP. 1. OF the diuerse kindes of the priuiledges of the Church and of the different acceptions of the name of the Church 343. Chap. 2. Of the different degrees of infallibility found in the Church 344. Chap. 3. Of the meaning of certaine speaches of Caluine touching the erring of the Church 345. Chap. 4. Of their reasons who thinke the present Church free from all error in matters of faith 346. Chap. 5. Of the promises made vnto the Church how it is secured from errour of the different degrees of the obedience wee owe vnto it 348. Chap. 6. Of the Churches office of teaching and witnessing the truth and of their errour who thinke the authority of the Church is the rule of our faith and that shee may make new articles of faith 350. Chap. 7. Of the manifold errors of Papists touching the last resolution of our faith and the refutation of the same 351. Chap. 8. Of the last resolution of true faith and whereupon it stayeth it selfe 355. Chap. 9. Of the meaning of those words of Augustine that he would not beleeue the Gospell if the authority of the Church did not moue him 358. Chap. 10. Of the Papists preferring the Churches authority before the Scripture ibid. Chap. 11. Of the refutation of their errour who preferre the authority of the Church before the Scripture 359. Chap. 12. Of their errour who thinke the Church may make new articles of faith 361. Chap. 13. Of the Churches authority to iudge of the differences that arise touching matters of faith 362. Chap. 14. Of the rule of the Churches iudgment 364. Chap. 15. Of the Challenge of Papists against the rule of Scripture charging it with obscurity and imperfection 365. Chap. 16. Of the interpretation of Scripture and to whom it pertaineth 366. Chap. 17. Of the interpretation of the Fathers and how farre wee are bound to admit it 368. Chap. 18. Of the diuerse senses of Scripture 369. Chap. 19. Of the rules we are to follow and the helpes wee are to trust to in interpreting the Scriptures 372. Chap. 20. Of the supposed imperfection of Scriptures and the supply of Traditions 373. Chap. 21. Of the rules whereby true Traditions may be knowne from counterfeit 378. Chap. 22. Of the difference of bookes Canonicall and Apocryphall ibid. Chap. 23. Of the Canonicall and Apocryphall bookes of Scripture 379. Chap. 24. Of the vncertainty and contrariety found amongst Papists touching books Canonicall and Apocryphall now controuersed 382. Chap. 25. Of the diuerse editions of the Scripture and in what tongue it was originally written 385. Chap. 26. Of the Translations of the old Testament out of Hebrew into Greeke 387. Chap. 27. Of the Latin translations and of the authority of the vulgar Latine 388. Chap. 28. Of the trueth of the Hebrew Text of Scripture 390. Chap. 29 Of the supposed corruptions of the Greeke text of Scripture ibid. Chap. 30. Of the power of the Church in making Lawes 393. Chap. 31. Of the bounds within which the the power of the Church in making lawes is contained and whether shee may make lawes concerning the worship of God 394. Chap. 32. Of the nature of Lawes and how they binde 397. Chap. 33. Of the nature of Conscience and how the conscience is bound ibid. Chap. 34. Of their reasons who thinke that humane Lawes do binde the Conscience 399. The fifth booke is concerning the diuers degrees orders and callings of those men to whom the gouernment of the Church is committed CHAP. 1. OF the Primitiue and first Church of God in the house of Adam the Father of all the liuing and the gouernement of same 409. Chap. 2. Of the dignity of the first borne amongst the sonnes of Adam and their Kingly and Priestly direction of the rest 410. Chap. 3. Of the diuision of the preeminences of the first borne amongst the sonnes of Iacob when they came out of Aegypt and the Church of God became Nationall 411. Chap. 4. Of the separation of Aaron and his sonnes from the rest of the sonnes of Leui to serue in the Priests office and of the head or chiefe of that company 412. Chap. 5. Of the Priests of the second ranke or order 413. Chap. 6. Of the Leuites 414. Chap. 7. Of the sects and factions in religion found amongst the Iewes in latter times ibid. Chap. 8. Of Prophets and Nazarites 416. Chap. 9. Of Assemblies vpon extraordinary occasions 417. Chap. 10. Of the set Courts amongst the Iewes their authority and continuance 418. Chap. 11. Of the manifestation of God in the flesh the causes thereof and the reason why the second Person in the Trinity rather tooke flesh then either of the other 423. Chap. 12. Of the manner of the vnion that is between the Person of the Sonne of God and our nature in Christ and the similitudes brought to expresse the same 429. Chap. 13. Of the communication of the properties of eyther nature in Christ consequent vpon the vnion of them in his Person
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
which the Romanists now teach nor power of nature to doe the workes of the Lawe according to the substance of the things commanded though not according to the intention of the Law-giuer to loue God aboue all and to do actions morally good or not sinfull without concurrence of speciall grace nor election and reprobation depending on the foresight of some thing in vs positiue or priuatiue nor merit of congruence and condignity nor workes of supererogation nor counsels of perfection as they now teach nor iustification by perfection of inherent qualities nor vncertainty of grace nor seaven Sacraments properly so named nor locall presence nor Transubstantiation nor orall manducation of the body of Christ nor reall sacrificing of it for the quick the dead nor remission of sinnes after this life nor tormenting of the soules of men dying in the state of saluation in a part of hell hundred of yeares by divels in corporall fire out of which prayer should deliver them nor that the Saints heare our prayers know or are acquainted with our particular wants nor the grosse Idolatry in those times committed and intollerable abuses found in the number fashion and worship of their images nor their absolution as now they define it nor treasure of the Church growing out of the superfluitie of Saints merits not rewardable in themselues to be disposed by the Pope for supplie of other mens wants to release them out of Purgatorie by way of indulgence nor the infallibility of the Popes iudgment and plenitude of his power such and so great that he may depose Princes and dispose of their crownes and dignities and that whatsoeuer he doth he may not be brought into order or deposed by authority of the whole Christian world in a generall Councell These are the errours which wee condemne and our adversaries maintaine and defend these wee are well assured were not the doctrines of that Church wherein our Fathers liued and dyed though wee do not deny but they were taught by some in that Church All these we offer to proue to be errour in matter of our Christian faith and that seeing wee could no longer haue peace with our adversaries but by approuing these impieties wee had iust cause to divide our selues from them or to speake more properly to suffer our selues to be accursed anathematized and rejected by them rather than to subscribe to so many errours and heresies contrary to the Christian and Catholike verity CHAP. 8. Of the true Church which and where it was before Luthers time THus then it appeareth which wee thinke to haue beene the true Church of God before Luther or others of that sort were heard of in the world namely that wherein all our Fathers liued and died wherein none of the errours reproued by Luther ever found generall vniforme and full approbation in which all the abuses remoued by him were long before by all good men complained off and a reformation desired And therefore though wee accknowledge Wickliffe Husse Hierome of Prague and the like who with great magnanimity opposed them selues against the Tyranny of the See of Rome and the impiety of those who withheld the trueth of God in vnrighteousnesse who being named Christians serued Antichrist as Bernard complained of some in his time to haue beene the worthy servants of God and holy martyrs and confessours suffering in the cause of Christ against Antichrist yet doe wee not thinke that the Church of God was found onely in them or that there was no other appearance of succession of Church and ministerie as Stapleton and other of that faction falsely impute vnto vs. For wee most firmely beleeue all the Churches in the world wherein our Fathers liued and died to haue beene the true Churches of God in which vndoubtedly salvation was to be found and that they which taught embraced and beleeued those damnable errors which the Romanists now defend against vs were a faction only in the Churches as were they that denied the resurrection vrged circumcision and despised the Apostles of Christ in the Churches of Corinth and Galatia If any of our men deny these Churches to haue beene the true Churches of of God their meaning is limitted in respect of the prevailing faction that was in the Church and including them and all the wicked impieties by any of them defended in which sense their negatiue is to bee vnderstood For howsoever the Church which is not to be charged with the errours and faults of all that in the midst of her did amisse held a sauing profession of the trueth of God yet there were many and they carrying the greatest shew of the Church that erred damnably and held not a sauing profession of diuine trueth wherevpon Gerson sayth that before the councell of Constance the false opinions touching the power of the Pope did fret like a Canker preuailed so far that he would hardly haue escaped the note of heresie that had said but halfe so much as was defined in the Councell of Constance by the vniuersall consent of the whole Christian world Gregorius Ariminensis sheweth that touching the power of nature to doe things morrally good and to fulfill the law without concurrence of speciall grace touching the workes of infidels predestination reprobation and punishments of originall sinne the heresies of Pelagius were taught in the Church and that not by a few or contemptible men but so manie and of soe great place that he almost feared to follow the doctrine of the Fathers and oppose himselfe against them therein The same doth Gerson report concerning sundry lewd assertions preiudiciall to the states of Kings and Princes which the Councell of Constance could not bee induced to condemne by reason of a mighty faction that preuailed in it though many great ones much urged it and though they made no stay to condemne the positions of Wicklife and Hus seeming to derogate from the state of the Clergie though many of them might carry a good and Catholike sense if they might haue found a fauourable construction Whereupon he breaketh into a bitter complaint of the partialities and vnequall courses holden in the Church and protesteth that he hath no hope of a reformation by a councell things standing as they then did The like complaint did Contarenus make in our time that if any man did debase the nature of man deiect the pride of sinnefull flesh magnifie the riches of the grace of God and vrge the necessity of it hee was iudged a Lutheran and pronounced an Hereticke though they that gloried in the name of Catholikes were themselues Pelagian heretickes if not worse then Pelagians Alas saith Occam the time is come the blessed Apostle Saint Paule 2. Timoth. 4 prophecied of When men will not suffer wholesome doctrine but hauing their eares itching after their owne lustes get them a heape of Teachers turning their eares from the trueth and being giuen vnto fables This Prophecie is altogether fullfilled in our
concurreth with grace not as precedent vnto it but as following after it and as a handmaide attending on it is most false For hee approoueth the saying of Augustine but reproueth the Master of sentences for misseunderstanding and misseapplying it That which followeth that Caluine dissenteth from Augustine in the matter of iustification is of the same nature For he saith only that though nothing be to bee disliked in the matter it selfe deliuered by Augustine for that it is plaine that acknowledging the imperfection of inherent iustice and thinking it our greatest perfection to know our owne imperfections and seeke remission of our sinfull defects he cannot but acknowledg the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to be that in confidence whereof we stand in the sight of God yet his manner of deliuering this article is not so full perfect and exact as wee are forced to require in these times against the errours of the Romanists For that when hee speaketh of grace hee seemeth for the most part to vnderstand nothing else thereby but that sanctification whereby the holy spirit of God changeth vs to become newe creatures seldome mentioning the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ. That which Bellarmine chargeth Caluin with in the next place argueth his intollerable impudencie Caluin sayth hee doth thinke that the sonne of God is subiect to the father in respect of his Deitie which because all the Fathers deny he pronounceth they all erred and that their errour cannot be excused Let the Reader peruse the place and he shall finde that Calvin saith no such thing but the cleane contrary Indeed Hugo de S. Victore in his questions on the 1 Epist. to the Corinth 15. saith that CHRIST is subject to his Father according to his divine nature and sheweth that many haue beene of that opinion But Caluin saith no such thing neither doth hee charge the Fathers with any errour touching the distinction of the Natures of God and Man in Christ or the vnity of his Person but saith onely that some of them applying those things distinctly to one of the natures of Christ which are applyable to the whole Person of the Mediatour entangle themselues in some doubts which otherwise might easily be cleared which will easily appeare by that place of Hugo before mentioned The kingdome saith Hugo which Christ shall deliuer to his Father so become subject vnto him either was giuen vnto him in that he was God and then he cannot resigne it nor become subject to his Father because in that respect he is equal vnto him whence we say equalis Patri secundùm diuinitatem minor Patre secundum humanitatem Or in that he was man and that seemeth not conceiuable For the nature of man is not capable of that infinite power that is implyed in the Kingdome which God gaue his Sonne He answereth that he may be said to be subject to his Father in that he is God because though he haue the same essence with him yet he hath receiued it from him How aptly this may be said I will not now examine but how in this sense he may be said to giue vp his kingdome to his Father is yet more hard to conceiue Ambrose saith he may be said to giue it vp not by reall resigning of that he had but by bringing vs to his Father and shewing vs that Fountaine whence he receiued it and all that fulnesse whereof we are partakers These are doubts which Calvin saith that the Fathers doe not cleare attributing the Kingdome of Christ vnto him distinctly in respect of this or that nature But he affirming that the Kingdome of Christ doth not agree vnto him distinctly or seuerally in respect of this or that nature but to the whole person considered in both natures easily expresseth himselfe For saith he God gaue to his Sonne by eternall generation the same essence he had in himselfe and with it the same power and kingdome and this he shall neuer resigne Secondly he gaue to the nature of man not by formall transfusion but in the Person of his Sonne which in the admirable worke of the Incarnation he bestowed on it to support and sustaine it all that power he had originally in himselfe and eternally gaue his Sonne so that the Sonne of God after the taking of our nature into the vnity of his person administreth not his Kingdome without the vnion knowledge assent and cooperation of the nature of man which he shall continue to doe while wee neede mediation and till he haue brought vs to his Fathers presence and to the cleare view and sight of his Majestie Then shall hee cease to rule in this sort any more his humane nature shall not neede to bee interposed any longer but he shall appeare in the glory of his Godhead then shall he be subject to his Father in the nature of man in more speciall sort then now he is because though now he be inferiour vnto God in that he is man and so subject to him yet that nature of man intermeddleth with the administration of the Kingdome in such sort as then it shall cease to doe though it shall neuer lose that power and kingdome which in the Person of the Son of God it is honoured with CHAP. 16. Of Limbus patrum concupiscence and satisfaction touching which Caluine is falsely charged to confesse that hee dissenteth from the Fathers THe next imputation is touching Limbus patrum supposed to be a place below in the earth neere hell if not a part of hell which Caluin pronounceth to bee but a fable though it haue great authours and patrons as if this were so strange a thing that a fable and meere fancie should finde approbation among some of the Fathers The opinion of the Millenaries I suppose Bellarmine thinketh but a meere fancie yet had it great and reuerend patrons If hee say that all the Fathers did hold the opinion of Limbus and that Caluin opposeth himselfe against them all hee is cleerely refuted by Augustine who doubted of it Besides that their popish Limbus supposed to haue beene a receptacle for the soules of the Patriarches but only till the death and resurrection of Christ as being then emptied by him is a meere priuate conceite of their owne wanting the testimonies of the most auncient Fathers For Tertullian Irenaeus and others did thinke the soules of all men to bee holden in hell till the last day And if it were resolued that there was such a Limbus as they fancie yet their Schoolemen are not agreed of the place neither dare they affirme that it was below in the earth though they seeme most inclineable to that opinion The next false reporte that Bellarmine maketh of Caluin is that he opposeth himselfe against all Antiquitie in the question whether concupiscence in the regenerate be sinne or not This hee endeauoureth to make good in this sorte Calvin saith he professeth that Augustine hath truely and
doth appeare to be true that Calvin saith that they did ill deserue of the Church that forced her Ministers to single life and that the speech of Pope Pius the second was most true that what reason soeuer they had that forbade marriage in former times there were more reason in our times to leaue it free againe Now let vs proceed to consider his next exception against Caluine in proposing whereof he reasoneth thus Caluine thinketh that all the Fathers were of opinion that after the remission of sinne men must suffer the punishment their sinnes deserue to satisfie Gods Iustice and that therefore they were so seuere in imposing penance on them that had offended but this is the opinion of the Romanists which Caluine so much disliketh therefore hee confesseth the doctrine of the Romanists to haue beene the doctrine of all the Fathers The Maior or first proposition of this reason is a most vile calumniation for Caluine denieth that the Fathers were of that opinion the Romanists are of touching the punishments of sinne after remission of them as hath beene sufficiently cleared already Neither doth hee dislike the Fathers severity vpon that ground for then he should condemne their imposing of penance absolutely as a thing wholy vnlawfull which he doth not but most highly commendeth it onely whereas the end of these penitentiall corrections was and is to remooue and take away ill examples to provide that neither Gods name be blasphemed nor others provoked and incouraged to do euill by seeing them that offend to escape without condigne punishment and that the sinner may be brought to a right sense knowledge dislike and forsaking of his sinne when it appeareth that the sinner is truely penitent and carefully indeavoureth to satisfie the Church which was scandalized by him there must be great consideration had least he be swallowed vp with ouermuch heauinesse and so fall into desperation In this respect Caluine thinketh those courses of auncient discipline in putting men from the communion of the Church for the space of three foure or seaven yeares and sometimes for the whole time of their life to haue beene very daungerous vnlesse they were wisely moderated by the discretion of the Pastours as he confesseth they were without which moderation who doth not see they were carnificina conscientiarum a cruell bloody and mercilesse tormenting and murthering of the soules of men Now as the severity of the Primitiue Fathers was very great in the prescription of these Canons yet mixed tempered and sweetened with good moderation in the execution of them and therefore not to be disliked so their extreame seuerity towards those that fell after penitencie whom they eiected and cast out of the Church without hope of a second reconciliation cannot well be excused This denying of reconciliation to such as fell after they had once before done open and publique penance the Papists restraine to solemne penitencie which they distinguish from publike and open as being imposed for sinnes of the highest nature otherwise confessing that the Fathers seuerity connot be excused But this distinction of publike and solemne penitency is a meere devise of their owne without any ground of authority or shew of proofe For how doth Bellarmine proue the difference of these two kinds of penitencie Surely he saith solemne penitencie is imposed onely for the most greeuous crimes publike for those that are not so grieuous but proueth it not Further hee addeth that solemne penitencie could not be twise imposed publike might and they that had done it bee admitted into the Clergie that solemne penitencie could not be imposed vpon married folkes without consent nor vpon yong folkes publike might that none but Bishops might reconcile those that were enjoyned solemn penitencie but those that had beene enioyned publike penitencie others of meaner conditiō might absolue These fained distinctions of theirs betweene solemne publike penitencie haue no testimonie of Antiquitie but it is cleare and euident they were all one and therefore seeing they mislike the denying of reconciliation generally to such as fell after publike penitencie they cannot justifie the Fathers who did so deny it CHAP. 19. Of the Lent fast of Lay-mens Baptisme and of the sacrifice of the Masse THe next allegation is touching the Lent fast wherein as in the former Caluin is charged to condemne the iudgement and practice of all antiquitie That the falsehood of this allegation may the better appeare wee will lay downe what Caluin liketh or disliketh in the matter offasting in generall and particularly in the sette Fast of fortie dayes aunciently obserued in the Church before the ioyfull solemnities of the resurrection of Christ. First therefore he acknowledgeth the vse and necessity of fasting to be continued amongst Christians to the end of the world as well as formerly it was amongst the Iewes Secondly hee sheweth that fasting is not a thing that God requireth in respect of it selfe but respectiuely to certaine ends and as seruing to expresse and set forward the inward affections of the heart Thirdly he sheweth what those ends are namely to tame the flesh to giue a greater edge vnto our prayers to testifie expresse and set forward what may be our dislike of sinne and of our selues for sinne to testifie our humiliation and dolour proceeding from the fearefull apprehension of Gods displeasure to make it appeare we take no pleasure in any thing till God be reconciled to vs to amerce and punish our selues for our manifold abuses of Gods good creatures and lastly to shew that in holy meditations and contemplations we foretaste the sweetenesse of that heauenly Manna which maketh vs for a time to forebeare to taste of any sweetenesse of corporall meates thereby shewing the excellencie of that spirituall life which we shall liue in heauen without any of these outward nourishments beeing filled with the happy fruition vision and enioying of him that is the fountaine of life The faults hee findeth are when men seuer this outward exercise from the inward affection when they thinke it a thing for it selfe respected and coommanded by almighty God and a matter of rare and speciall vertue merit in it owne nature The Fathers hee confesseth did rightly and truely deliuer the nature of religious fasting yet so that by their exceeding great admiration and commendation of it they may seeme to haue giuen some occasion of that erronious perswasion that it is in it selfe highly pleasing to God This sayth Calvine I doe the rather thinke for that there was and appeared superstition euen in their times in the obseruing of that principall fast of fortie dayes in that both the common people thought the keeping thereof in it owne nature a thing highly pleasing God whereas no fast is accepted but respectiuely to the ends aboue mentioned and the Fathers commended it vnder the name of an Imitation of Christ whereas it is plaine that Christ did not fast principally for that end that wee
that should bee in the will but is not when it faileth to bring forth that action that in duty it is bound to doe But some man will say this must not be granted for if wee admitte not the distinction of that which is formall that which is materiall in the sin of commission the difformity the substance of the act that the one is positiue and the other priuatiue God hauing a true efficiency in respect of the substance of the act that which is positiue in it we must acknowledg that he hath a true efficiency in respect of the whole euen the difformity aswell as the substance consequently make him the author of sin They who make this objection seeme to say some thing but indeed they say nothing for this distinction will not cleere the doubt they moue touching Gods efficiency working in the sinful actions of men Whensoeuer sayth Durandus two things are inseperably ioyned together whosoeuer knowing them both that they are so inseperably ioyned together chooseth the one chooseth the other also because though happily he would not choose it absolutly as being evill yet in that it is ioyned to that which he doth will neither can be seperated frō it it is of necessity that he must will both As it appeareth in those voluntary actions that are mixt as when a man casteth into the sea those rich commodities which he hath dearly bought brought from a farre to saue his owne life which he would not doe but in such a case Hence it followeth that the act of hating God sinfull difformity being so inseperably ioyned together that the one cannot bee diuided from the other for a man cannot hate God but he must sin damnably if God doth will the one he doth will the other also This of Durand is confirmed by Suarez who saith he shall neuer satisfie any man that doubteth how God may be cleared from being author of sin if hee haue an efficiency in the sinfull actions of men that shall answere that all that is sayd touching Gods efficiency concurrence is true in respect of the euill motions actions of mens wills materially considered not formally in that they are evill sinfull For the one of these is consequent vpon another For a free and deliberate act of a created will about such an obiect with such circumstances cannot be produced but it must haue difformity annexed to it There are some operations or actions saith Cumel that are intrinsecally euill so that in them we cannot separate that which is materiall from that which is formall wherein the sinfulnes of sin consisteth as it appeareth in the hate of God in this act when a man shall say resolue I will do euill So that it implyeth a contradiction that God should effectually worke our will to bring forth such actions in respect of that which is materiall in them not in respect of that which is formall And this seemeth yet more impossible if wee admit their opinion who think that the formall nature being of the sin of commission consisteth in some thing that is positiue as in the manner of working freely so as to repugne to the rule of reason law of God So that it is cleare in the iudgment of these great diuines that if God haue a true reall efficiency in respect of the substance of these sinful actiōs he must in a sort produce the difformity or that which is formall in thē Wherefore for the clearing of this point we must obserue that there are 3 opiniōs touching Gods cōcurrence with 2d causes in producing their effects The 1st that God hath no immediate influence but mediate only in respect of volūtary agēts And according to this opiniō it is casie to cleare God frō the imputatiō of being author of sin yet to acknowledg his cōcurrence with 2d causes in producing their defectiue effects If the will of the creature saith Scotus were the totall and immediate cause of her action that God had no immediate efficiency but mediate only in respect thereof as some think it were easie according to that opinion to shew how God may bee freed from the imputation of being author of sin and yet to acknowledge his concurrence with second causes for the producing of their effects For whether we speake of that which is materiall or formall in sinne the will onely should be the totall cause of it and God should no way be a cause of it but mediatly in that hee caused and produced such a will that might at her pleasure doe what shee would Durandus seemeth to incline to this opinion supposing that 2d causes do bring forth their actions operations by of themselues that God no otherwise concurreth actiuely to the production of the same but in that he preserueth the 2d causes in that being power of working which at first he gaue them But they that are of sounder judgment resolue that as the light enlightneth the aire with the aire all other inferior things so god not only giueth being power of working to the 2d causes preserueth them in the same but together with them hath an immediate influence into the things that are to be effected by the God saith Caietan being the first cause worketh produceth the effects of all 2d causes immediatly tum immediatione virtutis tum immediatione suppositi that is not onely so as that the vertue power of God the first agent immediatly sheweth it self in the production of the effect but so also that he is an immediate agent between whom the effect produced no secondary agent intercedeth Yet are we not to conceiue that he is an immediate agent immediatione suppositi as he is immediatione virtutis for hee produceth immediatly euery effect of euery 2◠cause in respect of all that is found in any such effect immediatly immediatione virtutis that is so as that his vertue and power more immediatly effectually sheweth it self in the production of euery such effect then the power and vertue of the 2d cause but hee produceth euery effect of euery 2d cause immediatly immediatione suppositi that is as an immediate agent betweene whom and the effect no secondary agent intercedeth not in respect of all that is found in such an effect but of some things only as existence and the last perfection of actuall being For to giue being is proper to God as to make fire is proper to fire So that between God the supreme agent and being communicated to the effects of 2d causes there is nothing that commeth betweene that by force and power of it owne can produce any such effect So that God as an immediate agent bringeth forth such effects and all 2 causes in respect thereof are but instruments only But in respect of those things found in the same effects into which the 2d causes haue an influence by
not be if his concurse were indefinite generall only 3ly If it were as these men imagine the determination of the will of the creature should not bee within the compasse of things ordered by diuine prouidence and so God should not haue particular prouidence of euery particular thing That this is consequent vpon the fancie of indefinite concurse it is euident For if Gods concurse bee indefinite and in generall only then doth hee not truly and efficiently worke that the will of the creature shall in particular encline to and bring forth such an indiuiduall actiō And if he be not the cause that it so enclineth worketh his prouidence extēdeth not to such working seing his prouidence extēdeth to those things only wherein he hath a working So that if these things were soe as these men imagine Gods prouidence should extend it selfe to contingent things in a generality only in that he hath giuen to intellectual creatures a freedome to what whē how it pleaseth thē in particular in respect ofthings of this nature hee should haue a presidence onely and no prouidence Neither doth that which is alleaged by these men touching the indifferēt cōcurse of the Sunne or that of a man offering his concurrence in a generality only proue that Gods concurse is such For the Sunne is a finite and limited thing hauing something in act somthing in possibility so is man likewise therefore they may be determined to produce such such indiuiduall acts by the concurse of some other cause But God is a cause of infinite perfection and a pure act hauing nothing admixt of possibility so that his action and will cannot bee determined limited by any other Wherefore the resolution of the best diuines is that Gods concurse influence is not into the effects of 2d causes only but into the 2d causes thēselues So that he doth not only by an immediate concurse influence concurre with the 2d causes for the bringing forth of such effects as they determine themselues vnto but he hath an influence into the 2d causes thēselues mouing working thē to bring forth effects such effects as he thinketh good to worke thē vnto This is proued by sundry reasons First as we see 2d causes do not only produce some certaine effects operations as within some certaine kind but they giue vnto thē their last actuall perfection to bee But this they cānot giue vnlesse they be made cōpleate in vertue actiue by the first agent because an agent must be no lesse actuall then the effect or operation it bringeth forth But euery created agent is mixed compounded of actuall being possibility is not so actuall as an execution that is a 2d act therefore before it can bring forth any execution or effect it must be made cōpleate in vertue operatiue by the actuall motion of the first agent 2ly To bee is a most vniuersall act the proper effect of God onely therefore if wee will speak formally properly 2d causes in that they giue being to their own effects are but instruments of God whence it will follow that they must be moved by him in nature before they giue being to any of their effects For an instrument doth nothing towards the producing of the effect of the principall agent vnlesse it be actually moued by the principall agent 3ly Euery such thing as is somtimes an agent in act sometimes but potentially only must be moued by some mouer that is a pure act hath nothing mingled with it of possibility before it eā bring forth any actiō But the will of the creature is somtimes actually in actiō somtimes but potētially only therefore it must be moued by the first act before it can bring forth any action Which must bee granted for that otherwise the will of the creature in respect of some actions should bee the first mouer of it selfe and the first determiner That which is wrought by God in and vpon the second causes to make them actually to bee in action is a thing that hath a kinde of incompleate beeing in such sort as colours haue a being in the aire and the power of the act in the instrument of the artificer and so often as 2◠causes whether of naturall or supernaturall order haue in respect of the forme inherent in them a sufficient actiue power in the nature of the first act to bring forth their effects the helpe or precedent motion of God whereby he moueth and applyeth the same actiue powers to operate is not a qualitie but is more properly named a powerfull motion whereby the first and most vniversall agent so worketh vpon them that the 2d causes are actually in action euery one in sort fitting to the nature condition of it And to this purpose it is that Tho Aquinas hath that habituall grace is a quality but the actuall help whereby God moueth vs to will a thing is not a quality but a certain motion of the mind And surely it will easily appeare that there is a great difference between these For the habite doth perfit the power of the soule as a forme or first act implying possibility in respect of actuall operation because the habite doth not determine the power actually to worke but fitteth it only for action inclineth it thereunto But this actuall helpe mouing putting forth the 2d causes into their actions doth not perfit the power of working but makes thē actually to be in action Lastly the habit in respect of the nature of it may be the cause of diuerse actions but that actuall help mouing whereof we speak determineth the will to one individuall action yet taketh not from it a power of dissenting and doing otherwise Alvarez a great learned Archbishop that hath lately written with good allowance of the Church of Rome layeth downe these propositions First that God by an effectuall will predetermined all such acts of men and Angels as are good and all such as are not euill ex obiecto though in individuo they be euill sins ex malâ circumstantiâ Which he proueth out of the 10th of Esay where Almighty God saith Assur is the rod of my wroth he is my staffe I will send him to a deceiptfull nation against the people of my fury will I giue him a command a litle after Shall the axe boast against him that cutteth with it or shall the saw bee lifted vp against him that draweth it as if a rod should be lifted vp against him that lifteth it the staff which is but wood Here it is evident that Assur sinned ex malâ circumstantiâ in subduing the nations and yet it is cleere that God predetermined that he should waste and destroy the nations that he sent him to that purpose and moued him so to doe His 2d proposition is this that whatsoeuer is positiue of being in an act of sin though intrinsecally
are sinnes and decayes of natures integrity and consequently that concupiscence being a declining from that entire subiection to and conjunction with God is truely and properly sin whatsoeuer our adversaries teach to the contrary Fourthly that originall righteousnesse is said to bee a supernaturall quality because it groweth not out of nature and because it raiseth nature aboue it selfe But that it is naturall that is required to the integritie of nature Neither should it seeme strange to any man that a quality not growing out of nature should be required necessarily for the perfecting of natures integrity seeing the end and object of mans desires knowledge and action is an infinite thing and without the compasse bounds of nature And therefore the nature of man cannot as all other things doe by naturall force and things bred within her selfe attaine to her wished end but must either by supernaturall grace bee guided and directed to it or being left to her selfe faile of that perfection shee is capable of and fill her selfe with infinite euills defects and miseries This may suffice for refutation of the vaine and idle conceits of the Papists concerning three estates of man the one of grace the other of nature and the third of sinne Out of which we may obserue that howsoeuer they indeavour to make shew of the contrary yet indeede they thinke that concupiscence is not sinne neither in the regenerate nor vnregenerate Whereupon it is that Bellarmine speaking of the guilt of concupiscence which the Diuines say is taken away in Baptisme though the infirmity remaine saith it must be vnderstood of that guilt which causeth concupiscence not which is caused of it For saith he originall sinne maketh guilty and subjecteth men to concupiscence but concupiscence doth not make them guilty that haue it and therefore it is not sinne neither before nor after Baptisme But we say with Augustin Sicut caecitas cordis quam removet alluminator deus peccatū est quo in deum non creditur poena peccati qua cor superbū dignâ animadversione punitur causa peccati cùm mali aliquid caeci cordis errore cōmittitur ita concupiscentia carnis aduersus quam bonus concupiscit spiritus peccatum est quia inest ei inobedientia contra dominatum mentis poena peccati est quia reddita est meritis inobedientis causa peccati est defectione consentientis vel contagione nascentis As the blindnesse of heart which God remooueth when hee lightneth those that were formerly in darkenesse is a sinne in that by reason of it men beleeue not in GOD and a punishment of sinne wherewith the proude hearts of wicked men are iustly punished and a cause of sinne when erring by reason of this blindnesse of heart they doe those things that are euill so the concupiscence of the flesh against which the good spirit doth striue and couet is a sinne because there is in it disobedience against the dominion of the mind and a punishment of sinne in that it falleth out by the iust iudgment of God that they who are disobedient vnto God shall finde rebellious desires in themselues and it is a cause of sinne in that men either by wicked defection consent vnto it or by reason of the generall infection of humane nature are borne in it Wee thinke therefore there should be no question made of concupiscence and other like defects and euils found in the nature of man but that they are in their owne nature sinfull defects And hereof I am well assured none of the Fathers euer doubted but how farre they are washed away and remitted in Baptisme which is the matter about which Bellarmine wrangleth and taketh exception against vs let vs now consider Alexander of Hales the first and greatest of all the Schoolemen noteth diuers things most fitly to this purpose out of which wee may easily resolue what is to bee thought of this matter First therefore hee obserueth that there are two sortes of sinnes some naturall which are in the person from the generall condition of nature some personall that are acted by the person and so defile the nature as all actuall sinnes Secondly that concupiscence is of the first kind being an euill contracted and cleauing to nature not personally acted or wrought by vs. Thirdly that concupiscence may bee considered either as it hath full dominion and is a prevailing thing in them that haue it or as it is weakened and hath lost that strength dominion and command which formerly it had Fourthly that concupiscence while it hath dominion is a sinne defiling and making guilty both the nature person in which it commaundeth all But if it lose this dominion it cleaueth to the nature only and is not imputed to the person for sinne vnlesse hee some way yeelde vnto it bee drawen by it or suffer himselfe to be weakened in well doing by the force of it Fiftly that the benefits of grace are not generall but speciall of priuiledge not freeing the whole nature of man from sin and punishment as sin corrupted and defiled all but that they extend onely personally to some certaine Sixtly that when men are borne anew in baptisme they are freed from all that sin which maketh their persons guilty before God and consequently from all punishments due to them for any thing their persons were chargeable with But because they still remaine in that nature which is of the masse of malediction therefore sin cleaueth to their nature still and they are subject to the common punishment of hunger thirst death and the like Seauenthly that the dominion of that sin which is of nature is taken away by the benefit of regeneration in Baptisme Whence it commeth that the persons of men baptized are not chargeable with it though they remaine still in that nature wherein it is And consequently that the punishments which they are subject vnto because they remaine in the communion of that nature which is not generally free from sin cease to be vnto them in the nature of destroying euils serue to diverse good purposes and turne to their great benefit So then wee say with the Fathers and best learned of the Schoolemen that concupiscence in men not regenerate is a sinne corrupting and making guilty both the nature and the person wherein it is and that in the Regenerate it cleaueth to nature as a sinne still but hauing lost the dominion it had so that it cannot make the person guilty not prevailing with it nor commaunding ouer it Regnum amittit in terra perit in caelo It is driuen from the kingdome it formerly had in the Saints of God while they yet remaine on earth but it is not vtterly destroyed till they goe from hence to heauen Thus then I hope it appeareth that wee are far from the errour of the Messalians and doe fully accord with the Catholike Church of God and that the Romanists are not far from the heresie
thing and to bee but verball vpon mistaking through the hasty and inconsiderate humours of some men than any thing else Yea I dare confidently pronounce that after due and full examination of each others meaning there shall be no difference foūd touching the matter of the Sacrament the vbiquitary presence or the like between the Churches reformed by Luthers ministery in Germany and other places and those whome some mens malice called Sacramentaries that none of the differences betweene Melancthon and Illyricus except about certaine ceremonies were reall that Hosiander held no private opinion of Iustification howsoeuer his strange manner of speaking gaue occasion to many so to thinke and conceiue And this shall be iustified against the proudest Papist of them all But sayth Bellarmine your Churches are so torne and rent with dangerous diuisions that not onely one of you dissenteth from another but the same man often times from himselfe and herein giueth instance in Luther whose judgement varied in divers things of great consequence Touching Luther we answere that he was a most worthy Diuine as the world had any in those times wherein he liued or in many ages before that for the clearing of sundry poynts of greatest moment in our Christian profession much obscured intangled before with the intricate disputes of the Schoolemen and Romish Sophisters as of the power of nature of free will grace iustification the difference of the Law and the Gospell faith and workes Christian libertie and the like all succeeding ages shall euer be bound to honour his happie memory In all these things hee was euer constant yea all these things he perfectly apprehended and to the great joy of many mens hearts deliuered both by word and writing before he departed from the Romish Synagogue and out of these and more diligent search of the Scripture and Fathers then was vsuall in those times by degrees saw and descried those Popish errours which at first hee discerned not That herein he proceeded by degrees and in his later writings disliked that which in his former he did approoue is not so strange a thing as our aduersaries would make it seeme to be Did not Augustine the greatest of all the Fathers and worthiest Diuine the Church of God euer had since the Apostles times write a whole booke of Retractations Doe we not carefully obserue what things he wrote when he was but a Presbyter and what when hee was made a Bishop what before he entred into conflict with the Pelagians and what afterwards Did hee not formerly attribute the election of those that were chosen to eternall life to the foresight of faith which afterward he disclaimed as a meere Pelagian conceit So that his aduersaries as appeareth by the Epistles of Prosper and Hillarius did not only charge him to be contrary to the Fathers but to himselfe also Did not Ambrose in his time complaine that he was forced to teach before he had learned and so to deliuer many things that should neede and require a second review Doth not their Angelicall Doctor in his Summe of Theologie correct and alter many things that he had written before Let not our aduersaries therefore insult vpon Luther for that he saw not all the abominations of Popery at the first but let them rather consider of and yeeld to the reasonablenesse of the ◠request which in the preface of his workes hee maketh to all Christian and well minded readers to wit that they would reade his bookes and writings with iudgment and with much commisseration and remember that he was sometimes a Frier nourished in the errors of the Romish Church so that it was more painefull to him to forget those things hee had formerly ill learned than to learne anew that which is good But say they Luther himselfe witnesseth that contrariety and cotradiction is a note of falshood and therefore his writings being contradictory the later to the former his whole doctrine must needes be false euen in his owne iudgement Let them that thus reason against Luther know that his meaning is not that whosoeuer retracteth and correcteth that he formerly taught is thereby conuinced of falshood and his whole doctrine prooued to bee erroneous but that those assertions that doe implie contradicton and contrarietie that stand wholly vpon doubtfull vncertaine perplexed disputes and so ouerthrow themselues doe thereby appeare to be false Of which nature are all the principall parts of the Romish doctrine For example Transubstantiation is one of the greatest mysteries of Popish religion and all Papists at this day do firmely hold and beleeue it yet it is demonstratiuely prooued by their owne best Diuines that such a totall conuersion or transubstantiation of the Sacramentall elements into the body bloud of Christ is impossible implieth in it sundry contradictions consequences of horrible impieties For is it not implyed in the nature of the transubstantiation or totall conuersion of one substance into another that the one must succeed the other in being and that the former must cease to be the later therevpon begin to be whence it will followe that the later of the two substances into which the conuersion is made was not nor had no being before Now vvhat greater blasphemie can there be than to thinke Christs body had no beeing till the Massing Priests had wrought this miraculous Transubstantiation It is true that one substance may be changed into another as was Lots wife into a pillar of salt but that one substance should passe and be totally transubstantiated into another hauing the same beeing without all difference before the supposed Transubstantiation that after it hath and nothing beeing new in it in respect of substance or beeing implieth a contradiction and therefore the sacramentall elements cannot be transubstantiated into Christs body bloud That which Bellarmine hath out of Scotus of Transubstantiatio productiua and adductiua is the most childish folly that euer was For this is that he saith The substance of the sacramentall elements is annihilated and they returne into that nothing out of vvhich they vvere formerly taken and then Christs body commeth into the place where they vvere before Therefore the one substance may be sayd to be changed into the other If this reason be good when one man remooueth out of his place into which another vpon his remooue doth enter the former may be sayd to be transubstantiated into the later For as the former of the two supposed men goeth out of his place into some other vvhereupon the other succeedeth him not in being but in place so the sacramentall elements goe out of their place and returne to that nothing out of vvhich they vvere created and the body of Christ succeedeth them not in being vvhich it had the very same vvhile they vvere but in place ◠Neither can this supposed conuersion of the elements into the body of Christ be the cause of Christs being in the Sacrament but rather of
saued though the assertions of some men were damnable Now it is cleane contrary touching the present state of the Romish Church For the generall maine doctrine agreed vpon in the Councel of Trent in sort as it is most commonly conceiued is damnable but there are no doubt some of a better spirit and haue in themselues particularly a better conceit of things than generally is holden Formerly the Church of Rome was the true Church but had in it an hereticall faction now the Church it selfe is hereticall some certaine onely are found in it in such degree of Orthodoxie as that we may well hope of their saluation Thus then this great obiection taken from our owne confession is easily answered CHAP. 48. Of Miracles confirming the Romane faith THe next note of the Church is Gods owne testimony which hee giueth of the trueth sanctity of the faith and profession it holdeth This doubtlesse is the most absolute excellent note of all other For that must needes bee the true Church which holdeth the true faith and profession and that the true profession which God that neither himselfe can be deceiued nor deceiue others doeth witnesse testifie to be so For who dare make any doubt whether that bee the true religion or that the true Church which the God of trueth witnesseth to be so Let vs see therefore how God doth testifie concerning the trueth of religion and the happy condition of them that professe it Surely this testification is of two sorts the one by the inward operation of his inlightening spirit satisfying our vnderstandings in those things which by natures light we could not discerne and filling our hearts with ioy and gladnesse such and so great as nothing within natures compasse can yeeld For by this so great happie and heauenly an alteration which wee finde in our selues vpon and together with this receiuing of this doctrine which the spirit of trueth doth teach vs hee doth most clearely witnesse vnto vs that it is heauenly indeede and such as we could not haue attained vnto but by diuine reuelation The other kind of testification is when being desired by them that teach and learne this doctrine to giue some outward testimonie that it is true he doth some such thing for the good of them that receiue it or hurt of such as refuse it as none but God can doe But because partly by reason of the manifold illusions wherewith Sathan can and often doth abuse men making it seem vnto them that those things are done which are not and partly because we doe not exactly know what may be done by the force of naturall causes we cannot infallibly know concerning any outward thing performed before our eyes that it is in deede immediately and miraculously wrought by Gods owne most sacred hands This kinde of testification is not matchable with the other Nay wee cannot be infallibly assured of any thing done that it is Gods owne worke and in deede a miracle vnlesse this assurance grow out of the former testification For we may justly feare some fraud till finding by the inward testimony of Gods spirit the trueth of that for proofe whereof this strange thing is done we are assured it is the immediate and peculiar worke of God This assurance the quality of the things done and the difference betweene the workes of Sathan which onely cause admiration and wonder and the miraculous workes of God that are full of gracious goodnes winning the hearts of such as see them will greatly strengthen To what purpose then will some man say serued all the miracles that were done by Christ and his blessed Apostles This doubt is easily cleared for whereas the things then taught were new strange and incredible to naturall men they would not at all haue listned vnto them made inquiry after them or search into them had not the strange workes that followed the publishers of them made them thinke the things credible that were accompanied with so strange attendants Now while they gaue heed to the things that were spoken the Word was mighty in operation and entred into them in such sort that they discerned it was Gods owne word and that the way of saluation which by it they were directed vnto Thus then we see that miracles are no sure notes of the trueth of Religion nor certaine marke to know the Church by vnlesse they bee strengthened by some other meanes not for that a miracle knowne to bee so is insufficient to testifie of the trueth of God but because it is not possible infallibly to know that the things which seeme vnto vs to be miracles be so in deede vnlesse being assured of the trueth of that for confirmation whereof they are wrought wee thereby bee perswaded they are of God All that hath beene hitherto said is confessed to be true by the best learned Divines of the Romane Church Yea Cardinall Caietan proceedeth so farre that he pronounceth it cannot bee certainely knowne that those miracles are true miracles which the Church admitteth and approueth in the canonizing of Saints seeing the trueth of them dependeth on mens report that may deceiue and be deceiued Thus hauing declared what the vse of miracles is and how farre they giue testimony of the trueth let vs see what our adversaries conclude from hence for themselues or against vs. They haue miracles for confirmation of their faith and Religion and we haue none therefore they hold the true faith and we are in errour For answere hereunto first we say that the trueth of Religion cannot infallibly and certainely be found out by miracles especially in these last times because as Gerson noteth in his booke De distinctione verarum falsarum visionum in this old age of the world in this last houre and time so neere Antichrist his revelation it is not to bee marvailed at if the world like a doating olde man bee abused by many illusions and fantasies most like to dreames Secondly wee say that howsoeuer it may bee some miracles were done by such good men as liued in the corrupt state of the Church in the dayes of our Fathers yet that is no proofe of those errours which the Romanists maintaine against vs. For wee peremptorily deny that euer any miracle was done by any in times past or in our times to confirme any of the things controuersed betweene them and vs. What credit is to be giuen to the reportes of their miracles they may easily conceiue in that in all the differences they haue had amongst themselues either in matters of opinion or of faction they haue had contrary visions reuelations and miracles to confirme the perswasion of either side as appeared in the differences touching Maries conception and in the times of the Anti-Popes Wherevpon Caietane writing to Pope Leo about the controuersie of Maries conception wisheth him not to suffer his iudgement to be swayed by shew of miracles and giueth many good reasons of the
due consideration of the feare of spilling and shedding the blood of Christ. But this attempt was disliked and resisted for the authour of the booke intituled Micrologus saith It is not authenticall that certaine doe dippe the body of the Lord and hauing so dipped it giue it to the people thinking thereby to make vp vnto them the whole communion But the Roman order is against this and doth prescribe that vpon Good friday when they consecrate not but vse the bread consecrated the day before they shall take wine that is not consecrated and consecrate it with the Lords player and dipping of the Lords body into it that so the people may receiue the whole Sacrament which prescription were superfluous if it were enough to dippe the body of Christ the day before so to keep it to giue it so dipped to the people to cōmunicate in Pope Iulius in order of Popes the 36th writing to the Bishops of Egypt doth altogether forbid any such dipping commandeth the bread cup to be receiued apart What the credit of this Epistle is which the authour of this book citeth as the Epistle of Pope Iulius I know not neither do I thinke that any such custome of giuing the Sacrament to the people in the Church in such sort was so ancient as to be reprehended by Pope Iulius But it appeareth that such dipping when it began to be vsed in the Church found great opposition therfore this supposed constitution of Iulius is renewed cōfirmed in the 3d councel of Bracar Micrologus addes that blessed Gelasius in order of Popes the 51th writing to certaine Bishoppes commandeth them to excommunicate all those that receiuing the Lords body abstained from the participation of the cuppe pronouncing in the same decree that such diuision of the Sacrament cannot bee without horrible sacriledge By this of Micrologus it is evident that they thought in those times that not onely the communicating in one kind alone out of such erroneous conceipts as those of the Manichees and other like but all communicating in one kind alone is sacrilegious And that they could not endure the dipping of the sacramentall bread whereby yet the people did in a sort partake of both kindes Neither doth Micrologus alone shew the dislike that then was of such dipping but the like wee may finde in the writings of sundry worthy men Hildebertus Cenomanensis Hoec ideo tibi frater exaravi vt excitatus evigiles vt videas quoniam traditioni sacramentorum altaris quae in vestro celebris est monasterio nec Evangelica traditio consonat nec decreta concordant In eo enim consuetudinis est eucharistiam nulli nisi intinctam dare quod nec ex dominica institutione nec ex sanctionibus authenticis reperitur assumptum si Mathaeum si Marcum si Lucam consulas seorsim panem traditum invenies seorsim vinum c nam intinctum panem aliis praebuisse Christum non legimus excepto tantummodo illo discipulo quem intincta buccella proditorem ostenderit non quod huius sacramenti institutionem fignaret sic Papa Iulius ait c. That is Brother I haue therefore written these things vnto thee that being stirred by me thou mightest bee awakened to see that the manner of deliuering of the sacrament of the altar which is growne into vse in your monasterie is neither consonant to the evangelicall tradition nor agreeing with the decrees For in your monasterie it is become a custome to giue the mysticall bread to none but dipped which will never be found to haue taken beginning from the Lords institution or authenticall constitutions For if thou consult Mathew or Marke or Luke thou shalt finde that the bread was deliuered apart and the wine apart c. for wee reade not that Christ gaue dipped bread to any other but onely to that disciple whom by the dipped soppe he meant to shew to be the traitour and not that he would haue the sacrament so ministred and so Pope Iulius sayth c. From the custome of dipping the mysticall bread into the blood giving it so dipped vnto the people for feare of shedding the blood of Christ if it should haue beene ministred apart some proceeded farther and began to teach the people that seeing the body blood of Christ cannot be separated in that they partake of the one they partake of the other also and that therefore it is sufficient to receiue in one kinde alone But herein they gaue no satisfaction either to themselues or others For though it be true sayth Durandus that they are not separated and that he that receiueth the one receiueth the other also yet neither part of the sacrament is superfluous but both are to bee receiued For whereas wine breedeth blood wherein the soule life is seated according to that in Leviticus The soule of all flesh is in the blood of it and whereas in the offerings that were of old the flesh of those beasts that were sacrificed was offered for the body and the blood of them for the soule if wee should receiue Christs body and together with it the blood vnder the forme of bread signifying and exhibiting the flesh of Christ and not vnder the forme of wine signifying exhibiting vnto vs the blood of Christ wee might bee thought to neglect the saluation and good of our soules And els-where hee saith that hee that receiueth onely the consecrated bread receiueth not the whole entire Sacrament For howsoeuer it be true that the blood of Christ is in the host or consecrated bread yet is it not there sacramentally seeing bread doth not signifie the blood but the body of Christ neither the wine the body but the blood of Christ. And in the former place hee addeth out of Innocentius tertius that though the blood of Christ be receiued with the body vnder the forme of bread and the body with the blood vnder the forme of wine yet neither can wee drinke the blood of Christ vnder the forme of bread which wee eat nor eat the body of Christ vnder the forme of wine which wee drinke And sundry of the Schoolemen agree with him in this poynt resoluing that though Christ bee whole and entire in either part of the sacrament yet both parts are necessary First because the exhibiting of the body blood of Christ distinctly representeth his passion in which his blood was separated from his body And secondly because in this sorte Christs body is more fitly and significantly exhibited vnto vs in the nature of food and his blood of drinke If this sacrament bee worthily receiued vnder both kinds sayth Alexander of Hales there is a greater efficacy and working of grace causing an vnity betweene the mysticall body Christ the head then when it is receiued in one kinde onely And therefore he sayth though the receiuing vnder one kinde bee sufficient yet that which is vnder both is of more
originall sinne cease so to misincline nature as formerly it did and so as to haue the person at command to be swayed whether it will it maketh it not cease to misincline nature in some sort and so to be a sinne of nature it maketh it cease to be a sinne of the person freeing it from being subiect to it and putting it into an opposition against it so that it is no farther a sinne of the person then it is apt to be ledde by it to be hindred from good or drawne to euill The nature and person are freed from the guilt of condemnation the nature in respect of the sinne that remaineth in it is subiect to punishment the person is not free from those punishments which the remaining sinne of the nature it hath bringeth vpon it as death c The person is freed from being subiect to any punishment farther then it must needes be in respect of nature So that originall sinne or concupiscence remaineth in act in the regenerate mouing to desire things not to be desired and so a sinne of nature making it subiect to punishment but it doth not remaine in act illiciendo abstrahendo mentem eiusque consensu concipiendo pariendo peccata that is it doth not so remaine in act as to allure and draw the minde and to gaine the consent of it to conceiue and bring forth sinne and so remaineth not in the guilt of condemnation nor as a sinne of the person If therefore when the question is proposed whether concupiscence in the regenerate which grace restraineth and opposeth be sinne wee vnderstand by sinne a thing that is not good an euill that is not a pvnishment onely but a vice and fault and such an euill as positiuely and priuatiuely repugneth against the law which the spirit of God writeth in the harts of the beleeuers an iniquitie a thing that God hateth and which wee must hate and resist against by the spirit that it bring not forth euill acts if wee vnderstand by sinne such a disposition of nature as God by the law of creation at first forbad and ceaseth not still to forbidde to be in the nature of man it is undoubtedly sinne a sinne I say of nature though not of person And hereunto Stapleton agreeth for whereas it is obiected out of Augustine to proue that concupiscence in the regenerate is sinne that as blindnesse of hart is a sinne in that men by reason of it beleeue not in God and a punishment of sinne wherewith the proud hart of man is punished and a cause of sinne when men through errour of their blind hart do any euill thing So that concupiscence of the flesh against which the good spirit opposeth good desires is a sinne in that there is in it disobedience against the minde that should command and a punishment of sinne because it was iustly brought vppon him whose disobedience against God deserued so and a cause of sinne when it obtaineth a consent hee answereth setting aside all other answers as not sufficient that concupiscence in that place is sayd by Augustine not onely to be a punishment and cause of sinne but sinne also not as if it were truly and properly a sinne making God displeased with the regenerate in whom it is but that it is a sinne of nature respecting the first integrity of it and not of the person according to that of the Apostle It is not I that do it but the sinne that dwelleth in mee that is in my flesh For the reason which hee bringeth why it is sinne doth euidently shew this Because sayth hee there is in it disobedience against the dominion of the minde it is therefore a certaine sinne or fault contrary to the integrity of nature in which there was no disobedience of the flesh as it is a fault of the eye to be dimme and of the eare to heare imperfectly And though Sapleton say he had no author to follow in this interpretation yet hee might easily haue found that Alexander of Ales long since was of the same opinion making concupiscence in the regenerate a sinne of nature and not of the person as I haue else where shewed at large If this be soe what then will some man say is the difference betweene the Romanists and those of the reformed Churches surely it is very great for these teach that concupiscence was newly brought into the nature of man by Adams sinne that in the vnregenerate it is properly sinne that it maketh them guiltie and worthy of eternall condemnation that haue it But the Romanists say it was not newly brought in by Adams fall that it is a consequent of nature that it is more free and at liberty to produce the proper effects of it now then it would haue beene if grace had not been lost but not more then it would haue beene in nature simply considered without grace or sinne and that it never made them guilty that had it These say that in the regenerate it is so far weakened as that it hath no power to sway him that is so renewed to what it pleaseth that the guilt of condemnation which it drew vpon man before his regeneration is taken away that yet still it is a sinne of nature making guilty of punishment that yet still it is hated of God and must be hated of vs But the Romanists say the guilt that is taken away is not the guilt whereby concupiscence maketh guilty but out of which it came that man deserved to haue concupiscence free and at libertie And therefore Bellarmine sayth the guilt of concupiscence may be conceiued in three sortes First To be a guilt rising from it and founded in it making him guilty that hath it as the guilt of theft is that whereby he is guilty that hath committed theft Secondly That may bee sayd to bee the guilt of concupiscence not that floweth from it but from which it floweth as if a man should cut off his hand he might be said to be guilty of the hand that is cut off not because it is a sinne making guilty to haue a hand cut off but because he is guilty of the not hauing a hand that hath cut it off himselfe so wee are to vnderstand the guilt of concupiscence not as if the hauing of it did make a man guilty but because Adam by sinne made himselfe guilty of hauing concupiscence at libertie to sollicit him to ill that was formerly restrained Thirdly the guilt of concupiscence is that which it causeth if it obtaine consent to those motions it maketh not for that a man is guilty because he hath concupiscence but because he yeeldeth to it So that according to their opinion when there is a remission of the offence that set concupiscence at liberty it is no guilt to haue it for it is naturall Foure things therefore are to be proved by vs. First That concupiscence was no condition of nature Secondly That it maketh guilty of eternall
beleeued by the Church wherein our Fathers liued and died But they of the Church of Rome at this day dislike this opinion for they suppose that though our will be not free from sinne so as collectiuely to decline each sinne and that though in the state wherein presently we are we cannot but sinne at one time or other in one thing or other yet we may decline each particular sinne divisiuely and doe the true workes of morall vertue Much contending there is hath beene touching freewill wherefore for the clearing of this point two things are to be noted 1 from what and 2dly wherein this liberty may be thought to be The things from which the will may be thought to bee free are fiue 1 The authority of a superiour commander and the duty of obedience 2ly The inspection care gouernment direction and ordering of a superiour 3ly Necessity that either from some externe cause enforcing or from nature inwardly determining and absolutely mouing one way 4ly Sinne the dominion of it 5ly Misery Of these fiue kindes of liberty the 2 first agree only to God so that in the highest degree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is freedome of will is proper to God only and in this sense Calvin and Luther rightly deny that the will of any creature is or euer was free The third kind of libertie is opposite not only to coaction but naturall necessitie also In opposition to coaction the vnderstanding is free for howsoeuer a man may be forced to thinke beleeue contrary to his inclination that is such things as he would not haue to be true yet the vnderstanding cannot assent to any thing contrary to her owne inclination for the vnderstanding is inclined to thinke so of things as they are as they may be made to appeare vnto her to be whether pleasing to nature or not but the vnderstanding is not free from necessitie But the will in her action is free not onely in opposition to coaction but to naturall necessity also Naturall necessitie consisteth herein that when all things required to inable an agent to produce the proper effect thereof are present it hath no power not to bring forth such effect but is put into action by them So the fire hauing fit fuell in due sort put vnto it being blowed vpon cannot but burne The libertie of the will therefore appeareth herein that though all those things be present that are pre-required to inable it to bring forth the proper action of it yet it hath power not to bring it forth and it is still indifferent indeterminate till it determine and incline it selfe God indeed worketh the will to determine it selfe neither isit possible that hee should so worke it and it should not determine it self accordingly yet doth not Gods working vpon the will take from it the power of dissenting and doing the contrary but so inclineth it that hauing libertie to doe otherwise yet shee will actually determine so Here Luther and Calvin are charged with the denyall of this libertie of the will many strange absurdities are attributed to them for first Luther is said to haue affirmed that the will of man is meerely passiue that it produceth not any act but receiueth into it such acts as God alone without any concurrence of it worketh produceth in it But all this is nothing but a meere calumniation for Luther knoweth right well that men produce such actions as are externally good euill willing out of choice confesseth that we doe the good things that God commandeth vs when we are made partakers of his grace but that God worketh vs to doe them Wee beleeue we feare we loue but it is God that worketh vs to beleeue feare loue Certum est nos facere cùm facimus saith Saint Augustine seà Deus facit ut faciamus It is most certain that we doe those things we are said to doe but it is God that maketh vs to doe them not only by perswading inviting inwardly drawing vs by morall inducements but by a true reall efficiencie So that according to Luthers opinion we moue not but as moued nor are actiue but as hauing first bin passiue nor turne our selues but as first wrought vpon and made to turne yet doe wee truely moue our selues and truely freely and cheerefully choose that which is good and turne ou rselues from that which is euill to that which is good Diuines say that facere vt velimus and facere ipsum velle differ very much that is they say it is one thing to make vs to will and another to produce the acte of willing God worketh both but in a different sorte the first sine nobis facientibus nos velle Secundum autem operatur nobiscum simul tempore consentientibus cooperantibus that is God worketh the first of these alone we make not our selues to will the second hee produceth together with vs willing that hee would haue vs and producing that wee doe So that in the former consideration wee are meerely passiue in the latter actiue which neither Luther nor any of his followers ever denyed Calvine they say confesseth that the will concurreth actiuely to the acte which God produceth but without any freedome at all vnlesse wee speake of that freedome which is from coaction It is true indeede that Calvine denyeth vs to bee free from necessity but hee speaketh of the necessity of sinning but hee neuer denyeth vs to bee free from naturall necessitie that is from being put into action so as naturall agents are that is without all choyce and liking ofthat wee incline to doe It is evident that Calvine confesseth the will of man to bee free to doe euill and he denyeth it not to bee free to performe acts civilly good or morally good ex genere obiecto yea hee thinketh that the will freely and out of choyce willeth whatsoeuer it willeth as in the state of auersion it freely willeth that it should not so when God conuerteth it hee turneth the course of the actions and desire of it and maketh it freely and out of choyce to turne to good That men haue lost the freedome from sinne and put themselues into a necessity of sinning Saint Augustine sheweth Libero arbitrio male vtens homo se perdidit ipsum sicut enim qui se occidit vtique vivendo se occidit sed se occidendo non vivit nec seipsum potest resuscitare cum occiderit ita cum libero peccaretur arbitrio victore peccato amissum est liberum arbitrium à quo enim quis devictus est huic servus addictus est Quae sententia cum vera sit qualis quaeso potest servi addicti esse libertas nisi quando eum peccare delectat Liberaliter enim seruit qui sui domini voluntatem libenter facit Ac per hoc ad peccandum liber est qui peccati servus est
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
that are already wise and exercised in things that are diuine and therfore they must begin with authority Hugo de Sancto Victore maketh three sorts of beleeuers for there are sayth he qui solâ pietate credere eligunt qui vtrùm credendum sit vel non credendum ratione non comprehendunt alii ratione approbant quod fide credunt alii puritate cordis mundâ conscientiâ interius iam gustare incipiunt quod fide crediderunt The first are moued to beleeue out of piety finding the Maiesty of God to present it selfe vnto them in the word of truth and happy communion of the people professing the same challenging their attention and readinesse to bee taught by him In the second the light of diuine reason causeth approbation of that they belieue In the third sort the purity of diuine vnderstanding apprehendeth most certainely the things belieued and causeth a foretasting of those things that hereafter more fully shall be enjoied They that are thus established in the faith do now already begin to foretast that which they long in heaueÌ„ distinctly to know and enjoy and begin already to haue God present with them by force of diuine contemplation so that if all the world should be turned into miracles they could not remoue them from the certainety of their perswasion Hence it is that Pycus sayth in his Conclusions that as faith which is but a bare credulity is in degree of perfection lesse then Science soe true faith is greater and more certaine then any science gotten by demonstration Thus then we may easily discerue what is the formall reason of our faith or inducing vs to beleeue In things that are therefore belieued because knowne as in the principles conclusions of naturall knowledge the euidence of things appearing to vs is the formall reason of our beleefe and perswasion In things first belieued and afterwards known the euidence of the things appearing vnto vs being inlightned by the light of grace In things only belieued and not knowne the authority of God himselfe whom wee do most certainly discerne to speake in the worde of Faith which is preached vnto vs. Si puros oculos integros sensus illuc afferamus sayth Caluin statim occurret Dei majestas quae subactâ reclamandi audaciâ nos sibi parere cogat If we bring pure eyes and perfect senses the Majesty of God presently presenteth it selfe vnto us in the diuine Scripture and beating down al thoughts of contradicting or doubting of things so heauenly forceth vs to obey For Non dubium vim numinis illic vigere spirare sentimus quâ ad parendum scientes quidem ac volentes viuidiùs tamen efficaciùs quà m pro humana aut voluntate aut scientia trahimur ac accendimur We find a greater light of vnderstanding shining vnto vs in this doctrine of faith then is found within the compasse of nature a satisfaction touching many things in which humane reason could not satisfie vs in a joy exultation of the heart such and so great as groweth not out of nature This maketh vs assure our selues the doctrine which thus affecteth vs is reuealed from God that they are the only people of God and haue the meanes of happinesse where this treasure of heauenly wisdome is found that those bookes are the richest jewell that the world possesseth and ought to be the Canon of our faith which this people deliuereth unto vs as receiued from them to whom these things were first of all made knowne and reuealed So then that God speaketh in the Scripture and is the Author of it we know more certainely than any thing that is knowne by naturall light of reason and thereupon wee beleeue all things therein contained though many of them are such as can neuer be knowne of vs as those that are historicall and other such as are not knowne at first though after we haue belieued we begin to vnderstand and know them Herevnto agree the best learned and most deuout and religious amongst the Schoole-men For the greater part of them were giuen to curious disputes but voyd of all deuotion as Gerson complaineth Alexander of Hales sayth there is a certainty of speculation and a certainetie of experience a certainty in respect of the vnderstanding and a certainetie in respect of the affection a certainty in respect of the spirituall man and a certainety in respect of the naturall man and pronounceth that the things apprehended by vs in diuine knowledge are more certainely discerned by such as are spirituall in the certainty of experience in the certainety which is in respect of affection and by way of spirituall taste and feeling than anie thing is discerned in the light of naturall vnderstanding Quà m dulcia faucibus meis eloquia tua sayth the Prophet Dauid How sweete are thy wordes O Lord vnto my mouth They are sweeter than the hony and the hony combe And again I haue knowne long since that thou hast established them for euer Thus then it is true that the authority of Gods Church prepareth vs vnto the faith and serueth as an introduction to bring vs to the discerning and perfect apprehension of diuine things but is not the ground of our faith and reason of beleeuing And that doubtlesse is the meaning of those wordes of Augustine that hee would not beleeue the Gospell if the authority of the Church did not moue him thereunto CHAP. 9. Of the meaning of those wordes of Augustine that he would not beleeue thâ—… Gospell if the authority of the Church did not moue him THe Diuines giue two explications of these wordes of Augustine For Occam and some others say the Church whereof hee speaketh is not the multitude of beleeuers that now are in the World but the whole number of them that are and haue beene since Christ appeared in the flesh so including the Apostles in which sense they confesse the Church comprehending in it the Apostles and writers of the whole Scripture of the new Testament is of greater authority then the bookes of the Gospell written by them and deliuered to posterities Others taking the name of the Church to signifie onely the beleeuers that now presently are in the world say the meaning of Augustine is that he had neuer beleeued the Gospell if the authoritie of the Church had not beene an introduction vnto him Not that his faith rested vpon it as a finall stay but that it caused him so farre to respect the word of the Gospell to listen vnto it and with a kinde of acquisite and humane faith to beleeue it that hee was thereby fitted to a better illumination by force whereof hee might more certainely know and beleeue it to be of God To which purpose Waldensis out of Thomas Aquinas obserueth that as the Samaritans beleeued that Christ was the promised Sauiour vpon the report of the woman that talked with him made vnto them but afterwardes hauing
manner of hauing the truth is inferiour vnto it neither are we bound to receiue her doctrines as the sacred Scriptures Besides though the Church taken in this sort be free from errour yet not from ignorance of many things wherein we may be instructed by the scripture So that it is possible for a man to vnderstand the naturall literall sense of some parts of Scripture and from thence some things that were not in such sort knowne and deliuered by any that went before as Andradius and Caietanus do proue at large If the comparison be made betweene the Church consisting of all the belieuers that are and haue beene since Christ appeared in the flesh so including the Apostles and their blessed assistants the Euangelists we deny not but that the Church is of greater authority antiquity and excellencie than the Scripture of the new Testament as the witnesse is better then his testimonie and the Lawgiuer greater then the Lawes made by him as Stapleton alleageth But he is to proue the present Church greater in authority than the Scripture which hee vndertaketh but performeth not His reason that the Scripture was giuen for the good of the Church and that therefore the Church is better than the Scripture proueth not the thing intended For as the people are more excellent in degree of being and nature of things than the lawes that be made for their good yet are the lawes of more authority and must ouer-rule and direct the people so though the Scriptures being but significations declarations and manifestations of diuine truth be not better in degree of things than the Church yet in power of prescribing directing and ouer-ruling our faith they are incomparably greater That which the Rhemists adde to shew the greatnesse of the Church aboue the Scripture because the Church hath judiciall power to determine doubts and controuersies whereof as they suppose the Scripture is not capable I will examine in the next part when I come to speake of the power of judging which the Church hath This errour of the Romanists imagining the authority of the Church to bee greater than the Scripture all the best learned in the Church of Rome euer resisted as Waldensis Occam Gerson and sundry others CHAP. 12. Of their errour who thinke the Church may make new articles of faith VNto this errour is joyned and out of this hath growne another not vnlike that the Church may make new articles of faith which though Stapleton and some other of our time seeme to disclaime yet do they indeede fall into it For the better vnderstanding whereof we must obserue as Occam fitly noteth that an Article of faith is sometimes strictly taken onely for one of those diuine verities which are contained in the creede of the Apostles sometimes generally for any Catholike verity This question is not meant of articles of faith in the first sense but in the second and so the meaning of the question is whether the Church that now is may by her approbation make those assertions and propositions to be Catholike verities that were not before or those hereticall that were not A Catholike vetity is a diuine truth which euery Christian is bound to beleeue The things which Christian men are bound to beleeue are of two sorts and consequently there are two sorts of Catholike verities to wit some so neerely touching the matter of eternall saluation that a man cannot be saued vnlesse hee expressely knowe and beleeue them others farther remooued which if a man beleeue implicitè and in praeparatione animi it sufficeth These must bee beleeued expressely and distinctly if their coherence with or dependance on the former do appeare vnto vs so that the manifest deduction of them from the former will make them such as must be expressely beleeued Our aduersaries confesse that the approbation and determination of the Church cannot make that a truth which was not nor that a Diuine or Catholike truth that was not so before but they thinke that the Church by her bare and sole determination may make that verity to be in such sort Catholike that euery one vnderstanding of such determination must expressely beleeue it that was not so and in such degree Catholike before But wee thinke that it is not the authority of the Church but the cleare deduction from the things which we are bound expressely to beleeue that maketh things of that sort that they must be particularly and distinctly known beleeued that were not necessarily so to bee beleeued before and therefore before and without such determination men seeing cleerely the deduction of things of this nature from the former and refusing to beleeue them are condemned of hereticall pertinacy and men not seeing that deduction after the decree of a Councell hath passed vpon them may still doubt and refuse to beleeue without hereticall pertinacy We cannot therefore condemne the Grecians as heretickes as the Romanists doe because wee cannot perswade our selues of them generally that they see that which they deny touching the proceeding of the holy Ghost deduced from the indubitate principles of our Christian faith or that they impiously neglect the search of the trueth What is it then will some men say that the decree of a Councell doth effect Surely nothing else but the rejecting of such as are otherwise minded from the societies of those men and Churches with whom the decree of the Councell doth prevaile and with all wise men the more wary and fearefull pronouncing any thing of those matters concerning which so graue authority hath passed her sentence The Papists proceed further and thinke it hereticall pertinacie to gainsay the decrees of a Councell though they finde the reasons by which they of the Councell were mooued so to thinke and determine to bee too weake and not to conclude the thing intended as in the matter of Transubstantiation they thinke it heresie to gainesay the decrees of those Councels that haue defined it and yet many of them judge all the reasons alleaged to proue it too weake to proue it In deed if it were certaine as they suppose that a generall Councell could not erre this were a sufficient deduction These things are decreede in a generall Councell Therefore ture because it is consequent that that is true which is affirmed by him that cannot erre Thus wee see what it is to bee thought touching this question whether the Church may make new Articles of faith onely one thing must be added for the further clearing hereof The Papistes thinke that the Church may adde to the Canon of the Scripture bookes not yet admitted as the bookes of Hermas the Scholler of Paul intituled Pastor and the constitutions of Clement which if it should doe we were to receiue them with no lesse respect then the Epistle of Iames and other bookes of the New Testament This we thinke to be a most grosse heresie and contrrry to their owne principles who making the number
is in himselfe and maketh vs already to beginne to tast the sweetnesse of so great and happy an vnion is not only true but Diuine and Heauenly such as nature could not teach vs but is to be learned onely of God himselfe It being presupposed in the generalily that the doctrine of the Christian faith is of God and containeth nothing but heauenly truth in the next place we are to inquire by what rule wee are to iudge of particular things contained within the compasse of it This rule is first the summary comprehension of such principall articles of this diuine knowledge as are the principles whence all other things are concluded and inferred These are contained in the creed of the Apostles Secondly all such things as every Christian is bound expressely to beleeue by the light direction whereof he iudgeth of other things which are not absolutely necessary soe particularly to be knowne These are rightly sayd to bee the rule of our faith because the principles of euery science are the rule whereby wee iudge of the truth of all things as being better and more generally knowne then any other thing and the cause of knowing them Thirdly the Analogie due proportion and correspondence that one thing in this diuiue knowledge hath with another soe that men cannot erre in one of them without erring in another nor rightly vnderstand one but they must likewise rightly conceiue the rest Fourthly whatsoeuer bookes were deliuered vnto vs as written by them to whom the first and immediate reuelation of diuine truth was made Fiftly whatsoeuer hath been deliuered by all the Saints with one consent which haue left their iudgment and opinion in writing Sixtly whatsoeuer the most famous haue constantly and vniformely delivered as a matter of faith no man contradicting though many other Ecclesiasticall writers be silent and say nothing of it Seuenthly that which the most and most famous in euery age constantly deliuered as matter of faith and as receiued of them that went before them in such sort that the contradictors and gainsayers wâ—…re in their beginnings noted for singularity nouelty and diuision and afterwards in processe of time if they persisted in such contradiction charged with heresie These three latter rules of our faith we admit not because they are equall with the former originally in themselues containe the direction of our faith but because nothing can be deliuered with such and so full consent of the people of God as in them is expressed but it must needes bee from those first Authors and founders of our Christian profession The Romanists adde vnto these the decrees of Councels and determinations of Popes making these also to bee the rules of faith but because we haue no proofe of their infallibility we number them not with the rest Thus then we see how many things in seuerall degrees and sorts are said to be rules of our faith The infinite excellency of God as that whereby the truth of the heauenly doctrine is proued The articles of faith and other verities euer expressely knowne in the Church as the first principles are the canon by which we judge of conclusions from thence inferred The Scripture as containing in it all that doctrine of faith which Christ the Sonne of GOD deliuered The vniforâ—…e practice and consenting judgement of them that went before vs as a 〈◊〉 and vndoubted explication of the things contayned in the Scripture The Scripture saith Vincentius Lirinensis is full and sufficient to all purposes but because of the manifold turnings of heretiques it is necessary that the line of Propheticall and Apostolicall interpretation be drawnâ—…â—…owne and directed vnto vs according to the rule of Ecclesiasticall and Catholique sense So then we doe not so make the Scripture the rule of our faith but that other things in their kinde are rules likewise in such sort that it is not safe without respect had vnto them to judge of things by the Scripture alone For without the first rule we cannot know the Scripture to be of God Without the second and third we haue no forme of Christian doctrine by the direction whereof to judge of particular doubts and questions without the other rules wee cannot know the authors and number of the Bookes of Scripture nor the meaning of the things therein written For who shal be able to vnderstand them but hee that is settledin these things which the Apostles presupposed in their deliuery of the Scripture We doe not therefore so make the Scripture the rule of our faith as to neglect the other nor so admit the other as to detract any thing from the plenitude of the Scripture in which all things are contained that must bee beleeued CHAP. 15. Of the challenge of Papists against the rule of Scripture charging it with obscurity and imperfection THis rule our adversaries least esteeme of charging it with obscurity and imperfection and thereupon rely vpon humane interpretations and vncertaine traditions Touching their first challenge made against this rule of the scripture as being obscure and darke and so not fit to giue direction to our faith vnlesse it borrow light from some thing else wee aunswere there is no question but there are manifold difficulties in the scripture proceeding partly from the high and excellent nature of the things therein contained which are without the compasse of naturall vnderstanding and so are wholly hidden from naturall men and not knowne of them that are spirituall without much trauaile and studious meditation partly out of the ignorance of tongues and of the nature of such things by the coÌ„parison whereof the matters of divine knowledge are manifested vnto vs. But the difference betweene their opinion and ours concerning this difficultie is first in that they thinke the scripture so obscure and hard to be vnderstood that Heretiques may wrest and abuse it at their pleasures and no man be able to convince their folly by the evidence of the Scripture it selfe Secondly in that they thinke that wee cannot by any helpes bee assured out of the Scripture it selfe and the nature of the things therein contayned that that is the true meaning of it which wee thinke to be but that we rest in it onely for the authority of the Church But wee say that men not neglecting that light of direction which the Church yeeldeth nor other helpes and meanes may be assured out of the nature of the things themselues the conference of places the knowledge of tongues and the sutable correspondence that one part of diuine truth hath with another that they haue found out the true meaning of it and so be able to convince the adversaries and gainesayers CHAP. 16. Of the interpretation of Scripture and to whom it pertayneth TOuching this poynt there are two questions vsually proposed the one to whom the interpretation of the Scripture pertaineth the other by what rules and meanes men may finde out tâ—…e true meaning of it Tâ—…ching the first our Adversaries jangle
mâ—…ch with many declamations against priuate interpretations and interpretations of private spirits and make the world beleeue that wee follow no other rule of interpretation but each mans private fancie For answere herevnto we say with Stapleton that interpretations of Scripture may be sayd to be private and the spirits whence they proceede named priuate either Ratione personae modi or finis That is in respect of the person who interpreteth the manner of his proceeding in interpreting or the end of his interpretation A priuate interpretation proceeding from a priuate spirit in the first sense is euery interpretation deliuered by men of priuate condition In the second sense is that which men of what condition soeuer deliuer contemning and neglecting those publike meanes which are knowen to all and are to be vsed by all that desire to finde the trueth In the third sense that which proceeding from men of priuate condition is not so proposed and vrged by them as if they would binde all other to receiue and imbrace it but is intended onely to their owne satisfaction The first kind of interpretation proceeding from a private spirit is not to be disliked if the parties so interpreting neither neglect the common rules meanes of attayning the right sense of that they interpret contemne the judgement of other men nor presumptuously take vpon them to teach others and enforce them to beleeue that which they apprehend for trueth without any authority so to doe But priuate spirits in the second sense that is men of such dispositions as will follow their owne fancies and neglect the common rules of direction as Enthusiasts and trust to their owne sense without conference and due respect to other mens judgements wee accurse This is all we say touching this matter wherein I would faine know what our aduersaries dislike Surely nothing at all as it will appeare to euery one that shall but looke into the place aboue alledged out of Stapleton But say they there must bee some authenticall interpretation of Scripture which euery one must bee bound to stand vnto or else there will be no end of quarrels and contentions The interpretation of Scripture is nothing else but the explication and clearing of the meaning of it This is either true or false The true interpretation of the Scripture is of two sorts For there is an interpretation which deliuereth that which is true and contayned in the Scripture or from thence to bee concluded though not meant in that place which is expounded This is not absolutely and perfectly a true interpretation because though it truely deliuereth such doctrine as is contayned in the Scripture and nothing contrarie to the place interpreted yet it doth not expresse that that is particularly meant in the place expounded There is therefore another kind of true interpretations when not onely that is deliuered which is contayned in the Scripture but that which is meant in the particular places expounded Likewise false interpretations are of two sorts some deliuering that which is vtterly false and contrary to the Scripture some others onely fayling in this that they attaine not the true sense of the particular places expounded An example of the former is that interpretation of that place of Genesis The sonnes of God saw the daughters of men c. which some of the Fathers haue deliuered vnderstanding by the sonnes of God the Angels of Heauen whose fall they suppose proceeded from the loue of women Which errour they confirme by that of the Apostle that women must come vayled into the Church for the Angels that is as they interpret least the Angels should fall in loue with them A false interpretation of the later kind Andradius sheweth some thinke that exposition of the wordes of the Prophet Esaie Quis enarrabit generationem eius Who shall declare his generation deliuered by many of the Fathers vnderstanding thereby the eternall generation of the son of God which no man shall declare Whereas by the name of generation the Prophet meaneth that multitude that shall beleeue in Christ which shall be so great as cannot be expressed An authenticall interpretation is that which is not only true but so clearely and in such sort that euery one is bound to imbrace and to receiue it As before we made 3 kinds of judgment the one of discretion common to all the other of direction common to the Pastors of the Church and a third of jurisdiction proper to them that haue supreame power in the Church so likewise wee make three kindes of interpretation the first private and so euery one may interpret the Scripture that is privately with himselfe conceiue or deliuer to other what hee thinketh the meaning of it to bee the second of publike direction and so the Pastors of the Church may publikely propose what they conceiue of it and the third of jurisdiction and so they that haue supreme power that is the Bishops assembled in a generall Councell may interpret the Scripture and by their authority suppresse all them that shall gainesay such interpretations and subject euery man that shall disobey such determinations as they consent vpon to excommunication and censures of like nature But for authenticall interpretation of Scriptures which every mans conscience is bound to yeeld vnto it is of an higher nature neither doe wee thinke any of these to be such as proceeding from any of those before named specified to whom wee graunt a power of interpretation Touching the interpretations which the Fathers haue deliuered we receiue them as vndoubtedly true in the generall doctrine they consent in and so farre forth esteeme them as authenticall yet doe wee thinke that holding the faith of the Fathers it is lawfull to dissent from that interpretation of some particular places which the greater part of them haue deliuered or perhaps all that haue written of them and to find out some other not mentioned by any of the Auncient CHAP. 17. Of the interpretation of the Fathers and how farre wee are bound to admit it THe Fathers sayth Andradius especially they of the Greeke Church being ignorant of the Hebrew tongue following Origen did rather striue with all their wit and learning to devise Allegories and to frame the manners of men then to cleare the hard places of the law and the Prophets Nay euen Hierome himselfe who more diligently then any of the rest sought out the meaning and sense of the Propheticall and diuine Oracles yet often to avoyde the obscurities of their words betaketh himselfe to Allegories In this sense it is that Cardinall Caietan saith hee will not feare to goe against the torrent of all the Doctors for which saying Andradius sheweth that Canus and others doe vnjustly blame him For though wee may not goe from the faith of the Fathers nor from the maine trueth of doctrine which they deliuer in different interpretations yet may wee interpret some parts of the Scripture otherwise then any
pollution of originall sin and if perhaps any did sometimes vse any forme or rite it was rather a matter of priuate voluntary deuotion than of necessitie For whereas parents stand bound by the generall law of God and nature with all thankefull acknowledgment to receiue their children as a great and speciall benefit from God this their faith pietie and thankefullnesse joyned with desire of and prayer for their Good prosperous and happy estate was accepted and found fauour with God on the behalfe of their children Whereupon Gregory pronounceth that the faith of the parents was of the same force with them of the old time that the Baptisme of water is with vs. And whereas Augustine sayth it is not likely that the people of God before the institution of Circumcision had noe Sacrament wherewith to present their children to GOD though the Scripture haue not expressed it it is not to bee vnderstood sayth Andradius of any outward ceremonies necessary for the sanctification of those Infants but of any rite offering them to GOD whether mentall onely or outwardly object to the eye and sense That which Andradius addeth that it could not be knowne but by tradition onely that the faith of the parents was in stead of circumcision before circumcision was instituted and after the institution of it to them that might not lawfully or could not possibly be circumcised is frivolous for men knew it concluded it out of the generall and common rules of reason and equity Touching the state of the people of God since the comming of Christ our adversaries make no doubt but they can easily proue that the writings which the Church that now is hath are defectiue and imperfect This they endeauour to proue First because the Scriptures of the New Testament were written vpon particular occasions offered and not of purpose to containe a perfect rule of faith Secondly because they were written by the Apostles and other Apostolique men out of their owne motions and not by commandement from Christ the Sonne of GOD. But vnto both these Arguments alleadged by our Adversaries we answere that they containe matter of very grosse errour For first who seeth not plainly that the Evangelistes writing the historie of Christs life and death Saint Luke in the booke of the Acts of the Apostles describing the comming of the Holy Ghost the admirable gifts of grace powred vpon the Apostles and the Churches established and ordered by them and the blessed Apostle Saint Iohn writing the Revelations which hee saw concerning the future state of things to the end of the world meant to deliuer a perfect summe of Christian doctrine and direction of Christian faith It is true indeed that the Epistles of the Apostles directed to the Christian Churches that then were were occasionally written yet so as by the providence of God all such things as the Church beleeueth not being found in the other parts of Scripture purposely writtē are most clearely at large deliuered in these Epistles Secondly touching the other part of their Argument which they bring to convince the Scripture of imperfection because they that wrote it had no commaundement to write wee thinke it needeth no refutation for the absurditie of it is evident and cleare of it selfe For who knoweth not that the Scriptures are not of any priuate motion but that the holy men of God were moued impelled and carried by the spirit of truth to the performance of this worke doing nothing without the instinct of the Spirit which was vnto them a Commandement The imperfection defect supposed to be foundin the Scripture our adversaries endeavour to supply by addition of traditions The name of Tradition sometimes signifieth euery Christian doctrine deliuered frō one to another either by liuely voyce only or by writing as Exod. 17. Scribe hoc ob monumentum in libro trade in auribus Iosuae Write this for a remembrance in a Booke and deliuer it in the eares of Iosuah Act. 6. 14. The written Law of Moses is called a Tradition Audivimus eum dicentem quoniam Iesus destruet locum istum mutabit traditiones quas tradidit nobis Moses We heard him say that Iesus shall destroy this place and change the traditions which Moses deliuered vnto vs. Sometimes the name of tradition signifieth that which is deliuered by liuely voyce onely and not written That which I receiued of the Lord saith the Apostle that I deliuered vnto you In this question by tradition we vnderstand such parts of Christian doctrine or discipline as were not written by them by whom they were first deliuered For thus our Adversaries vnderstand Traditions which they diuide into divers kindes First in respect of the Authors so making them of three sorts Divine Apostolicall Ecclesiasticall Secondly in respect of the matter they concerne in which respect they make them to be of tvvo sorts for either they cōcerne matters of faith or matters of manners and these latter againe either temporall or perpetuall vniuersall or particular All these in their seuerall kindes they make equall with the wordes precepts and doctrines of Christ the Apostles Pastors of the Church left vnto vs in writing Neither is there any reason why they should not so doe if they could proue any such vnwritten verities For it is not the writing that giueth things their authoritie but the worth credite of him that deliuereth them though but by word and liuely voyce onely The only doubt is whether there be any such vnwritten traditions or not Much contention there hath beene about Traditions some vrging the necessity of them and other rejecting them For the clearing whereof we must obserue that though we reiect the vncertaine and vaine traditions of the Papists yet wee reiect not all For first wee receiue the number and names of the authors of bookes Diuine Canonicall as deliuered by tradition This tradition we admitte for that though the bookes of Scripture haue not their authority from the Approbation of the Church but winne credite of themselues and yeeld sufficient satisfaction to all men of their Diuine truth whence wee judge the Church that receiueth them to bee led by the spirit of God yet the number Authors and integrity of the parts of these bookes wee receiue as deliuered by tradition The second kinde of tradition which wee admitte is that summarie comprehension of the cheefe heads of Christian doctrine contayned in the Creed of the Apostles which was deliuered to the Church as a rule of her faith For though euery part thereof be contayned in the Scripture yet the orderly connexion distinct explication of these principall articles gathered into an Epitome wherein are implyed and whence are inferred all conclusions theologicall is rightly named a tradition The 3d is that forme of Christian doctrine and explication of the seuerall parts thereof which the first Christians receiuing of the same Apostles that deliuered to them the Scriptures commended
the time of his innocencie had but one commaundement which yet vnhappily he brake and that therefore they seeme to haue no sense of mans miserable wretched condition nor any way to compassionate his infirmitie that charge him with so many precepts besides those of God and Nature Whereupon he grauely and wisely concludeth that he supposeth that the wisest and best amongst the guides of Gods Church had not so ill a meaning as to haue all their constitutions ordinances taken for lawes properly so named much lesse strictly binding the conscience but for threatnings admonitions counsailes and directions onely And that when there groweth a generall neglect they seeme to consent to the abolishing of them againe For seeing lex instituitur cùm promulgatur vigorem habet cum moribus vtentium approbatur Lawes are made when they are published by such as haue authoritie but haue life force and vigour when the manners of men receiuing and obeying them giue them allowance Generall long continued disuse is and justly may be thought an abolishing and abrogating of humane lawes Whereas contrarywise against the Lawes of God and Nature no prescription or contrary vse doth euer prevaile but euery such contrary custome or practise is rightly judged a corruption and fault THE FIFTH BOOKE OF THE CHVRCH TOGETHER WITH AN APPENDIX CONTAINING A DEFENCE OF SVCH PARTES AND PASSAGES OF THE FORMER BOOKES AS HAVE BEENE EITHER EXCEPTED AGAINST OR WRESTED TO THE MAINtenance of Romish errours By RICHARD FIELD Doctour of Diuinity OXFORD Printed by WILLIAM TVRNER Printer to the famous Vniuersitie Ann. Dom. 1628. The Epistle to the Reader AS in the dayes of Noe they all perished in the waters that entred not into the Arke prepared by Gods owne appointment for the preseruation of such as should escape that fearefull and almost vniversall destruction So is it a most certaine and vndoubted truth good Christian Reader that none can flie from the wrath to come and attaine desired happinesse but such as enter into that society of men which we call the Church which is the chosen multitude of them whom God hath seperated from the rest of the world and to whom he hath in more speciall sort manifested himselfe by the knowledge of reuealed truth then to any other So that nothing is more necessary to be sought out and knowne then which and where this happy society of holy ones is that so wee may joyne our selues to the same and inherit the promises made vnto it according to that of the holy Patriarch Noe Blessed be the God of Sem and let Chanaan be his seruant the Lord perswade Iaphet to dwell in the tents of Sem. The consideration whereof moued me when I was to enter into the controuersies of these times first and before all other things carefully to seeke out the nature and being of this Church the notes whereby it may be knowne which it is amongst all the societies of men in the world and what the priuiledges are that doe belong vnto it of all which things I haue treated in those foure Bookes of that argument which not long since I offered to thy viewe and censure Now it remaineth that in this insueing Booke then promised I shew in what sort almighty God who sitteth betweene the Cherubins in this his holy Temple reuealeth himselfe from off the mercy seate to such as by the calling of grace he hath caused to approach draw neare vnto himselfe and how he guideth and directeth them to the attaining of eternall felicity Many sundry waies did God reueale himselfe in ancient times as it is in the Epistle to the Hebrewes For sometimes he manifested himselfe to men waking by visions sometimes to men sleeping by dreames sometimes he appeared in a piller of a cloud sometimes in flaming fire sometimes he came walking a soft pace among the trees of the garden in the coole of the day sometimes he rent the rockes and claue the mountaines in sunder sometimes he spake with a still and soft voyce sometimes his thunders shooke the pillars of heauen and made the earth to tremble as in the giuing of the lawe when he came downe vpon Mount Sinai what time the people by Moses direction went forth to meete him but when they heard the thunders and the sound of the trumpet and saw the lightnings and the mountaine smoaking they fled stood a farre off sayd vnto Moses Talke thou with vs and we will heare thee but let not God talke with us lest we die This their petition Almighty God mercifully granted and knowing whereof they were made resolued no more to speake vnto them in soe terrible and fearefull manner but rather to put heauenly treasures into earthen vessels that is to enlighten the vnderstandings and to sanctifie the mouthes tongues of some amongst themselues and by them to make knowen his will pleasure to the rest In this sort after the giuing of the law he imployed the Priests Levites in a set and ordinary course appoynting that the people should seeke the knowledge of the same at their mouthes and in case of great confusion and generall defects of these ordinary guides raised vp Prophets as well to denounce his judgements against offenders and to reforme abuses as also to foreshew the future state of things and more more to raise in men a desire hope and expectation of the comming of the promised Messias whom in the fulnesse of time he sent into the world as the happiest Messenger of glad tidings that euer came vnto the sonnes of men and the Angell of the great couenant of peace causing this proclamation to be made before him This is my welbeloued Sonne in whom I am well pleased heare him In him were hid all the treasures of wisedome and knowledge so that as it was sayd of him Hee hath done all things well so likewise that Neuer man spake as he spake But because he came not into this lower world to make his abode here perpetually but to cary vp with him into heaven our desires first and then our selues after he had wrought all righteousnesse and performed the worke for which hee came he returned backe to God that sent him Choosing out some of them that had been conuersant with him in the dayes of his flesh that had heard the words of his diuine wisedom were eye-witnesses of all the things he did suffered sending them as his father sent him who were therefore named Apostles These had many excellent preeminences proper to those beginnings and fit for the founding of Christian Churches as immediate calling infallibility of judgement generall commission the vnderstanding and knowledge of all tongues power to confirme their doctrine by signes and wonders and to conferre the miraculous gifts of the spirit vpon other also by the imposition of their hands In which things when they had finished their course they left none to succeede them yet out of their more large ample and immediate
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
nature of Christ obtained to bee in such sort the nature of the Sonne of God that the Man Christ should be truely and really in the glory of God the Father filling both heauen and earth Againe he saith those places All things are giuen me of my Father and All power is giuen me both in heauen and earth may bee vnderstood first of diuine power which the Sonne of God receiued of the Father by eternall generation and secondly of diuine power which the nature of Man receiued by personall vnion and in another place speaking of sundry things proper to God he saith All those things may be sayd to be communicated and giuen to the humane nature not formally in it selfe but in the Person of the Sonne of God by the grace of vnion The Diuines distinguish the properties of God and make them to be of two sorts communicable and incommunicable Communicable properties they define to be those perfections that are called perfectiones simpliciter which are found without mixture of imperfection in God and in a more imperfect sort in the creatures These they name perfectiones simplicitèr that is simply and absolutely perfections because it is better for any thing to haue them then not to haue them and because those things are better that haue them then those that haue them not as likewise for that they imply in them no imperfection though they bee mingled with imperfection defect in the creatures Of this sort is life which it is betrer to haue then not to haue and it includeth in it no imperfection though it bee accompanied with defect imperfection in many of the things wherein it is found for that life that is in trees is an imperfect life the life of men who in truth then begin to die when they begin to liue is imperfect yea the life of Angels is imperfect because if they be not continually sustained they returne to that nothing out of which they were made Of the same kinde are Truth Goodnesse Iustice Mercie Wisdome Knowledge Vnderstanding And therefore all these separated from that imperfection that cleaueth vnto them elsewhere are found in God may truely bee attributed vnto him Incommunicable properties are nothing else but the negation and remouing of all that imperfection that is in the Creatures of which sort are Immortality Eternity Immensitie Infinitie the like all importing a negation of imperfection The former of these two sorts of diuine properties which are named Communicable are communicated to meere creatures in some degree and sort though in highest degree they are no where found but in God with the addition of words expressing such eminency they may bee attributed to none but to God for hee onely is Almighty most wise most just and most mercifull But both these with addition of highest degree and the other which are named Incommunicable are by all Diuines confessed to bee in such sort communicated in the Person of the Son of GOD to the nature of man assumed into the vnity of the same that the Man CHRIST and the Son of Mary is not in title onely but really indeede most wise most just omnipotent incomprehensible eternall and infinite And this is all as I thinke that the Diuines of Germany the followers of Luther meane when they speake of the reall communication of divine properties to the humane nature in Christ. If any man say that they may justly bee thought to proceede farther to vnderstand some other communication of properties then that by vs expressed in that they doe not onely say concretiuely that the Man Christ is omni-present but the Humanity also It may be answered that when we speake of the Humanity of Christ sometimes we vnderstand onely that humane created essence of a man that was in him sometimes all that that is implyed in the being of a Man as well subsistence as essence In the former sort it is absurd and impious to thinke that the Humanity of Christ that is the created Essence of a Man in him is omnipotent omni-present or infinite neither doe they so thinke but they affirme that the subsistence of the Man Christ implyed in his being a Man is infinite and omni-present as being the subsistence of the Sonne of GOD communicated to the nature of Man in steade of that finite subsistence which left to it selfe it would haue had of it owne Much contention there hath beene betweene them other touching the vbiquitary presence of the humanity of Christ but I verily thinke it hath beene in a great part vpon mistaking because they vnderstood not one another For the followers of Luther confesse that the Body of Christ is onely in one place locally doe not thinke it to bee euery-where in Extent of Essence diffused into all places but say onely that it is euery-where in the infinitenesse of the subsistence of the Son of God communicated to it If we aske them saith Zanchius whether Christs Body be euery-where they answere that locally it is but in one place but that personally it is euery-where If they meane saith he that in respect of the being of Essence it is finite and confined to one certaine place but that the being of subsistence which it hath is infinite contained within the straites of no one place they say the truth contradict not them whom they seeme to doe Now that this is their meaning which this worthy learned Diuine acknowledgeth to bee true Catholique not contradicted by them that seeme to bee their opposites they constantly professe and therefore I am perswaded that howsoeuer some of them haue vsed harsh doubtfull dangerous and vnfitting formes of speech yet they differ not in meaning and judgment from the Orthodoxe and right beleeuers For they do not imagine if wee may beleeue their most constant protestations any essentiall or naturall communication of diuine properties but personall onely in that the Person of the sonne of God is really communicated to the nature of man in which Person they are Neither do they define the personall vniō by the communication of properties but say onely that it is implied in it touching the co-operation of the two natures of God and Man in Christ they teach noe other but that which wee described when wee spake of the Theandricall actions of Christ. The infinite obiections that are made on either side to the multiplying of needles fruitlesse contentions may easily be cleared and the seeming contradictions reconciled by the right vnderstanding of the point about which the difference hath growne CHAP. 16. Of the worke of Mediation performed by Christ in our nature THus hauing spoken of the abasing of the Sonne of God to take our nature and of the gifts and graces he bestowed on it when he assumed it into the vnity of his Person it remaineth that we speake of the things hee did and suffered for vs in the same The thing in generall which
nobis nostram naturam vt eam sibi sociaret per vnionem in personâ quae sociata non erat per vnitatem in naturâ vt per id quod de nostro vnum secum fecerat nos sibi vniret vt cum ipso vnum essemus per id quod nostrum sibi vnitum erat per ipsum vnum essemuâ—… cum patre qui cum ipsa vnum erat That is The Word which was one with God the Father by ineffable vnity became one with man assumed by admirable vnion The vnity was in nature the vnion in Person With God the Father it was one in Nature not in Person with man assumed it was one in Person not in nature It tooke of vs our nature to joyne it to it selfe by vnion in Person which had no societie with it by vnity of nature that by that which taken from us it made one with it selfe it might unite vs to it selfe that wee might bee one with it by that of ours which was vnited to it by it wee might be one with the Father who is one with it Thus hauing shewed in what sort Christ is a meane betweene the two extreames God Man it remaineth that we seeke out how according to which nature he is a Mediatour That he is a Mediatour according to the concurrence of both Natures in the vnitie of his Person it is confessed by all for if he were not both God Man hee could not mediate betweene God Men. But whether hee be a Mediatour according to both Natures concurring in the worke of Mediation there be some that make question For the clearing whereof the Diuines distinguish the workes of Mediation making them to be of two sorts Of Ministery of Authority Of Ministery as to pray to pay the price of Redemption by dying to satisfie for sin Of Authority as to passe all good vnto vs from the Father in the Holy Ghost Touching the workes of Ministery it is agreed on by all that the Person of the Son of God performed them in the nature of Man for we must distinguish Principium quod Principium quo that is the Person which doth and suffereth and that wherein it doth and suffereth such things as are necessary to procure our reconciliation with God It was the Son of God Lord of Life that died for vs on the Crosse but it was the nature of Man not of God wherein he died it was the nature of God and infinite excellencie of the same whence the price value worth of his passion grew The workes of Authority and Power as to giue life to giue the Spirit to raise the dead to make the blinde see the dumbe to speake were all performed by the Diuine Nature yet not without an instrumentall concurrence of the Nature of Man in sort as hath beene before expressed when I shewed how the Actions of Christ were diuinely-humane If it be alledged that Opera Trinitatis ad extra are indivisa that is that there is nothing that one of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity doth towards the Creatures but they all doe it and consequently that those things which Christ did in his Diuine Nature pertained not to the office of a Mediatour being common to all the Persons we answer that as the Persons of the Blessed Trinity though they be one the same God yet differ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in subsistence the manner of hauing possessing the Deitie Diuine Nature so though their action be the same the worke done by them yet they differ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the manner of doing it for the Father doth all things authoritatiuè and the Son subauthoritatiuè as the Schoolemen speake that is the Father as he from whom of whom all things are the Son as he by whom all things are not as if hee were an instrument but as Principium à Principio that is a cause beginning of things that hath receiued the Essence it hath and power of working from another though the very same that is in the other And in this sort to quicken giue life and to impart the spirit of sanctification to whom he pleaseth especially with a kind of concurring of the humane nature meriting desiring and instrumentally assisting is proper to the Son of God manifested in our flesh not common to the whole Trinity and therefore notwithstanding the objection taken from the vnity of the Workes of the Diuine Persons may be a worke of mediation Bellarmine the Iesuite bringeth many reasons to proue that Christ is not a Mediatour according to both Natures but that which aboue all other he most vrgeth is this If Christ saith he be a Mediatour according to both Natures then either according to both jointly or seuerally not seuerally because not according to his Diuine Nature seuerally considered being the party offended Not according to both jointly because though in that sort he differ from the Father the Holy Ghost neither of which is both God Man and from the sonnes of men who are meerely men yet hee differeth not from the Son of God who was to be pacified by the Mediatour as well as the Father the Holy Ghost neither in nature nor in person This surely is is a silly kind of reasoning for it is not necessary that a thing should differ from both the extreames according to all that in respect whereof it is of a middle condition but it is sufficient if it differ in some thing from one and in some thing from another The middle colour differeth from the extreames not in the whole nature of it but from white in that it hath of blacknesse and from blacke in that it hath of whitenesse but it is medium in that it hath something of either of them Soe the Sonne of God incarnate differeth not onely from the Father and the holy Ghost but from himselfe as God in that he is Man and from Men and himselfe as man in that hee is GOD and therefore may mediate not onely betweene the Father and vs men but also betweene himselfe as God and vs miserable and sinnefull men Wherefore to conclude this point wee say that some of the workes of Christ the mediatour were the workes of his Humanity in respect of the thing done and had their efficacie dignity and value from his Diuinity in that they were the workes of him that had the Diuinity dwelling bodily in him and some the workes of his Diuinitie the humane nature concurring only instrumentally as the giuing sight to the blinde raising the dead remitting of sinnes and the like Neither doe wee imagine one action of both natures nor say that Christ died offered himselfe on the Altar of the Crosse or payed for vs in his Diuinity as some slanderously report of vs and therefore all the objections that are mustered against vs proceeding from the voluntary mistaking of our sense and meaning which some
same fulnesse of authority in as ample independent sort as before because the benefite of Christ tendeth to no mans hurt grace ouerthroweth not nature therefore still they remaine independent and subiect to none in the same power and in the exercise of it If they shall say they are subject to none while they vse their authority well but that if they abuse it they lose the independent absolutenesse thereof their saying will bee found to bee heteticall For if vpon abuse of independent authority they that haue it lose and forfeit it ipso facto then authority and abuse of authority or at least extreme abuse of it cannot stand together which is contrary to that of Saint Augustine where he saith Nec tyrannicaefactionis perversitas laudabilis erit si regia clementia tyrannus subditos tractet nec vituperabilis ordo regiae potestatis si Rex crudelitate tyrannicâ saeuiat aliud est namque iniustâ potestate iustè velle vti aliud est iustâ potestate iniustè velle vti that is Neither shall the peruersnesse of tyrannicall vsurpation euer be praise worthy though the tyrant vse his subiects with all Kingly clemency nor the order of Kingly power euer be subiect to iust reprehension though a king grow fierce and cruell like a tyrant For it is one thing to vse an vnlawfull power lawfully and another thing to vse a lawfull power vnrighteously vniustly The third reason may bee this If God did giue to the Pope authority to depose Princes erring and abusing their authority hee would giue them the meanes to execute that their authority reacheth vnto to wit ciuill greatnesse armies of Souldiers walled cities towers and strong holds both for defence and offence and all other thinges necessary for the putting downe of wicked Kinges But the Pope as Christs Vicar hath none of these neither was hee at any time as a temporall Prince the greatest monarch of the world and so able to represse the insolencies of all hereticall pagan and wicked Kings hindering the peaceable proceeding of the Gospell of Christ therefore he hath no such authority For to say that God giueth authority not the meanes whereby it may execute and performe that which pertaineth to it is impious The onely meanes the Pope hath to depose Princes are two but neither of them within the compasse of his power to dispose of The first is the raising of subjects against their Prince The second is the raising of neighbour Princes The former of these meanes is very defectiue seeing as Bellarmine rightly obserueth out of Ecclesiasticus Such as the Ruler of a citie is such are they that dwell in it And therefore if the King bee an hereticke the most part of his people will bee so too and rather assist him for the maintenance of his heresie then resist against him for the suppressing of it Which thing as he saith experience teacheth For when Ieroboam became an Idolater the greatest part of the kingdome worshipped Idols When Constantine reigned Christian Religion flourished When Constantius reigned Arrianisme prevailed and ouerflowed all When Iulian swayed the Scepter the greatest part returned to Paganisme So that Iouian being chosen after his death refused to bee Emperour protesting that being a Christian hee neither could nor would bee Emperour ouer infidells Whereupon they all professed that howsoeuer they had dissembled before yet they were still in heart Christians and now would shew it againe So that wee see the first meanes for the suppressing of erring Princes is no meanes or a very vncertaine one And a second is worse then the first For I neuer read in any Diuine of what religion soeuer that one King is bound to make warre vpon another vpon the Popes command for the suppressing of heresie And therefore the Pope may breath out excommunications till he be breathlesse but can goe no farther by any meanes that God hath giuen him Fourthly thus we reason Either the power of the Pope is meerely Ecclesiasticall and spirituall or it is not If it bee not then hath hee ciuill authority from Christ which they deny If it be then can it inflict no punishments but meerely spirituall and Ecclesiasticall For of what nature each power is of the same are the punishments it inflicteth The temporall power inflicteth onely temporall outward and corporall punishments as losse of goods imprisonment banishment or death The spirituall only spirituall as suspension excommunication and the like Now I suppose the losse of a kingdome with all the riches and honour of it captivity banishment or death vpon resistance against the sentence of deposition is a temporall and externall punishment of the worst nature and highest degree that may be Lastly if soueraigne Kings may bee put from their Kingdomes vpon abuse of their authority either they forfeit and lose the right of them ipso facto and are depriued by Almighty God and then the Pope can but declare what God hath already done as any man else may vpon perfect vnderstanding of the case or else other neighbor Kings or their owne subjects are to depose them and the Pope is onely to put them in mind of their duty and as a spirituall pastour to vrge them to the performance of it and then he deposeth thē not but they Or lastly the power of assuming their authority to himself vpon their abuse thereof pertaineth vnto him and then in ciuill authority he is the greatest and ouer all which yet these men deny For hee that is to judge of Princes actions and vpon dislike to limite restraine or wholly take their power from them is supreme in that kinde of authority And if he may take ciuill authority from other and giue it to whom he pleaseth there is no question but hee may giue it vnto himselfe and so hath power vpon all defects of Princes to take into his owne hand that which formerly pertained to them and to doe the acts that were to be performed by them Now as these reasons strongly proue that the Pope cannot depose Princes in ordine ad spiritualia so the weaknes of the reasons brought to proue it will much more confirme the same Their first reason is taken frō the perfection and excellency of the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power which they say is greater and farre more excellent then that which is ciuill Whereunto we answer with Waldensis that though the spirituall power be simply more perfect excellent then the ciuill yet either of these in the performance of things pertaining to them is greater then the other and each of them independent of the other Ambrose was greater then Theodosius in respect of the administration of diuine things might either admit him to or reiect him from the Sacraments But Theodosius in respect of all temporall things was greater then hee and might cōmand him send him into banishment or take away all that he had The Sun is more excellent then the Moon
the bond of marriage remaineth inviolable and is not nor may not be dissolued and therefore if this comparison hold a Christian King falling into heresie apostasie or atheisme and seeking to draw his people to the same doth not lose the right of dominion he hath ouer them Thirdly in Bellarmines opinion it is not refusall to dwell together nor sollicitation to idolatrie that could make a separation if the band of matrimony contracted betweene Infidels were simply firme and indissoluble as that of Christians is But heathen Princes haue as good interest in their Kingdomes which are not founded vpon grace or faith but vpon the light of reason the freedome of will and the Law of Nature and Nations as beleeuers therefore their solliciting to infidelity and idolatrie cannot make their titles to their kingdome voide Lastly malitious desertion or refusall to dwell with the beleeuer vnlesse he some way at lest by silence consent to the blasphemies of the Infidell is directly contrary to the nature essence end and intendment of marriage and therefore dissolueth marriage but the abvse of sacred authority to the promoting of impiety and suppressing of true Religion is not contrary to the nature and essence of authority but to the right vse of it and therefore it doth not make voide the title of magistrates seeing it is certaine that lawfull authority may stand with most horrible abuse of the same Wherefore let vs proceede to their seuenth proofe When Princes say they come to the Church and are admitted to the Communion of the faithfull people of God they are not admitted but vpon promise and agreement that if they forsake the faith or hinder the good of GODS people they will bee content and it shall bee lawfull for the Gouernours of the Church to take their authoritie from them therefore when Princes become heretiques or Apostataes it is lawfull by their owne agreement and consent for the Gouernours of the Church to depose them The antecedent of this Argument I thinke will neuer bee made good For what Prince in his admission to bee a Christian did euer thus condition with the Church either expressely or by necessary implication examples of any such stipulation I am perswaded they canne bring vs none It is true indeede that the very vow of a Christian made in Baptisme implieth in it a resolution and promise rather to depart with any thing and lose all then to forfeit the inheritance he is entitled vnto to dishonour God or any way to hinder the good of his church but this vow and promise is made to God and not to the church and therefore God may take from Christian kings their kingdomes when they become heretiques and seeke to misleade the people as forfeited vpon their own agreements but the Church hath nothing to doe with them more then the great Turke vpon any such forfeiture made vnto Almighty God It is true that all infidels and wicked ones haue forfeited their kingdomes to God but yet in the title of mundane iustice they haue right to them still and may not bee dispossessed of them by mortall men vnlesse they bee specially authorised by almighty God as the Israelites were to cast out the Canaanites And this was the meaning of Wickliffe when he affirmed that a Prince being in state of mortall sinne ceaseth to bee a Prince any longer namely in respect of any title he canne plead to God if hee be pleased to take the advantage of the forfeiture but in respect of men he hath a good title still in the course of mundane iustice So that whosoeuer shall lift vp his hand against him offereth him wrong The Church therefore may proceede no further then to admonish Princes when they offend and for grieuous and scandalous faults to deny vnto them the benefit of her Communion The last proofe they bring for deposing Princes when they become heretickes is taken from the office of a Pastor to whom it pertaineth to driue away wolues to restraine and keepe the Rammes and great leaders of the flockes from hurting those sheepe that are more weake This reason as it is the last so it is the worst of all For each Pastour must doe these things according to the nature and quality of his Pastorall office and therefore a spirituall Pastour must performe them by spirituall and ecclesiasticall censures driuing away the wolues from his flockes by suspension excommunication and anathema and restraining the Rammes from hurting the rest by the same meanes so binding them with bands that exceed all the bands of restraint vsed by the secular powers CHAP. 46. Of examples of Church-men deposing Princes brought by the Romanistes HAuing examined the reasons brought to proue that the chiefe gouernours of the Church may depose Princes erring from the faith and hindering the course of religion let vs see what examples our Aduersaries produce of the practise of deposing them The first is the example of Samuel appointing Saul to be a king and afterwards deposing him for his disobedience But in this example they are grossely deceiued For first Samuel was neither high Priest nor Priest at all not being of the posterity of Aaron Secondly Samuel did not appoint Saul to be king as being of higher authority but as obeying and executing the mandate of God as the meanest man in Israel might haue done as we reade in the second of the Kings of one of the sonnes of the Prophets who at the commandement of Elizeus annointed Iehu king ouer Israel yet was neither Elizeus nor he greater in dignity then Kings Thirdly we doe not reade in the sacred History that Samuel deposed Saul but that God deposed him and that Samuel was the messenger sent from God to let him know it Because saith Samuel thou hast cast away the word of the Lord the Lord hath cast thee away that thou shalt not reigne And againe the Lord hath cut away the kingdome of Israel from thee this day Yea so farre was Samuel from deposing Saul that he mourned for him till God blamed him saying How long dost thou mourne for Saul whereas I haue cast him away that hee should not reigne ouer Israel The next example is that of Hieremy the Prophet to whom the Lord said I haue set thee ouer nations and people to plucke vp and to roote out and to destroy and throw downe to build and to plant Whence they inferre that the chiefe Priest is ouer the kingdomes of the world and may giue them to whom hee will But first wee must obserue that Hieremy was not the high Priest but one of an inferiour ranke that therefore if we will conclude any thing from hence touching the power of disposing kingdomes by Priests every Priest must haue this power Secondly we must know that Hieremie was set ouer the kingdome of Iudah and other kingdomes not to rule them but prophetically to denounce vnto them and foreshew the things that afterwards should fall out Whereupon Lyra
be present in Generall Councels and who they are of whom generall Councels do consist HAuing spoken of the necessity profit and vse of Generall Councels it remaineth that wee proceede to see who they are that may bee present in such Councels and of whom they do consist The persons that may be present are of diuerse sorts For some are there with authority to teach define prescribe and to direct others are there to heare set forward and consent vnto that which is there to be done In the former sort none but only Ministers of the word and sacraments are present in Councels and they onely haue deciding and defining voyces but in the latter sort * Lay-men also may be present whereupon we shall find that Bishops and Presbyters subscribe in this sort Ego N. definiens subscrips◅ that is I as hauing power to define and decree haue subscribed But the Emperour or any other Lay-person Ego N. consentiens subscripsi that is I as one giuing consent to that which is agreed on by the spirituall Pastors haue subscribed That the Emperor and other Lay-men of place and sort may be present in Generall Councels no man maketh doubt For though Pope Nicholas seeme to deny that the Emperours may be presēt in other Councels where matters of faith are not handled yet he cōfesseth they may be presēt in general Conncels where the faith which is cōmon to all pertaineth not to Clergy-men alone but to Lay-men and all Christians generally is treated of it being a rule in nature reason Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus tractari debere that is that that which concerneth all may be handled and medled with by all so farre forth as conueniently it may and as there is no manifest reason in respect of the disturbance and hinderance of the deliberation to repell them from such intermedling for in such cases there may bee a repelling of men hauing interest in such businesses and affaires and therefore Pulcheria the Empresse Commanded the Captaine of Bythinia with violence to driue out of the Councell of Chalcedon such Monkes Clerkes and Lay-men as being of no vse did but pester the Councell and to leaue none there but such as the Bishops brought with them But our aduersaries say the Protestants affirme that Lay-men ought not only to be present in generall Councels but also to haue decisiue yoyces as well as they of the Cleargy and thereupon charge vs with great absurdity Wherefore for the answering of this obiection wee must obserue that there is a threefold decision of things doubtfull and questionable The one such as euery one vpon the knowledge of it must yeeld vnto vpon perill of damnation vpon the bare word of him that decideth The second to which euery one must yeeld vpon like perill not vpon the bare word of him that decideth but vpon the euidence of proofe he bringeth The third such as euery one must yeeld vnto not vpon perill of damnation but of excommunication and the like censure Ecclesiasticall In the first sort the Protestants say that onely Christ the sonne of God hath a decisiue voyce In the second sort that any Lay-men as well as Clergy-men for whosoeuer it is that bringeth conuincing proofes decideth a doubt in such sort as that no man ought to resist against it Whereupon Panormitan sayth that the iudgment of one priuate man is to be preferred before the sentence of the Pope if hee haue better authorities of the Old and New Testament to confirme his iudgment And Gerson saith that any learned man may and ought to resist against a whole Councell if hee discerne it to erre of malice or ignorance and whatsoeuer Bishops determine their determinations binde not the conscience further then they approue that they propose some other way then by their authoritie onely Soe that in this sence the Protestants truely say that Bishoppes must not proceede Praetor-like but that all that they doe must bee but in the nature of an inquiry and their Decrees no farther of force then reason doth warrant them For howsoeuer the Son of God hath promised to be with his Church to the end of the world which shall bee fulfilled in respect of his elect and chosen who cannot erre damnably and finally yet hath he not tyed himselfe to any one sort or company of men neither is it certainely knowne but that all they that meete in a Councell may erre notwithstanding Christes promise To which purpose it is that Brentius and other say We cannot be certaine of the determination of Councells because euery company of men professing CHRIST is not the true Church seeing all that so professe are not Elect neither doe they deny all authority and iurisdiction to such as are not knowne to be Elect nor giue it all to such as no man canne knowe who they be as Bellarmine vntruly saith they doe for in the third sort they willingly acknowledge that Bishops haue deciding voyces power so to iudge of things as to subiect all those that shall thinke and teach otherwise then they doe to excommunication and censures of like nature And that therefore they are properly Iudges that their course of proceeding is not a bare Inquiry and search but a binding determination and that they haue a Pretorlike power to binde men to stand to that they propose decree and in this sort we all teach that Lay-men haue no voyce decisiue but Bishops Pastors onely which may be confirmed by many reasons First because when the question is in what pastures it is fitte the sheepe of CHRIST should feede in what pastures they may feede without danger the duty of consulting is principally and the power of prescribing wholy in the Pastours though the sheepe of CHRIST being reasonable haue and must haue a kinde of discerning whether they bee directed into wholesome pleasant pastures or not Secondly none but they whom Paul saith CHRIST going vp into heauen gaue for the gathering together of the Saintes for the worke of the Ministery haue authority to teach and to prescribe vnto others what they shall professe beleeue of whom the LORD said by Ieremy the Prophet I will giue you Pastors that shall feede you with knowledge and doctrine Thirdly because in all Councels Bishops Pastors onely are found to haue subscribed to the decrees made in them as defining decreeing howsoeuer other men testified their consent by subscription and Princes and Emperours by their royall authority confirmed the same and subiected the contemners and violaters thereof to imprisonment banishment confiscation of goods and the like ciuill punishments as the Bishops did to excommunication and censures Spirituall So that it is agreed on that Bishoppes and Ministers onely haue decisiue voyces in Councels in sort before expressed but the question is onely whether all Ministers of the Word and Sacraments haue such decisiue voyces or none but Bishops The Papists
appointed both as it seemed good vnto himselfe Three other proofes the Iesuite hath yet behinde The first is out of Socrates out of whom hee saith it may bee proued that Iulius the Pope called the Councell of Sardica but how I cannot tell For Socrates saith expressely that the Councell of Sardica was called by the two Emperours Constance and Constantius whereof the one raigned in the East the other in the West the one by his Letters desiring it the other most willingly performing that hee desired But of Iulius calling it hee maketh no mention If the Iesuite thinke it may bee proued that Iulius called it because among them that sought to excuse themselues from comming vppon fained pretences some complained of the shortnesse of the time appointed for this meeting and cast the blame thereof vpon Iulius he is greatly deceiued seeing Iulius might be blamed for procuring the Emperor Constance by his Letters directed to Constantius his brother to set so short a time as he did though hee did not call the Councell himselfe And that it was not the Authority of the Pope that brought the Bishops together in this Councell it is most euident in that when he wrote to them to restore Athanasius to his place they reiected his Letters with contempt maruailing that he medled more with their matters then they did with his Neither is it likely that Constantius would be commanded by Iulius to call this Councell Seeing when the Councell had commanded Athanasius to be restored to his place yet hee refused to giue way till his brother threatned to make warre vpon him for it But it this proofe faile Bellarmine hath a better For hee sayth Sixtus the third in an Epistle to those of the East writeth That Valentinian the Emperor called a Synode by his authority whence it followeth that the calling of Generall Councels pertaineth in such sort to the Popes that the Emperours may not call them but by warrant and authority from them If the Reader will bee pleased to cōsider of this proofe he shall easily discerne how litle credit is to be giuen to Iesuited Papists in their allegations For first Sixtus doth not say the Emperour Valentinian called a Synode by his authority but that hee commaunded a Synode should be called by his authority that is commaunded him to call it And the author of the Pontificall speaking of the calling of the same Synode sayth the Emperour commanded that the Councell and holy Synode should bee congregated Secondly it was but a Diocesan Synode consisting of the Presbyters and Cleargy of Rome called together about certaine crimes obiected to Sixtus whereof hee purged himselfe before them Now I thinke it will not follow that if the Bishoppe of Rome might call together the Cleargie of his owne Diocesse the calling of Generall Councels pertained to him onely or that if the Emperour thought fit rather to command the Romaine Bishoppe to call together his Cleagie then to doe it immediately by his owne authority therefore hee would haue done the like in summoning Generall Councells consisting of all the Bishops of the World Wherefore let vs passe to the last of his proofes taken out of the Epistle of Adrian the second to Basileius the Emperour prefixed before the eighth Generall Councell which vndoubtedly vpō proofe wil be foūd to be no better then the rest For first it is groūded on the saying of a Pope that liued many hundred yeares after Christ and long after the diuision of the Empire and the withdrawing of the Church of Rome from the obedience of the Emperours of the East and so not much to be regarded in a question concerning the right of the Emperour Secondly hee speaketh not in his owne name but in the name of all the West Church And thirdly that he saith Wee will that by your industry a great assembly be gathered proueth not that the Pope tooke vpon him peremptorily to command the Emperour For seeing in the whole Epistle hee vseth words of exhorting praying intreating these words may seeme to import no more but Our desire is that there should be such an assembly by your industrie in which our Legates sitting as Presidents matters may be examined and all things righted Or we though no way subiect to your Empire yet at your request are content that such a Councell be called and that our Legates do sit in it with the Bishops subiect to your Imperiall command For that Basileius called the Councell appeareth by his words to the Bishops in the beginning of it But if none of these exceptions against the Emperours ancient practice of calling Councels will hold our Aduersaries rather thē they will suffer the Pope to be a looser will not sticke to charge the Emperours with vsurpation and taking more on them then pertained to them Whosoeuer saith Andradius shall thinke that the power and authority of Emperours is to bee esteemed and iudged of by the things done by them in the Church rather then by Christs institution the Decrees of the Elders and the force and nature of the Papall dignity it selfe hee shall make vnbridled pride and head-long fury to be chiefe commaunder and to sway most in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy Thus doth Andradius censure the auncient Christian Emperours and exemplifieth not onely in Constantius the Arrian but Iustinian also as himselfe confesseth a good Emperor For refutatiō of which most vnjust exception wee say that howsoeuer it bee not to bee doubted but that ill affected or ill directed Emperours did some-times that which was not fit yet that in calling Councels by their Princely authority and commaunding all Bishoppes to come or send vnto them they exceeded not the bounds and limites of their commission it is evident in that neuer any Bishop durst blame them for it But all sought vnto them euen the Bishops of Rome themselues praying them so to doe as I shewed before by the examples of Liberius Innocentius and Leo which thing also Bellarmine himselfe confesseth Wherefore seeing it is evident by the allowed practise of former times that the calling of Generall Councels belonged to the Emperours after they became Christians let vs see what they tooke on them in these Councels after they had called them and consequently what right power and authority Christian Princes haue to manage the affaires and commaund the holy Bishops and Ministers of the church CHAP. 53. Of the power and authority exercised by the auncient Emperours in Generall Councels and of the supremacie of Christian Princes in causes and ouer persons Ecclesiasticall THe first thing that Christian Emperours in auncient times assumed to themselues in Generall Councels was to be present in them when they pleased as we reade of Constantine the Great that hee not onely called the Councell of Nice but was present in it of Martian that hee was present in the Councell of Chalcedon with Pulcheria the Empresse of Constantine the fourth that hee was present
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
to say That they had no doubt reason to leade them so to doe that forbade the Marriage of Cleargy-men but that there were much greater reason now to leaue it free againe Baptista Mantuanus saith that many thought the Lawes against mariage to bee euill that they which made those Lawes had not sufficiently considered what the nature of man can beare that CHRIST neuer put so vnpleasant a Yoake vpon the neckes of men that this burden too heavie for the shoulders of men to beare hath brought forth many monstrous effects that it was a shew of Piety but indeede too great boldnesse that laide this burthen vpon the shoulders of men that it had beene more safe to haue gone that way wherein the divine Law directeth vs and to haue trode in the steppes of the Auncient Fathers whose life was better in marriage then ours that is single Ioannes Antonius saith in the time of the Primitiue Church it was lawfull for Presbyters and such as were entered into holy Orders to haue wiues so that they refrained from companying with them vpon the dayes wherein they celebrated that afterwardes in the Westerne Church they that were entred into holy Orders were commaunded to containe which commaundement hee sayth yeelded matter to ensnare the soules of many men and therefore hee verily beleeueth that as the Church brought in this precept of continencie so the time will come when the same Church will reverse and revoke it againe which revocation shall be agreeable to that of the Apostle who sayth Concerning Virgins I haue no commaundement but I giue advice With Antonius agreeth Panormitanus who proposing the question whether the Church may giue leaue to Presbyters to cōtract mariage or to liue in mariage as the Graecians doe aunswereth that hee beleeueth it may that he is assured it may in respect of them who are not tyed by vow implyed or expressed Which hee proueth because continencie in secular Cleargy-men is not of the substance of order nor prescribed by the Law of GOD. For that otherwise the Graecians should sinne and no custome could excuse them seeing no custome is of force against the Law of GOD. Neither doth hee onely thinke that the Church hath power thus to doe but professeth hee thinketh it were behoouefull and for the good and saluation of the soules of men that such as are willing to containe and to lead a life of higher perfection should be left to their owne will and that such as are not willing to containe should by the Decree of the Church be set free to contract marriage Alfonsus Veruecius as Andreas Frisius telleth vs discoursing of the words of Paul For the auoyding of fornication let euery one haue his owne wife sayth they containe no precept but a concession or graunt and affirmeth that by vertue of this grant euery one that cannot otherwise auoyde fornication may marry a wife And after certaine remedies prescribed to be obserued vsed by Presbyters that they may auoyde fornication at last confidently giueth counsell to him who hauing tryed all those meanes cannot containe rather to marry a wife and soe to prouide for his owne saluation then to commit fornication and so cast himselfe head-long into eternall death but yet perswadeth such a one to doe nothing without seeking the Popes consent hopeing that he will dispense in such a case seeing the power hee hath was giuen him for edification not for destruction I dare confidently say sayth Polydere Virgill that it hath beene soe farre from beeing true that this inforced Chastity hath excelled that which is in marriage that no sinfull crime hath brought greater disgrace to the order of the Ministery more euill to religion or made a greater and deeper impression of sorrowe in all good men then the staine of the impure lust of Priests And therefore haply it were behoouefull for the Christian common-wealth and for the good of them that are of that sacred order and ranke that at the last a publicke Lawe might bee made to giue leaue to Priestes to contract mariage Wherein rather they might liue honestly and holily without infamy then in most filthy manner defile themselues with this sinne of Nature And Bishoppe Lindan sayth Surely euen at this day it is lawfull to take chast and honest married men into the order of Priesthood which in my judgment might much better bee done in some prouinces of Germany then to set ouer them certaine most impure companions or any longer to endure and tollerate Knaues Apostataes and sacralegious Pastours With these agreeth Erasmus affirming that in his conceipt hee should not ill deserue nor take the worst course for the furthering of humane affaires the right informing of the manners of men which should procure liberty of mariage if it might bee both for Priestes and Monkes And therefore Sigismund the Emperour a lttle before the Councell of Basill began published a reformation of the Cleargy in which among other things this was one that forasmuch as more euill commeth by the forbidding of mariage then good it were better and more safe to permit Cleargy-men to liue in the state of mariage according to the custome of the Orientall Churches then to forbid them so to do In the Councell of Trent the Orator of Bauaria moued to the same purpose And Chemnitius reporteth from George the Prince of Anhault that Adolphus Bishoppe of Mersbergh his vncle would often say before euer Luther began to stirre that if there were a Councell hee would bee a perswader that Cleargy-men might be permitted to marry and professed that hee knew that many for the quiet of their consciences secretly contracted mariage with those women which they kept vnder the name of Concubines And surely euen the Popes themselues were content to winke at things in this kinde Georgius Cassander a man of infinite reading excellent iudgment and singular piety and sincerity and therefore soe much respected and honoured by Ferdinand and Maximilian the second that they held him the fittest man in the world to compose the controuersies in religion sent for him to come vnto them for the same purpose is clearely of opinion that howsoeuer some in ancient times forbad the marriage of Cleargy-men yet now it were fit and necessary that that lawe were abrogated first because it is found by wofull experience to bee the cause of many grieuous euils secondly for that the seuerity of Discipline and strictnesse in all courses of life that was in vse when this Lawe began first to bee vrged is cleane gone or much decayed euen in the opinion of all Soe that that which was fitte in those times may now bee most vnfitte Thirdly for that many godlie and learned men are thereby discouraged from entring into the Ministerie refusing to binde themselues to the obseruation of this lawe of single life whereby the Church looseth the benefitte of their labours fewe young men
may Which duety being done the Minister hath as good right by Positiue Law to that maintenance that is fitting for him and may as lawfully sue for it in any court of Mundane Iustice as any other may for that which by any right of this World pertaineth to him This I ihinke will not bee much gainsaide For all men will graunt that a competencie of maintenance is due by the prescript of Gods Law and the Law of Nature and that Princes must take order that it be yeelded But the onely thing that is questionable is whether God haue determined of this competencie or left the judgment determining thereof vnto men In the Olde Law himselfe from Heauen declared what hee thought to bee a fitte allowance for his seruants the Priests and Leuites which wee shall finde not to haue beene sparing but very liberall For besides the Tenths of all the things that the rest of the Tribes possessed and enjoyed he gaue them Cities to dwell in and fields adjoyning to the same Touching Tithes in the booke of Leviticus it is thus written All the Tithe of the Land both of the seed of the ground and of the fruite of the Trees is the Lords it is holy to the Lord and of euery Tithe of Bullocke and of Sheepe and of all that goeth vnder the rod the Tenth shall be holy vnto the Lord. And as God prescribed and commaunded this Rent of the Tenth to be payde vnto him out of all that men possessed by any right deriued frō him so by his Prophets he did exact it whē it was vnpaid Bring saith the Lord of Hosts by his Prophet Malachie all the tithes into the storehouse that there may be meate in my house and proue me now herewith if I will not open the windowes of Heauen vnto you and powre you out a blessing without measure I will rebuke the deuourer for your sakes and hee shall not destroy the fruit of the ground neither shall your vine bee barren in the field saith the Lord of Hostes and all Nations shall call you blessed for you shall bee a pleasant Land And touching Cities for the Priests and Levites to dwell in God spake vnto Moses his seruant in this sort Commaund the children of Israel that they giue vnto the Leuites of the Inheritance of their possession Cities to dwell in Yee shall giue also to the Leuites the Suburbs of the Cities round about them so they shall haue Cities to dwell in and their Suburbs shal be for their Cattell anà for their substance and for all their Beasts and the Suburbs of the Cities which ye shall giue vnto the Leuites from the wall of the Citie outward shall be a thousand Cubites round about These Cities by Gods owne appointment were fortie and eight Besides this standing Rent of Tithes which God commaunded his people to pay vnto the Priests and Leuites and these Cities which they were to giue them to dwell in hee made them yet a more plentifull and ample allowance out of his owne immediate Reuenue and the presents that were daily brought vnto him For whereas the people after they were entred into the land of Promise stood bound to make some acknowledgment that they had receiued all of Gods hands therefore were to giue vnto him the best first and principall of all that they were blessed with euen the first of the fruits they gathered The Leuites by Gods appointment had their parts in these first-fruits Nay as wee may reade in the booke of Numbers God gaue these first-fruits which the people offered to him to the Priests saying vnto Aaron his sonnes All the fat of the oyle and all the fat of the wine and of the wheat which they shall offer vnto the Lord for their first fruits I haue giuen them vnto thee and the first ripe of all that is in their Land which they shall bring vnto the Lord shall be thine This Allowance did God make them out of his set Reuenue of first fruites and yet was not vnmindfull of them when any other presents were brought vnto him So that they Who attended at the Altar were indeede partakers of the Altar Thus wee see in what sort God did prouide for his seruants the Priestes Leuites in the time of the Lawe Wherefore now it remaineth that passing by that Addition that was out of those Offerings which were proper to those times we come to see whether the same kind of prouision by Tithes which GOD then prescribed remaine still in force by Vertue of any Lawe of GOD or not Here wee shall find a great and maine Controuersie betweene the Schoole-men and the Canonists For the Schoole-men for the most part nay all if we may beleeue Bellarmine doe thinke that Tithes are not due since the comming of CHRIST by any Lawe of GOD or Nature The Canonists resolue the contrarie and are so peremptory in their opinion that they doe almost condemne such of Heresie as thinke otherwise Aquinas one of the greatest Rabbins amongst the Schoole-men determineth the Question in this sort The Precept concerning the paying of Tithes in the time of the old Law was partly Morall Naturall and Perpetuall partly Iudiciall applyed to the condition of that people so to continue no longer by force of Gods prescription then that state should continue In that it prescribed a sufficient large and honourable maintenance to bee yeelded to them that attended the holy things of God it was Naturall and Morall and is to continue for euer but in that it prescribed such a proportion as a fit and competent maintenance namely the Tenth part out of euery mans increase it was not Naturall but Iudiciall applyed fitted to the condition of that people For the whole Nation of the Iewes being diuided into thirteene Tribes and the Tribe of Leui that serued at the Altar and in the Temple hauing no Inheritance or Possession amongst the rest but God himselfe being the inheritance of them of that Tribe that they might haue in some proportionable sort as good an estate of maintenance as any of the rest hee gaue vnto them the Tenth of all that the rest had If it bee said they were not the Tenth part of the people but the Thirteenth and that therefore to make them equall with the rest GOD should haue giuen them the Thirteenth part onely and not the Tenth hee answereth that therefore GOD gaue them something more then each of the rest of the Tribes had First for that he knew all that he allowed them would not be duly and exactly payd vnto them but that they should loose some part of that which he meant vnto thē which by this ouerplus of Allowance he would make vppe vnto them againe Secondly for that hee would haue their allowance to be something better then that which others had they being more neare vnto him then the rest Thus doth he make the particular determination of the
prescribed in the old Law nor in the new saith hee therefore they are not due by Gods Law That they are not prescribed in the new he saith it is cleare but proueth it not But that tithes are to be paid may bee proued by necessary consequence out of that which is prescribed in the new Testament That they are not prescribed in the old he cannot say all the bookes of the old Testament being full of Mandates Threats Promises and Encouragements to moue men to pay Tithes But he saith the precepts that are founde in the old Testament requiring and vrging men to pay Tithes were Iudiciall not Morall and Perpetuall That they were not moral hee endeauoureth to proue because there was no Lawe concerning the paying Tithes before the time of Moses If hee speake of a written Law it is true there was no such before Moses neither touching Tithes nor any thing else but if he speake of a Law simply wee say there was a Law before Moses which moued Abraham to pay Tithe and that as presupposing the knowledge of the Creation of the world in sixe dayes and Gods rest in the seuenth Reason conuinceth vs that one day in seauen must bee a day of Rest from our owne workes affaires and businesses that we may spend it in diuine thoughts meditations prayers and prayses of God So in like sort the number of Tenne being the vttermost extent limit and bound of all numbers it being presupposed that something is to bee giuen to God out of that wee possesse the very light of Reason will make vs knowe that we ought not to passe the number of Tenne but that one of tenne at the least is to be yeelded vnto God out of all that wee possesse and that not the worst for wee doe not so deale with mortall Princes but the best the first and principall Which is confirmed vnto vs in that the Gentiles and people that knew not God but by the light of Nature and such Traditions as they had receiued from the Patriarches did pay tithes as well as the Iewes did and the Christians doe The proofe hereof the Reader may finde at large out of diuers Authors in a Treatise of Tithes written not long since and in Iansenius But some man perhaps will say that this confirmation is too weake for that many among the Gentiles were Circumcised as well as the Iewes and that yet it followeth not from thence that Circumcision was prescribed imposed by the Law of Nature so that the custome practise and obseruation of the Gentiles paying Tithes will not proue that it is a naturall duty to pay Tithes But they who bring this Obiection should know that there is a great difference between these two Observations of the Gentiles For the one was but in some certaine parts of the world onely and among such people as were descended of Abraham or by Leagues Compacts and Perswasions were induced by them to be Circumcised But the paying vowing and offering of Tithes to their supposed gods was generall amongst all the Gentiles Romans Grecians and Barbarians Wherefore we may resolue that the prescription of Tithe was not meerely Iudiciall and fitted to the State of the people of the Iewes as Bellarmine out of Aquinas would haue it but that it was Naturall and from the beginning And surely it is worth the noting how strangely he forgetteth himselfe and so runneth into grosse contradictions in this point For first to make it seeme probable that this prescription was but meerely Iudiciall hee saith The intendment of God in prescribing Tithe was that there should be a certaine equalitie amongst the parts and Tribes of his people and that therefore he allotted the Tenth to the Leuites who were almost the tenth part of his people and yet after hee saith The Leuites were not the sixtieth part of the people and proueth the same out of the first and third of Numbers So that it cannot bee imagined that the reason of allowing this proportion to the Leuites was for that they were little lesse than the tenth part of the people that so they might haue at least as much as the rest if not a little more especially seeing it may easily be proued that the Cities and Suburbs that were allowed vnto them by God himselfe besides the First-fruits that part of the Sacrifices which they had was as much as the possessions of any Tribe though they had had no Tithes at all So that the possessions of the Leuites and Priestes beeing more than the thirteenth part of the whole land whereas they were not the sixtieth part and all the Tithes First-fruits and a part of the Sacrifices being assigned vnto them besides it is most cleare euident the Intendement of God in allowing Tithes vnto the Leuites was not the equalling of them and the rest But to conclude this point if we had neither the fact of Abraham the vow of Iacob the custome of the Gentiles before CHRIST nor any other reason to perswade vs that Tithes are due by Gods Law yet this very prescription in the time of Moses Law would proue sufficiently that Christians must yeeld the Tenth at the least of all their increase towards the maintenance of the Ministers For seeing the Ministerie of the Gospel is much more glorious then that of the Law and the Obligation of the people vnto them stronger there can bee no doubt made but that Christians are bound to giue the Tenthe of their increase at the least towards the maintenance of them that attend the seruice of God and consequently that God hath not left it to men to determine what is a competent allowance for his servants as some thinke which thing may easily be proued if any man shall make any question of it For seeing they of Levies Tribe had so large an allowance whereas yet the most part of them were but ordinary Levites and imployed in meane seruices the Priests being in comparison but a few and attending but by courses once in 24 weekes there is farre greater reason that the Ministers of the Church that attend more holy things and that continually whose Education out of their owne Patrimonie hath beene chargeable vnto them and whose profession of Learning and Knowledge is such that the very furnishing of them with Bookes is a matter of great expence should haue a more plentifull allowance made vnto them than the Levites Neither is there any kinde of Provision for Ministers fitter than this by Tithes For if they haue their allowance in money the prices of things often rising it may bee too short neither will they haue so sensible a fellow-feeling of the blessings of God or his punishments the people taste of if they haue their allowance certaine no way subiect to those different courses of Times that others haue And therefore we shall finde that howsoeuer in the very first Times Christians were forced to supply the necessities of their Ministers by other
pray vnto almighty God the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ his only begotten Son who continually maketh intercession for vs the holy Spirit wherewith wee haue bin annoynted to be Christians by the grace of God the Sacrament of Baptisme that he will respect his Church now tottering in great danger and that he will moue the hearts of the Prelats of the Church that at last for a little while putting away this most pernitions selfe loue they may be perswaded to correct things manifestly amisse to reforme themselues There needeth no Councell there need no sillogismes there needeth no alledging of places of Scripture for the quieting of these stirres of the Lutherans but there is need of good minds of charity towards God our neighbour and of humility c. Touching the diuisions of thē that haue abandoned the tyrannical gouernment of the Bishoppe of Rome and imbraced the sincere profession of the heauenly truth whom this Lucian calleth pretensed Gospellers they are neither such nor so many as our Aduersaries would make the world beleeue as I haue shewed at large in the place cited by Master Higgons But be they what they may bee I haue truly sayd that the Romanists are the causes of them in that their obstinate resistance against all peaceable publicke proceeding in the worke of reformation in a Generall Councell forced men to take another course and to take this worke in hand seuerally in the seuerall Kingdomes of the world That there was no hope of reformation by a Generall Councell and that seuerall Kingdomes were to take care for the redressing of things amisse within their own compasse I haue shewed out of Gerson his words are these I see that the reformation of the Church will neuer bee brought to passe by a Councell without the presidencie of a well affected guide wise and constant let the members therefore prouide for themselues thorough all Kingdomes and Prouinces when they shall be able and know how to compasse this worke Now that this kinde of proceeding must needes bee accompanied with differences though not of moment nor reall yet in shew greater then were to bee wished euery man I thinke will confesse that hath the sence of a man Against all this M. Hig. hath nothing to say but as if he had gone out of his country passed the Seas of purpose to become a jester amongst our melancholy countrey-men that are abroad to make them merry maketh a jest of it as he doth of all other things and so passeth from it The second part § 1 BVT lette vs giue him leaue to sport himselfe a little we shall haue him in earnest by and by For in the next part of this chapter hee vndertaketh to proue that Gerson whom I bring in as a worthy guide of Gods Church in the time wherein hee liued and one that vvished the reformation of things amisse vtterly detested the reformation that hath beene transacted by Luther Zuinglius the rest But his proofes will be found too weake for though it were granted that he erred in the matter of transubstantiation inuocation of Saints and some such like things yet will it neuer be proued that hee erred heretically or that hee was not willing to yeelde to the trueth in these or any other thinges wherin hee was deceiued when it should be made to appeare vnto him Cyprian erred in the matter of rebaptization Lactantius and sundry other were carried into the errour of the Millenaries many Catholickes in Augustines time thought that all Oxthodoxe and right-beleeuing Christians shall be saued in the end how wickedly soeuer they liue here yet were they of one communion with them that thought otherwise If Master Higgons thinke that I produce Gerson as a man fully professing in euery point of Doctrine as wee doe he wholly mistaketh me for I was not so simple either to thinke so or to goe about to perswade others so but this is that which I said and still constantly affirme that God preserued his true Church in the midst of all the errors and confusions of the Papacy that the errours condemned by vs neuer found generall constant allowance in the daies of our Fathers and that there were many who held the foundation according to the light of knowledge which God vouchsafed them wished the reformatiō of such things as were amisse some of them discerning more of the errors abuses that were then found in the Church other fewer of which number I reckon Gerson to be one of eminent sort ranke For this worthy Diuine beleeued as we doe that all our inherent righteousnesse is imperfit yea that it is like the polluted ragges of a menstruous woman that it cannot endure the triall of Gods seuere iudgement that wee must trust in the only mercy and goodnesse of God if we desire to be surely established against all assaults that all sinnes are by nature mortall that indulgences reach not to the dead that they are but remissions of enjoyned penance that the Pope hath no power to dispose of the Kingdomes of the world that hee is like the Duke of Venice amongst the great Senators of that State greater then each one but inferiour to the whole companie of Bishoppes that hee is subiect to errour and that in case of errour or other scandalous misdemeanour hee may bee iudicially deposed that Christian perfection consisteth neither in pouerty nor riches but in a mind resolued to regard these thinges no farther then they stand with the loue of God and serue for the aduancement of his glory and the good of men So that sometimes it is a matter of more perfection to haue and possesse riches then to cast them from vs contrary to the false conceit of the Mendicantes who made extreame pouerty to bee the height of all perfection and thought that Christ himselfe did liue by begging which hee reiecteth as an absurd errour hee teacheth that the precept of Almighty GOD requireth all the actions of vertue in the best sort they canne bee performed and that therefore they do not rightly discerne betweene the matter of precepts and counsailes who imagine that the precept requireth the inferiour degrees of vertue and the counsaile the more high and excellent whereas counsailes vrge vs not to a higher degree of vertue or morall goodnesse but onely shew vs the meanes whereby most easily if all things bee answerable in the parties wee may attaine to the height of vertue the procept prescribeth so ouer-throwing the opinion of workes of supererogation hee teacheth that there is no more merit of single life then of marriage vnlesse the parties liuing in these different estates otherwise excell one another in the workes of vertue that virginity in that which it addeth aboue coniugal chastity is no vertue nor higher degree of vertue but a splendour of vertue only that the lawes of men binde not
the See of olde Rome and shall be before all the rest in order and honour Neither did Martian the Emperour as the Treatiser most vntruely avoucheth voide the Canons of these Councels which in this sort were confirmed afterwards by Iustinian Wherefore seeing it is evident that almost the whole Christian world in diuerse Generall Councels feared not to make another Bishop the Bishop of Romes Peere I hope the Reader will easily discerne that I haue not passed the bounds of modestie nor fallen into any vnseemely scoffing and railing vaine as the Treatiser chargeth Mâ—… when I taxe the Antichristian and Lucifer-like pride of the Romish Antichrist who not-with-standing the contradiction of the greatest part of the Christian world sought to subject all the members of Christ to himselfe and pronounced them all to be in the state of damnation that bowe not downe before him as Vice-God and supreame commaunder on earth But it seemeth hee had a great desire at the least to seeme to say some-thing against Me. For other-wise hee would not so shamelesly be-lye Me as he doth when hee saith I would deriue the beginning of the Popes superioritie from Phocas whereas in the place cited by him I haue no such thing but the contrary For I affirme that in the first Councell of Constantinople the Bishop of that citty was set in degree of honour next vnto the Bishop of Rome and before the other two Patriarches of Alexandria and Antioche thereby confessing that the Bishop of Rome had the first place at that time Which when the Constantinopolitan Bishop sought to haue Phocas so concluded matters betweene these two Bishops that the Bishop of Rome should haue the first and chief place in the church of GOD and Constantinople the second so that the praeeminence chieftie which the Pope claimeth lawfully was ancient and not deriued from Phocas howsoeuer he might and happily did enlarge and extend it farther then was fit giuing him a kinde of vniversalitie of jurisdiction §. 11. FRom the Primacie of the Bishop of Rome the Treatiser passeth to the infallibilitie of his judgment and affirmeth that his Decrees though he define without a Generall Councell are that firme Rocke and sure ground vpon which our Faith is to bee builded and that a man may well admit his definitions as a ground of supernaturall Faith and prudently builde an act of such supernaturall Faith vpon it And yet in the same place confesseth it is not yet authentically defined that the Pope in this sort cannot erre Which thing also Bellarmine and Stapleton acknowledge professing expressely that it is no matter of faith to beleeue that the Pope cannot erre if hee define without a Generall Councell In which passages there is as I suppose a most grosse contradiction For how can the infallibilitie of the Popes iudgement bee to them a Rocke to builde an act of supernaturall Faith vpon who neither know nor beleeue that his iudgement is infallible but thinke so onely Can a man certainely and vndoubtedly builde his perswasion of any thing vpon his sayings whome hee neither knoweth nor beleeueth to bee free from errour Wherefore for the cleering of this poynt First the Treatiser saith Though the Church haue not authentically defined that the Pope cannot erre yet the Scriptures and other arguments brought to proue it are so plaine and there are so many that thinke so that a man may very well admitte his definitions to be a ground of fayth Whence it will follow that a man may build his fayth vpon the Scriptures and other arguments and reasons without expecting the resolution of the Church for the vnderstanding of the one and discerning of the force and validity of the other â— Whereas else-where hee professeth that without the resolution of the present Church the letter of holy Scripture and the workes of Antiquity yeeld no certaine and diuine argument Secondly hee contradicteth himselfe and denieth the supposed infallibility of the Popes judgement to bee the Rocke on which the Church is builded and maketh that rocke to be onely the consenting iudgement of the Pope other Bishoppes in a Generall Councell contrary to the opinion of almost all learned pious men as he telleth vs himselfe who thinke that that infallibility of judgment and assurance of trueth vpon which our faith is to be builded is not partly in the Pope and partly in other Bishops but altogether in the Pope Thus seeking to avoyd one contradiction hee runneth into many The second Part. §. 1. HAuing surueyed the first part of the Treatise and examined such objections as the Authour of it maketh against Mee I will passe to the second wherein first he goeth about to proue out of that which I haue that Bishops assembled in Generall Councels may interpret the Scriptures and by their authority suppresse them that gaine-say such interpretations as they consent vpon subjecting them to excommunication censures of like nature that according to the prouidence and wisdome of Almighty God Generall Councels should not be subject to errour in such matters for that otherwise men might be forced according to Gods ordinance to obey Generall Councels erring propounding false Doctrine Which is a very silly kinde of reasoning for in the very same sort a man may proue that particular Bishops are free from erring in their proceedings that they can impose prescribe nothing vniustly vnder paine of excommunication for that otherwise men might bee forced and that according to Gods ordinance to obey such Bishops erring in their proceedings and commanding vnjust things whereas there is no question to bee made but that they haue power to excommunicate who may abuse the same and that sometimes it is a thing most pleasing vnto God by refusing to obey them that haue power to excommunicate but abuse the same to run into the vttermost extremities of their censures yea S. Augustine pronounceth that the patient enduring of wrongs in this kinde shall be highly rewarded by almighty God Secondly in the same chapter labouring to proue that Protestants contemne reject the Fathers to that purpose wresting some sayings of Doctour Humfry and others he objecteth that I haply may seem to some one that doth not throughly looke into my words to approue the authority of the ancient Fathers as farre forth as any Catholicke but sayth that in truth I doe not For proofe whereof hee setteth downe what I haue written touching this poynt Namely first that wee must receiue as true whatsoeuer hath beene deliuered by all the Saintes with one consent which haue left their opinion and judgement in writing it not being possible that they should all haue written of any thing but that which was generally receiued in their times and toucheth the very life of Christian fayth Secondly whatsoeuer the most famous haue constantly and vniformely deliuered as a matter of fayth no man contradicting them though many bee found to haue sayd nothing of
heart that they may discerne see the light of heauenly truth it is evident that in Augustines judgment the authority of the Church serueth but as an introduction that the thing which right beleeuers rest vpon is of a higher nature to wit the discerning of heauenly truth Wherefore finding himselfe too weak to giue any substantiall answer he betaketh himselfe to a most silly exception pretending that I haue not truly translated these words of Augustin praesto est authoritas quā partim miraculis partim multitudine valere nemo ambigit authoritie is ready at handwhich standeth vpō 2 things the one the greatnes of miracles done the other multitude Is this a false translatiō hath the authority of the church that force which it hath to moue mē to beleeue partly by reasō of miracles partly by reasō of multitude may it not be truly said that it standeth partly vpon the greatnes of miracles wrought partly vpō multitudes but valere doth not signifie to stād vpō it is true it doth not yet what boy in the Grāmer School will not laugh at him for thus childishly demeaning himself for what man of vnderstāding would cal men to cōster euery word precisely as it importeth by it selfe without consideration of the coherence it hath with other in the same sentence Besides this place of Aug. there is another cited by Me out of Hugo where he maketh 3 sorts of beleeuers whereof the first are such as are moued out of piety to beleeue which yet discerne not by reason whether the things they beleeue are to bee beleeued or not The second such who by reason approue that which by faith they beleeue The third sort are such as by reason of the purity of their heart conscience begin inwardly to taste what by faith they beleeue This place maketh strongly for the confirmation of that I say that the evidence of sundry things in the light of faith and grace is that formall reason which assureth vs of the truth of them For heere Hugo affirmeth that the best sort of beleeuers doe approue by reason or by taste invvardly discerne the things they beleeue to be true So that such approbation or spiritual taste is the reason of their perswasion of the truth of these things To this authoritie the Treatiser hath nothing to say but that it maketh nothing to the purpose and that if I meant to translate the vvords of Hugo I haue not exactly translated thē Whether the saying of Hugo be to the purpose or not I vvill leaue it to the iudgment of the Reader but as for his other exception I vvould haue him knovv and any sensible Reader vvill very easilie discerne that I meant not exactlie to translate his vvordes but at large to set downe the intent driftes of them which I haue most truely performed and therefore hee doth Me wrong when hee saith I deale corruptly vntruly In the third place hee endeauoureth to make his Reader beleeue there is a contrariety betweene Me and Luther Brentius in that Luther with whom Brentius seemeth to agree maketh the Scripture to be of it self a most certaine most easie and most manifest interpreter of it selfe prouing judging and enlightning all things I acknowledge many difficulties in it But if the Treatiser had beene pleased to haue taken thinges aright he could not but haue seene that Luther also acknowledgeth manifold difficulties in the Scripture yea hee doth see it and acknowledge it and yet will not see it and therefore that he bee not contrary to himselfe when he affirmeth that the Scriptures are easie interpret themselues and judge and enlighten all thinges he must bee vnderstood to meane that notwithstanding some difficulties they are not so obscure and hard as that Heretiques may wrest and abuse them at their pleasure and noe man bee able to conuince them out of the euidence of those sacred writings as the Romanistes imagine but that wee may bee so assured out of the Scripture it selfe and the nature of the thinges therein contained that wee haue the true meaning of it that wee neede not altogether to rest in the authority of Church which explication of Luthers words the Treatiser might haue found in the place cited by him if hee had beene pleased and so haue omitted the vrging of this imagined contradiction §. 3. The 4. thing that he proposeth which cōcerneth me is that I mentiō a rule of faith according to which the Scriptures are to be interpreted which if we neglect al other considerations are insufficient the like he alleageth out of the Harmony of confessions whence he inferreth that we admit another guide in interpreting the Scripture besides the letter of the Scripture But hee should knowe that the rule of faith mentioned by me deliuered to vs from hand to hand by the guides of Gods Church containeth nothing in it but that which is found in Scripture either expressely or by necessary implication so that though wee admitte another guide in the interpretation of of Scripture besides the bare letter yet wee admitte noe other but that forme of Christian doctrine which all right beleeuing Christians taught by the Apostles and Apostolique men haue euer receiued as contained in the Scripture and thence collected To this hee addeth an excellent obseruation which is that I seeme to confesse that Saint Paul sometimes by the workes of the Law vnderstandeth the workes of the Law of Moses in that I say that that Apostle pronounceth that the Galathians were bewitched and that if they still persisted to joyne circumcision and the workes of the Law with Christ they were fallen from grace and Christ could profit them nothing But hee needed not thus to mince the matter for I willingly confesse that Paul not sometimes onely but euer vnderstandeth by the workes of the Lawe the workes of Moses Law Neither can there any thing be inferred thence for the Papists or against vs. For whereas by the workes of the Lawe some vnderstand those workes which the ceremoniall Lawe prescribed other such as the morall Lawe requireth and and a third sort such as by terror it worketh in men or causeth them to worke without any chaunge of the heart which cannot be wrought but only by grace the Papists think that whē the Apostle sayth we are iustified by faith without workes he excludeth not such works as the Morall Law requireth but such as the ceremoniall Law prescribeth and the morall Law worketh in men we teach that he excludeth all these So that a man repenting and beleeuing may bee saued though hauing neuer done any good worke he be taken out of this world before he can do any It is true indeede that good workes do necessarily follow iustification if time do serue and opportunity bee offered yet are they no meritorious causes of saluation But the Treatiser will proue out of that which I haue written that they are meritorious that