drinkes now defiled with rapine and couetousnesse yea all things should be cleane vnto them It is not for almes then that Christ saith Behold all things shall be cleane vnto you for almes it selfe may be defiled and vncleane but for n 1. Tim 1.5 loue out of a pure heart and a good conscience and faith vnfained So that in effect the words of Christ are but the same with that which the Apostle saith o Tit. 1.15 All things are cleane to them that are cleane that is to them who in heart and conscience are purified and clensed And because p Acts. 15.9 by faith the heart is purified therefore he saith in effect to them that beleeue all things are cleane So then Maister Bishop reasoneth thus To them that giue almes in true faith and a good conscience all things are cleane therefore by almes-deedes we are redeemed and purged from our sinnes We denie the argument because it is not by almes it selfe that all things are cleane vnto vs but almes it selfe receiueth purity and cleanenesse from faith and a good conscience without which it is in Gods sight defiled and vncleane 13 W. BISHOP Math. 3. Luk. 3. Our sixt Bring forth the worthy fruites of penance That is do such workes as become them who are penitent Which as S. Chrysostome expoundeth are He that hath stolen away another mans goods Hom. 10. in Math. let him now giue of his owne he that hath committed fornication let him abstaine from the lawfull companie of his owne wife and so forth recompencing the workes of sinne with the contrarie workes of vertue The same exposition giueth Saint Gregorie Hom. 10. in Euang. In Psal 4. and to omit all others venerable Bede interpreteth them thus Mortifie your sinnes by doing the worthy fruites of penance to wit by afflicting your selues so much for euery offence as worthy penance doth require which will be a sacrifice of iustice that is a most iust sacrifice To this M. Perkins answereth that this text is absurd for the word repent signifieth onely change your minds from sinne to God and testifie it by good workes Reply His answer is most absurd for we argue out of these words Worthy fruites of penance and he answereth to the word going before repent which we vse not against them and for his glose or testifying our repentance is sufficiently confuted by the Fathers before alledged And Saint Iohn expresly maketh them the meanes to escape the wrath of God saying that the Axe was set to the roote of the Tree and vnlesse by worthy fruites of penance they appeased God they should be cut vp and cast into hell fire and seemeth to confute the laying hold on Christes satisfaction by faith saying it will not helpe you to say that yee are the Sonnes of Abraham who was father of all true beleeuers as much as if he had said Trust not to your faith hand off yee generation of vipers For notwithstanding yee be the sonnes of the faithfull vnlesse ye amend your liues and for the euill workes which yee haue done heretofore make recompence and satisfie the iustice of God with good yee shall be cast into hell fire R. ABBOT This argument is like his fellowes that are gone before We must do such workes as become those that are penitent therefore the workes that we do are satisfactions for our sinnes A man would thinke that Maister Bishop should haue more discretion then to bring such light stuffe in so waighty a cause Though Maister Perkins had alledged it out of some of their bookes yet reason would haue required that he in the reuiew should haue better aduised of it But we see Trigge and Trugge will not part companie vvhat his fellowes haue said be it good or bad true or false he will say it to the death Onely his memory faileth him a little where he saith that they vse no argument against vs from the words going before Do penance as they say Repent as we translate it hauing forgotten that his maisters of a Rhem. Testam Annot. Math. 3.2 Rhemes made a stout argument from thence in behalfe of penance and satisfaction Very impudently they dealt therein because it is contrary to their owne doctrine to vrge penance and satisfaction vpon them that are to be baptized and Thomas Aquinas affirmeth it to be an iniurie to the bloud of Christ as I haue b Of Iustification Sect. 20. before shewed and therefore by their owne doctrine the words of Iohn Baptist cannot be vnderstood of any such matter But yet they were faine for a shift to take hold of that because they had nothing else so colourably to serue turne in that behalfe It was out of M. Bishops head what they had said or else without doubt he would haue said the like But M. Perkins hath rightly told him that the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there vsed by S. Iohn signifieth the alteration and change of the mind from sinne to righteousnesse It importeth no acts of penance but inward reforming of our affections for the amendment of our liues And therfore doth Athanasius say that repentance hath it name from thence c Athanas quaest 162. Ideò poenitentia resipiscentia dicitur quod mentem à malo in bonum transferat for that it transferreth or remoueth the minde from euill to good M. Bishop will not stand vpon this he vrgeth the other words worthy fruites of penance Howsoeuer he translate them absurdly yet we approue his exposition of them do such workes as become them that are penitent but what followeth hereof for him Surely we teach men to do such workes as become them that professe repentance to recompence former workes of sinne with contrary workes of vertue former neglect and carelesnesse with due circumspection and watchfulnesse ouer their waies and conuersation We teach that in grieuous sinnes our griefe affliction of mind should be the more and that both inwardly it is so and outwardly appeareth so to be where true repentance is euen as greater wounds cause greater feeling and paine and make men more earnest to seeke remedie and cure But in all this we can finde no satisfaction in all this we cannot finde that our affliction and sorow is the thing it selfe that workes the cure It is the humbling of our selues to seeke mercie at Gods hands for the washing away of our sinnes in the bloud of Iesus Christ but wee know not how it selfe should be taken for a vvater to vvash vs from our sinnes But yet M. Bishop will proue it so to be because Iohn Baptist saith d Ver. 10. Now is the axe laid to the roote of the tree euery tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruite shall be hewen downe and cast into the fire Which is euen as much to the purpose as if he had said iust nothing We say also that euery tree that bringeth not forth good fruite shall be hewen downe and cast into
to seeke of that vse which M. Bishop maketh of it that this anger of ours against our selues is a price of satisfaction for the appeasing of Gods anger To this being the very point he saith neuer a word he telleth vs of reuenge but he prooueth not that this reuenge is a matter of satisfaction We say that to this reuenge of true and faithfull repentance God graunteth remission of sinnes but we say he graunteth it because we seeke it not in the merit of our reuenge but onely in the bloud of Iesus Christ 15 W. BISHOP Lastly saith M. Perkins They make three works of satisfaction Prayer Fasting and Almes-deedes For the first it is meere foolishnesse to think that a man by prayer can satisfie for his sins it is all one as if you had said that a begger by asking an almes can deserue the almes or a debtor by requesting his creditor to pardon his debt should thereby pay his debt That Prayer doth appease Gods iustice and obtaine pardon God himselfe is witnesse Psal 49. saying Call vpon me in the day of tribulation and I will deliuer thee Prayer cannot be made without faith in Gods power and hope in his goodnesse and therefore must needes be pleasing in Gods sight by prayer we humble our selues before God and acknowledge his â—mnipotencie and our infirmity By prayer we lament with bitter teares our owne ingratitude folly and wickednes and bewaile the grieuousnes of our sinnes such prayer made King Dauid as his Psalmes do testifie water his couch with teares making them his foode day and night and by them he satisfied for his former offences So did a farre greater sinner then he â— Paral. 33. King Manasses who falling into tribulation prayed vnto the Lord his God and did great penance before the God of his fathers and prayed and intreated earnestly and God heard his prayers brought him back againe to Ierusalem into his Kingdome Now to M. Perkins Similes A begger doth not deserue his almes because he makes not this former kind of prayer but the short sleight one of the Protestants from the lips outward The like we say of a debter whose creditor being a needy man will not be paid without mony but God who needs none of our goods highly esteemeth of an humble contrite heart grieued much for hauing sinned in the sight of God and humbly suing vnto him for pardon Math. 18. To such a one he said Did I not forgiue thee all thy debt because thou besoughtest me R. ABBOT Maister Bishops arguments are like the foxes whelpes neuer a one better then other and all starke naught It is strange to see what shuffling and shifting he vseth to make some good shew of a bad cause The question is whether prayer be a worke of satisfaction that is a worke of that woorth and price as that by the merit thereof we make God a iust and sufficient recompence for the offence that we haue done For the proofe hereof he alledgeth the sentence of the Psalme a Psal 50.15 Call vpon me in the time of trouble and I wil heare thee So then his reason is this God hath promised to heare vs when we pray vnto him therefore prayer is a worke of satisfaction As much as if he should say the prince promiseth a traitour vpon his submission and intreatie to giue him his pardon therefore his submission and intreaty is a sufficient recompence for his treason We may see how maruellously the Romane religion sharpeneth mens eye-sight that they can see mans satisfaction there where God onely signifieth his owne merciful disposition Yea but God doth thereby witnesse that prayer doth appease Gods iustice and obtaine pardon Yea but what need a pardon when the sin is already pardoned for prayer is made a worke of satisfaction after the forgiuenesse of the sinne as I haue shewed before A very ridiculous deuice that God first remitteth the trespasse and we afterwards for a punishment and to make God amends and satisfaction must say Forgiue vs our trespasses Therefore when he speaketh of obtaining pardon he doth but seeke by words of truth to colour absurd dotages of falshood and error The vse of prayer is indeed not to make satisfaction but to craue pardon It appeaseth Gods iustice by the intreating of his mercie whilest we beseech him to heare vs not for our prayers sake but for Christs sake not by the merit of our satisfaction but by vertue of his intercession not for the works sake which we do but for his truths sake for that he hath promised so to do to them that call vpon him By our prayer we request him to forgiue vs that is not to vrge vs to satisfaction and is it not an absurd fancy to affirme prayer it selfe to be a satisfaction And what do men in this case but mocke and dally with God in asking him forgiuenesse when in the meane time they thinke to make him a full and iust requitall of his wrongs so that there shall be nothing to be forgiuen For what remaineth to be forgiuen where there is yeelded a sufficient recompence for the offence done M. Bishop goeth on and telleth vs that prayer cannot be made without faith It is true by faith it is that our prayer obtaineth all things at Gods hand But of faith it is true which S. Ambrose saith that b Ambros de Poenitent lib. 2. cap. 8. Tanquam ex syngrapha fides impetrat noÌ„ tanquam ex debito it obtaineth as by deed of gift not by way of debt It looketh not to our satisfaction but to the promise of God through the mediation of Iesus Christ Further he alledgeth idlely and impertinently that prayer is pleasing vnto God that by it we humble our selues before him acknowledging his omnipotencie and our owne infirmitie that thereby we lament and bewaile the grieuousnesse of our sinnes He mentioneth king Dauid watering his couch with teares and making them his food day and night Manasses greatly humbling himself as the text saith not doing great penance as he translateth intreating the Lord so as that the Lord heard him c. Now all these things are according to the Prouerbe Pro rastris ligones we cal for rakes and he sends vs mattocks we demand one thing and he answereth another We say that prayer is pleasing to God we confesse all these vses and effects thereof but what is all this to the proouing of satisfaction how doth hee make it appeare that that which Dauid and Manasses did they did it with opinion or purpose to make satisfaction for their sinnes I would aske him here with what face he could thus set himselfe to delude his Reader with empty shadowes and shewes of vaine discourse but that I see his whole booke in a manner is made of such delusions But here to shew the absurdity of this assertion of theirs that prayer is a matter of satisfaction M. Perkins had said that it is
by faith only In which sence the Apostle S. Tim. 4. Paul sayth to his deare Disciple Timothie For this doing thou shalt saue both thy selfe and them that heare thee And this doth no more diminish the glorie of our Soueraigne Sauiours infinit merits then to say that we are saued by faith only good works no lesse depending if not more aduancing Christs merits then only faith as shall be proued hereafter more as large in the question of merits Now that other good mens merits may stood them who want some of their owne may be deduced out of an hundred places of the Scriptures namely out of those where God saith That for the sake of one of his true seruants he will shew mercy to thousands as is expresly said in the end of the first Commandement In like manner I answer vnto your third instance that for Christ to haue taken away by his blessed Passion the eternall paine due vnto our sinnes and to haue left a temporall to be satisfied by vs is not to make himselfe a false Christ but a most louing kind and withall a most prudent Redeemer Wiping away that by himselfe which passed our forces and reseruing that to vs which by the helpe of his grace we will may and ought to do not onely because it were vnseemely that the parts of the body should be disproportionalle to the head but also because it is reasonable as the Apostle holdeth Rom. 2. that we s ffer here with Christ before we raigne with him in his kingdome In your last instance you say that we make Christ our mediator of intercession to God thinking out of your simplicitie that therein we much magnifie him and sing Osanna vnto him Whereas we hold it for no 〈◊〉 â—â—â—agement vnto his diuine dignitie to make him our Int rcessor 〈…〉 to pray him to pray for vs who is of himselfe right able to helpe in all we can demaund being as well God as Man And albeit one in thought singling out the humanitie of Christ from his diuine nature and person might make it an intercessor for vs Yet that being but a Metaphisicall conceipt to separate the nature from the person since the Arian heresie which held Christ to be inferior to his Father it hath not bene practised by Catholikes who alwayes pray our Sauiour Christ to haue mercy vpon vs neuer to pray for vs. And consequently make him no mediator of intercession but of redemption R. ABBOT The second instance giuen by M. Perkins to proue that the Church of Rome maketh Christ but euen as an Idol giuing him a name without the substance and effect thereof is this that they call him a Sauiour and yet make him a Sauiour onely in vs and by vs not in himselfe or immediatly by himselfe For this is all that they attribute vnto him that he putteth vs in case and state to saue our selues and to become our owne Sauiours The meaning of the instance being plaine M. Bishops question is very idle In whom he should be a Sauiour if not in vs. He should be a Sauiour in himselfe and by that that he doth himselfe and not in vs or by that that we do for our selues But to the matter he telleth vs that it is a phrase vnheard of among Catholikes that any man is his owne sauiour Which we confesse as touching the phrase and word but yet by their doctrine they do in truth make a man his owne Sauiour If they should so say in words they well know that all Christian eares would abhorre them and many that now admire them would spit in their faces and account them accursed and damnable hypocrites who vnder pretence of doing honour vnto Christ do rob him of his honour and bereaue him of the truth of that name wherein the Soueraigntie of his glory doth consist therefore they forbeare the words though that which they teach is the same in effect as if they sayd so It is commonly knowne that the effect is alwayes attributed to that which is the immediate and neerest efficient cause We say in Philosophie Sol homo generant hominem The sunne and a man do beget a man because by the vegetation and influence of the Sunne and heauenly powers it is deemed that a man hath power to beget a man Yet we know that the Sunne or the heauen is not called the father of the child but onely the man by whom the child is begotten So is it therefore in the matter that we haue here in hand M. Bishop saith that God a Of merits sect 1. freely bestoweth his grace vpon vs in Baptisme but all that arriue to the yeares of discretion must by the good vse of the same grace either merit life or for want of such fruit of it fall into the miserable state of death God then giueth vs whereof to doe it but we our selues of that which God giueth must effect and deserue our owne saluation Therefore M. Bishop againe compareth the grace of God to a b Ibid. sect 3. Farme which the father bestoweth vpon his sonne who of the commodities that arise of the good vsage thereof groweth to be able to make a further purchase at his fathers hands euen of any thing that his father will set to sale In which case the father cannot be said to be the purchaser or to make the purchase for the sonne but the sonne is the purchaser for himselfe though by that which his father gaue him through the well ordering of it he became able to make the purchase Seeing then that Christ doth onely giue vs that whereof we our selues are to raise merits to deserue and purchase saluation as they teach it must needes follow by their doctrine that Christ is made the more remote and antecedent cause but we our selues are properly and immediatly the true causes of our owne saluation Howsoeuer therefore they vse not the phrase yet they teach the thing it selfe that Christ is not our Sauiour properly but we our selues by the good vsage of his gifts are the Sauiours of our selues Which absurditie M. Bishop saw that standing to their owne grounds he could by no meanes auoide and therefore is content with Pighius as it seemeth for a present shift to retire into our harbour albeit I verily thinke he vnderstandeth not himselfe nor can tell what meaning to make or that he saith The thing that followeth of the assertion of meritorious works he saith is this that by good workes we apply vnto vs the saluation which is in Christ Iesus as saith he the Protestants auouch they do by faith onely But he should here haue told vs how his meaning is that this saluation is in Christ For if he meane as commonly he doth that it is in Christ because God for Christs sake giueth vs grace whereby to merit and deserue our saluation then he dallieth altogether and mocketh his Reader as if he should say It followeth not of the position of meritorious
savv nothing in himselfe to hinder his Iustification yet God vvho hath sharper eye-fight might espie some iniquitie in him and therefore durst not the Apostle affirme himselfe to be iustified as if he should say if there be no other fault in me in Gods sight then I can find by mine owne insight I am iustified because I am guiltie of nothing and so the place proueth rather the vncertaine knowledge of our Iustification as I haue before shewed But M. Perkins addeth that vve must remember that vve shall come to iudgement vvhere rigour of iustice shall be shewed We knovv it vvell but vvhen there is no condemnation to those that by Baptisme be purged from Originall sinne Pag. 28. as he confesseth himselfe the Apostle to teach in our consents about Originall sinne vvhat then needeth any iustified man greatly feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge And Saint Paul saith himselfe in the person of the iust That he had runne a good race c. and therefore there was a crowne of iustice layd vp for him by that iust iudge and not onely to him but all them that loue Christs comming And concerning both Inherent iustice and the abilitie of it to fulfill the law and what law heare this one sentence of S. Augustine Serm. 18. de verb. Apost He that beleeueth in him he hath not that iustice which is of the law albeit the law be good but he shall fulfill the law not by iustice which he hath of himselfe but which is giuen of God for charitie is the fulfilling of the law and from him is this charitie powred into our hearts not certainly by our selues but by the holy Ghost which is giuen vs. R. ABBOT There is none so readie to call harlot as is the harlot none so readie to obiect cosinage to another as he that is the cosiner himselfe I pray thee gentle Reader whether wilt thou rather thinke to be the cosiner him that saith that the Apostle saying I am not thereby iustified doth meane as he saith I am not thereby iustified or him that will make thee beleeue that the Apostle thereby meaneth I cannot tell whether I be iustified or no. Indeede cosiners commonly vse colours and labour for craftie and cleanly conueyance but M. Bishop is none of those that make daintie of the matter he sticketh not in euerie mans sight to cut the purse that which in euerie mans eyes is expresly denied he maketh no bones at all to turne into a matter of question and doubt The place hath bene sufficiently handled in the former question a Sect. 12. Of the Certaintie of Saluation here I will onely set downe what Gregorie Bishop of Rome conceiued of this place b Greg. Moral lib. 5. cap. 8 Sape ipsa iustitia nostra ad examen diuinae iustitiae deducta iniustitia est sordet in districtiene iudicis quod in aestimatione fulgeâ— operantis Oft times saith he our verie Righteousnesse being brought to the examination of the Righteousnesse of God is vnrighteousnesse and it is loathsome in the seueritie of the iudge vvhich in the opinion of the vvorker shineth bright Whereupon Saint Paul when he sayd I am guiltie to my selfe in nothing by and by added but I am not iustified thereby Who forthwith insinuating the cause vvhy he vvas not iustified saith But he that iudgeth me is the Lord. c Acsi dicat Idcirco in eo quòd nihil mihi conscius sum iustificatum me abnego quia ab eo quime iudicat examinari me subtiliùs sâ—to As if he should say Therefore doe I denie my selfe to be iustified by my being guiltie of nothing because I know my selfe to be more neerely sifted by him that iudgeth me c. d Quia ipsa nostra perfectis culpa non caret nisi hanc seueâ—us iudex in subtilâ— lance examinâ— misericorditèr penset Because euen our perfection is not vvithout fault vnlesse the seuere iudge do vvith mercie vvaigh it in the strict ballance of his examination Againe he saith of the same place e Ibid. cap. 23. Districtionem diuinae iustitiae contemplantes etiam de ipsis operib iure pertimescimus quaenos fortia egisse putabamus Ducta namque ad internam regulaÌ„ nostra rectitudo si districtum in dicium inuenit multis tortitudinum suarum sinibus in intimam rectitudinem impingit Beholding the strictnesse of Gods iustice vve are iustly afraide of those very vvorkes which we thought we did with strength For our Righteousnesse being brought to the internall rule if it find seuere iudgement by many creekes of wryings and turnings offendeth against the most inward or perfect Righteousnesse Whence the Apostle Paul seeing himselfe to haue the bones that is euen the strength of vertues and yet these bones of his did tremble at strict examination saith I am guiltie to my selfe in nothing yet am I not thereby iustified f Acsi diceret Recta egisse me recolo attamen demeritis non praesumo quia ad eius examen vita nostra ducitur sub quo nostrae fortitudinis ossa turbantur As if he should say I remember I haue done the things that be right but yet I presume not of any merit because our life is brought to the censure of him before vvhom the verie bones of our strength are troubled Thus by the iudgement of him whose iudgement M. Bishop by no meanes may refuse S. Paul plainely denieth himselfe to be iustified because though he knew nothing by himselfe yet he had to do with him who in his very best workes much more in many secret sinnes could find sufficient to condemne him And this is the true meaning of those words that howsoeuer a man if it be so know nothing by himselfe yet the Lord hath matter enough against euery man that he may be iustified in that which he hath sayd g Psal 143.2 that no man liuing shall be iustified in his sight But yet the same Apostle who here saith of himselfe I know nothing by my selfe namely as touching any vnfaithfulnesse in the stewardship that God had committed vnto him which was the matter spoken of yet in other respect found cause to say of himselfe h Rom. 7.14 I am carnall sold vnder sinne i Vers 19. I do not the good which I would but the euill which I would not that do I. k Vers 23. I see another law in my members rebelling against the law of my mind and leading me captiue to the law of sinne that is in my members O wretched man that I am who shall deliuer me from the body of this death So that here is a further fault committed by M. Bishop in that he vrgeth the words of the Apostle as simply and generally true which were meant onely respectiuely as if he had absolutely sayd that he knew nothing at all against himselfe when he meant it as touching any default in his seruice and charge that
thou shalt find in it the marrow and pith of many large volumes contracted and drawne into a narrow roome And reade it ouer as it becometh a good Christian with a desire to find out and to follow the truth because it concerneth thy eternall saluation and then iudge without partialitie whether Religion hath better grounds in Gods word more euident testimony from the purest antiquitie and is more conformable vnto all godlinesse good life and vpright dealing the infallible marks of the best Religion and spedily embrace that Before I end this short preface I must intreate thy patience to beare with the faults in printing which are too too many but not so much to be blamed if it be courteously considered that it was printed farre from the Author with a Dutch composer and ouer seene by an vnskilfull Corrector the greatest of them shall be amended in the end of the booke Before the printing of this part was finished I heard that M. Perkins was dead I am sorte that it commeth forth too late to do him any good Yet his worke liuing to poyson others a preseruatiue against it is neuer the lesse necessary R. ABBOT IF you had respected the glorie of God M. Bishop it should haue appeared by your respect to yeeld soueraigne honour and authoritie to the word of God God is in heauen and we are vpon the earth we haue no knowledge of him no acquaintance or dealing with him but by his word Therein we seeke him and find him therein he speaketh vnto vs and thereout we learne to speake to him If we haue the word of God God is present with vs if we be without the word of God God himselfe is absent from vs. Therefore by our honour and obedience to the word of God it must appeare that we truly and sincerely intend and seeke for the glorie of God Hereby it appeareth that you M. Bishop in this your booke haue not fought for the glorie of God but rather to glorifie a Extrauag Ioan 12. Cū inter in glossa Credere dominum Deum nostrum Papam sic non potuisse statuere c. haereticum censeretur your Lord God the Pope as your Glosse of the Canon law most blasphemously hath stiled him You haue in this worke of yours vsed all maner of vntruth and falshood to vphold and iustifie his wicked proceedings against the word of God Whatsoeuer God hath taught vs whatsoeuer Christ and his Apostles haue deliuered all is nothing if your Lord God the Pope and your master Bellarmine his proctor generall do say the contrary Howsoeuer simply and plainly they speake yet they meane not as they speake if the Pope and Bellarmine will tell you another meaning As for your talent we take it to be greater in your owne opinion and the opinion of your fellowes then it is indeed But whatsoeuer it is you haue abused it to the wrong of him that gaue it not to edification but to destruction not to fortifie any in the faith but to nourish and harden them that depend vpon you in error and misbeleefe not to leade any into the right way but to intice men to b Prou. 2.15 crooked wayes and leud paths which c Ch. 7.27 go downe to the chambers of death and the end whereof is confusion and shame not to withdraw men from fancies but to draw them to other fancies from fancies in conuersation to fancies in religion that so being fed wholy with fancies they may perish in the end for want of true food And indeed men that wander in fancies are the subiect for your malice and trechery to work vpon Many that liue in the oportunitie of the knowledge of Christ yet neglect and despise the same The light shineth into their eyes and they regard it not God offereth himselfe vnto them and they say in their hearts We haue no delight nor pleasure in thee Therefore being emptie and voide of truth they lie open to be filled with error and lies and hauing vnthankfully withholden themselues from God God by iust iudgement giueth them ouer to the hands of impostors and deceiuers that it may be verified which the Apostle saith d 2. Thess 2 1◠Because they receiued not the loue of the truth that they might be saued therefore God shall send them strong delusion that they may beleeue lies that they may be damned which beleeued not the truth but tooke pleasure in vnrighteousnesse Your friend of good intelligence and iudgement that thought it very expedient that you should take in hand the confutation of M. Perkins booke spake thereof haply as Caiphas did of the death of Christ meaning it one way which was to fall out another way I doubt not but it will fall out to haue bene very expedient which you haue done because you giue hereby occasion of discouering your false doctrine and of iustifying the truth of Christ which M. Perkins was carefull to maintaine I doubt not but many by this occasion will take knowledge of your corrupt and trecherous dealing your patching and shifting your cosening and deluding of men and will discerne the weaknesse and absurdity of that bad cause which with glorious and goodly words you labour so highly to aduance As for your commendation of M. Perkins booke it is but the imitation of some vaine-glorious captains who to grace their owne victories do set out to the vttermost the aduersaries power and prowesse thinking their glory to be the greater by how much the greater men shall conceiue the might and valour of them to haue bene whom they haue ouercome You dreamed of a victorie here and you thought it to be much for your commendation that your aduersary should be deemed of as great strength as any is to be found amongst vs. But we would haue you to vnderstand that the Church of England neuer tooke M. Perkins booke to be a warriour in complete harnesse or a chalenger for the field but onely as a captaine training his souldiers at home where he wanteth much of that munition and defence wherewith he should endure the brunt of battell He wrote it very schollerlike indeed for an introduction onely to the true vnderstanding and iudgement of the controuersies betwixt vs and you but knew well that it wanted much that might haue bene added to giue it ful and perfect strength You haue taken hereof some aduantage as you conceiue and yet how pitifully are you distressed many times both to vphold that which he obiecteth for you and to answer that which he alledgeth for vs. Now if for the compiling of his booke he bestirred himselfe as the Bee going into other mens gardens for the gathering of hony into his hiue yet he made no Rabbines of them to take any thing for hony because it grew in the garden of such or such a man but vsed carefull and aduised consideration of that which he wrote esteeming the weight of his arguments and of his answers that he might
a maintainer of the true faith be must needes be a scatterer He could not be of Christ that refused them that tooke part with Christ and therefore must be of Antichrist In this respect he renounced Vitalis Milesius and Paulinus because n Erasm schol ibid. they were all either knowne or suspected to be partakers of the heresie of Arius and therefore very deceitfully doth M. Bishop alledge that he would not set vp his rest with his owne Bishop Paulinus who was no meane man but the Patriarch of Antioch as hereby to adde a superioritie to the Bishop of Rome when as there was otherwise so apparant cause why he should refuse so to do In all this therefore Hierome saith no more of the Bishop and Church of Rome then he might haue said of any other Bishop and Church professing true faith and doctrine as the Church of Rome then did but very farre was he from teaching or intending any perpetuall necessitie that all Churches for euer should conforme themselues to the Church of Rome And that he neuer had any such meaning let it appeare by himselfe when being vrged with the example of the Church of Rome he answereth o Hieron Epist. ad Euagr. Quid mihi profers vntus vrbis consuetudinem quid paucitatem de qua ortum est supercilium in leges Ecclesiae vindicas What dost thou bring to me the custome of one citie why dost thou maintaine a paucitie or fewnesse whence hath growne proud vsurping vpon the lawes of the Church He had said a little before p Ibid. Si autoritas quaeritur orbis maior est vrbe Vbicunque fuerit Episcopus siue Romae siue Eugubij siue CoÌ„stantinopoli siue Rhegij siue Alexandriae siue Tanis eiusdem meriti est eiusdeÌ„ sacerdotij Potentia diuitiaruÌ„ pauperiatis humilitas sâ—l linuorem vel inferiorem EpiscopuÌ„ non facit caeterùm omnes Apostolorum successores sunt If we demaund authority the world is greater then the citie Wheresoeuer a Bishop be whether of Rome or of Eugubium whether at Constantinople or at Rhegium whether at Alexandria or at Tanes he is of the same worth and of the same office of Bishopricke Power of wealth or basenesse of pouertie maketh a Bishop neither higher nor lower but they are all successors of the Apostles Thus he spake purposely in derogation of the Church of Rome charging the same with proud domineering ouer the lawes of the Church affirming the authoritie of the Churches through the world to be greater then the authority of the Church of Rome attributing to euery Bishop of whatsoeuer place equalitie in office with the Bishop of Rome because all are alike successors of the Apostles Yea and to shew that the Church of Rome receiued no more by Peter then other Churches did by the rest of the Apostles he saith in another place that q Idem adu Iouin lib. 1. At dicis super PetruÌ„ fit datur Ecclesia liceta idipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat cuncti claues regni coelerum accipiant ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidatur the Church is built vpon all the Apostles and they all receiue the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and the strength of the Church is equally grounded vpon them Whereby it plainely appeareth that Hierome neuer meant to make the Church of Rome any such perpetuall Mistris and ruler of other Churches as M. Bishop dreameth her to be Yea but S. Ambrose further saith I desire in all things to follow the Church of Rome But why did M. Bishop giue ouer there not adde also that that followeth r Ambros de Sacram lib. 3. cap. â— In omnibus cupio sequi Romanâ—m Ecclesiam sed tamen nos homines sensum habentus ideo quod alibi rectiùs seruatur nos rectè custodimus I desire saith he in all things to follow the Church of Rome but yet we are also men that haue vnderstanding and therefore what is more rightly obserued otherwhere we also iustly obserue the same S. Ambrose being Bishop of Millaine not farre from Rome sheweth that he yeelded a reuerend respect vnto the Church of Rome but yet professeth that things might be better in other places then they were at Rome and that his Church of Millaine had vnderstanding to iudge what was fit aswell as the Church of Rome and therefore that they held not themselues tyed by any necessarie dutie to the example thereof but would do what they thought more rightly performed in any other Church Now then what shall we thinke of M. Bishop who thus shamefully seeketh to blind his reader by alledging one part of a sentence for his purpose when the other part thereof expresly crosseth that for which he alledgeth it And thus much concerning M. Bishops answer to M. Perkins Prologue For the rest I will God willing follow him in like sort steppe by steppe according to his owne words in more honest and faithfull manner then he hath dealt with M. Perkins and that in such sort I hope as that the meaner learned shall vnderstand that the learning which he would teach them is naught and the more iudicious shall be able to iudge that it is a very bad cause to which the marrow and pith of many large volumes can yeeld no better defence then he hath brought CHAPTER 1. OF FREE WILL. 1. W. BISHOP THat I be not thought captious but willing to admit any thing that M. Perkins hath sayd agreeable to the truth I will let his whole text in places indifferent passe paring off onely superfluous words with adding some annotations where it shall be needfull and rest onely vpon the points in controuersie First then concerning Free will wherewith he beginneth thus he saith Free will both by them and vs is taken for a mixt power in the mind and will of man whereby discerning what is good and what is euill he doth accordingly chuse or refuse the same Annot. If we would speake formally it is not a mixt power in the mind and will but is a free facultie of the mind and will onely whereby we chuse or refuse supposing in the vnderstanding a knowledge of the same before But let this definition passe as more popular M. Perkins 1. Conclusion Man must be considered in a fourefold estate as he was created as he was corrupted as he is renued as he shall be glorified In the first state we ascribe vnto mans will libertie of nature in which he could will or will either good or euill note that this libertie proceeded not from his owne nature but of originall Iustice in which he was created In the third libertie of grace in the last libertie of glorie Annot. Cary this in mind that here he granteth man in the state of grace to haue Free will R. ABBOT MAister Bishop here dealeth as iuglers are wont to do who make shew of faire play when they vse nothing but
2. ex Hilar. in Psal 118. Gimel Nos in hoc terreni morti câ—â— corporis habitaculo mundos esse non posse that we cannot be cleane in the tabernacle of this earthly and carion body x Jbid. ex homil quadam de lib. sancti Iob. Memores conscuÌ„ illa ipsa corpora vitiorum omniuÌ„ esse materiem pro quae polluti sordidi ni il in nebis munâ—uÌ„ nihil innotens obâ—inemus that our bodies are the matter of all vices by reason whereof being polluted and defiled we haue nothing in vs innocent nothing cleane not as to condemne the substance of the bodie die but y Ibid. pugnandi necistias contra malum non sub stantiam sed sub stantie vitium vitium substantiae the vitious quality of the substance and to signifie that therewith we still continue in part stained and defiled so long as we continue vpoÌ„ the earth Now there is nothing wherby we are vncleane polluted defiled but onely sinne Seeing therfore by the remainder of Original sinne that is by concupiscence we continue after baptisme vncleane polluted defiled it followeth necessarily that co câ—piscence after baptisme is properly and truly sinne And if concupiscence be not sinne without consent then by S. Austines iudgement the Apostles must be said to liue without sinne For he affirmeth of them that they were z Contr. duas Epist Pelag. lib. 1. cap 11. Apostolos dicimus à prauorum libidinum consensione liberos c. free from any consent to euil lusts meaning it after they had receiued that great measure of the holy Ghost And so much he affirmeth particularly of the Apostle a Ju Joan. tract 41. Faciebat vt concupiscentia non consentiret Vide Bernard in Cantic Ser. 56. Paul But to affirme that the Apostles were free from sinne is b De nat grat cap 36. Omnes sancti si interrogari potuissent vna voce clamassent si dixerimus quia peccatum non habeâ—â—â—â— c. contrary to the doctrine of S. Austine Concupiscence therfore by S. Austines iudgement must necessarily be sinne And hereto agree also the iudgements of the rest of the Fathers Cyprian calleth it in the regenerate c Cypri de rat circumcis Huius contagio corruptelae Babyloniae fornax domesticum malum de quo â—ruhescent quicunque mundè corde regere in decore suo videre desiderant insaniens bestia corrupti anhelitus catenis ferreis in vltimis animae recessibus alliganda a corruption the fornace of Babylon a domesticall euill of which they will be ashamed who desire with pure heart to see the king in his beautie a raging beast of stinking breath to be tied vp with iron chaines in the furthest passages of the soule He saith againe of the d Idem de teiun et tentat Christi Nec originali nec personali nec personalicaeruere delicto holy Prophets and Priests that they wanted neither Originall nor personall sinne and thereby confesseth that in holy men Originall sinne continueth still Ambrose calleth concupiscence euen in the regenerate e Ambros de Apol. Dauid ca. 11. Deplorauit in se Dauid inquinamenta naturae Et ibid. cap. 13. Iniquitas operatrix cuâ—pae delicti radix seminarium peccatorum mala radix affectus erroris a defilement of nature iniquitie the worker of default and trespasse the seed-plot of sinnes an euill roote an affection of errour Bernard in the like sort calleth it f Bern. de sex tribulat Quod in homine pimum ab hac macula immune ab hoc contagio poterit inueniri Tribulatio dum resistirur contaminationi concupisceÌ„tiae repugnatur De corde exit pestiferum virus Huic multisariae pesti resistere Fomes totius nequitiae Fornax ambitionis c omnium denique vittorum affectibus vehementer acceâ—sa a contamination a blot a contagion a pestilent poyson a manifold pestilence the cherishment of all naughtinesse a fornace strongly burning with the affections of ambition auarice enuie wilfulnesse lewdnesse and all vices He againe maketh it euen by it selfe g Bernar in Cant. ser 56. Pauli animae ab aspecta complexu dilecti vnus tantummodo paries obsistebat videlices lex peccati Ipsa est carnis concupescentia c. paries primus concupiscentia secundus consâ—nsus c. a wall which so long as it is in vs excludeth and shutteth vs out from God as of Paul for example he saith that this one wall hindered his soule from the sight and embracing of his beloued Sauiour By all which the Reader may esteeme what consciences they had in the Councell of Trent that set it downe to the world as an article to be beleeued that concupiscence is h Concil Triden Sess 5. In renatis nihil quod odit Deus nihil ab ingressu coeli remoratur not a thing that God hateth that it is not a thing that hindereth from entring into heauen These speeches cannot be thus applied to any thing but sinne We haue no cause to be ashamed of any thing before God but onely sinne God cannot but hate all spirituall corruption all filthinesse all iniquitie all contagion and vncleannesse of the soule and seeing concupiscence is a wall that shutteth vs out from God it must needs be sinne because nothing can diuide vs from God but onely sinne Now therefore as touching the two places which M. Bishop citeth in the second section wherein S. Austin denieth concupiscence to be sinne the answer is plaine by Austin himselfe i De nupt Concupis lib. 2. cap. 34. Quia remissa est in remissione peccatorum non iam regeneratis in peccatum reputatur because it is forgiuen to the regenerate by remission of sinnes it is not now reputed to them for sinne It is sinne in it owne nature but because the guilt thereof is pardoned therefore and in that respect onely it is not accounted sinne And hereby the answer is plaine to that other cauill which they borrow also from S. Austin that k Epist 200. Si nocti eorum adhiberemus assensum non esset vnde diceremus patri nostro qui in coelis est Dimitte nobis c. for concupiscence or the desires and motions thereof we do not say forgiue vs our trespasses so long as we giue no consent vnto them For the reason that S. Austin giueth of that assertion is l Cont. 2. epist Pelag lib. 1. cap. 13. Nec propter ipsam cuius iam reatus lauaecro regenerationis absumptus est dicunt in oratione Baptizati Dimitte nobis c. Et cont lit Petil. lib. 2. ca. 103. Neque de his peccatis hoc petimus quae nobis in Baptismo taem dimissa sunt because the guilt thereof is alreadie taken away in Baptisme because the same are alreadie forgiuen and pardoned in Baptisme thereby insinuating that concupiscence and the motions thereof in themselues are such as for which we should say forgiue
we will any thing by how much the more certainly we know how good it is and more earnestly are delighted therein Therefore ignorance and infirmitie the one in the vnderstanding and the other in the will it selfe being the p De nataet grat cap. 67. Paenalia omni animae ignorantia difficultas two penalties of euery soule of man are defaults or corruptions hindering the will both in the doing of that that is good and eschewing of that that is euill So long then as these defaults of ignorance and infirmity do remaine so long there cannot be a perfect rectifying of the will But ignorance and infirmity are not taken away in baptisme Therefore baptisme doth not wholly take away the deordination of the will Of the former of these it is manifest which S. Ambrose saith q Ambros in Psal 118. ser 3. Omnes sanctem vmbra sunt quamdus sunt in corpore non perfectè videns sed ex parte cognoscunt All the Saints are in a shadow so long as they are in the body they do not see perfectly but know in part onely He learned it of the Apostle saying r 1. Cor. 13.9 We know in part we prophecy in part we see through a glasse darkly And if it might be so said of the Apostles how much more is it to be vnderstood of the common condition and state of men We cannot but acknowledge much blindnesse much errour much imperfection of knowledge and therefore resolue that the vnderstanding cannot giue due information to the will And so long as we are thus weake in knowledge all other things must needs be vnperfect in vs because we cannot loue beyond that we know nor delight beyond our loue Therefore our loue is vnperfect our desire is vnperfect our delight is vnperfect and yet not onely because our knowledge is vnperfect but also because we haue yet receiued not the perfection but Å¿ Rom. 8.23 the first fruites onely of the spirit by whom all these things are effected in vs. For this cause S. Austine euery where acknowledgeth that this default of infirmity continueth still in the regenerate and that there is not perfect newnesse in the mind and inner man as we haue seene before by reason whereof the will is distracted and diuided in it selfe and by one motion of it selfe fighteth against another whilest t August in Ioan. tract 81. supra sect 1. we will one way because we be in Christ and will another way because as yet we are in this world Now sith there is not by baptisme perfection of knowledge to direct the will and the will it selfe by corruption yet remaining is infirme and weake to the loue and delight of the law of God it cannot be but absurdly said which M. Bishop saith that the will in baptisme is fully rectified and set in order againe towards the law of God Or if the meaning be that it is rectified and set in order but yet not fully and perfectly then he saith as we say that the deordination of the will continueth yet still in part and because sinne consisteth in the deordination of the will therefore sinne by baptisme is not altogether and wholly done away Thus we see him very hardly bested that making choise himselfe yet he cannot find one corner where he can in safetie shrowd himselfe 13. W. BISHOP 4. Obiect Lastly saith M. Perkins for our disgrace they alledge that we in our Doctrine teach that Originall sinne after baptisme is onely clipped or pared like the haire of a mans head whose roots remaine in the flesh growing and encreasing after they be cut as before His answer is that they teach in the very first instant of the conuersion of a sinner sinne to receiue his deadly wound in the root neuer after to be recouered Conferre this last answer with his former Doctrine good Reader and thou maist learne what credit is to be giuen to such Masters no more constant then the wind Here sinne is deadly wounded in the root there it remaineth still with all the guiltinesse of it although not imputed there it still maketh the man to sinne intangleth him in the punishment of sinne and maketh him miserable All this be comprehended before in this first reason and yet blusheth not here to conclude that he holdeth it at the first Neither clipped nor pared but pulled vp by the roots In deed they do him a fauour who say that he holdeth sinne to be clipped and as it were razed for albeit haire razed grow out againe yet is there none for a season but this Originall sinne of his is alwaies in his regenerate in vigour to corrupt all his works and to make them deadly sinnes But let this suffice for this matter R. ABBOT This obiection they haue borowed of the Pelagian heretikes who altogether denying Originall sinne and acknowledging onely sinnes actuall by voluntary imitation and custome defended that those being pardoned and forgiuen in baptisme a man was made fully and perfectly without sinne When therefore the Catholike Bishops and Pastours of the Church did teach that after baptisme there was concupiscence still remaining whence did grow euill motions and lusts tempting and entising to sinne and wickednesse they hereupon fell to cauilling in this sort that a August cont duas epist Pelag lib. 1. cap. 13. supra sect 9. sinnes then were not wholly remitted and that baptisme did not take away sinnes but onely pare them and shaue them so as that the rootes did still stick whence other sinnes should grow againe in like sort to be cut off Now this Saint Austine denieth and teacheth that baptisme giueth to the regenerate b Dicimus baptisma dare omnium indulgentiam peccatorum auferre crimina non radere vt omnium peccatorum raâ—ices in mala carne teneantur remission and release of all sinnes and doth not pare of faults crimina faults of behauiour and conuersation but doth wholly take them away because of actuall sinnes which onely and no other they acknowledged there remaineth nothing when the same are forgiuen and pardoned c Sed de ista carnis coâ—upiscentiae falli eos credo vel fallere cum qui necesse est vt etiam baptizatus et hic si diligentissimè proficit et spiritu dei agitur pea mente confligat But as touching concupiscence saith he I hold that they are deceiued and do deceiue others with which the regenerate hath still to fight albeit he haue well profited and be guided by the spirit of God Yet this he saith is no sinne to him that is it is not imputed for sinne because the guilt thereof drawen by generation is remitted and forgiuen by regeneration Now this concupiscence as S. Ambrose saith is d Ambros Apolog Dauid cap. 13. mala radix an euill root e August de verb. Dom. serm 12. radix omnium malorum the root of all euils saith Austine euen as charity is the root of all
though in regard of our selues our own indisposition we cannot THE DISSENT 1. VVE hold that a man may be certaine of his saluation in his owne conscience euen in this life and that by an ordinarie and speciall faith They hold that a man is Certaine of his Saluation only by hope both hold a Certainty we by faith they by hope 2. We say our Certaintie is infallible they that it is onely probable 3 Our confidence in Gods mercy in Christ commeth frō certaine and ordinary faith theirs from hope False Thus much of the difference now let vs come to the reasons to and fro R. ABBOT In this first diuision M. Bishop giueth vs onely some briefe notes which need not to be stood vpon In the third conclusion he denieth their agreement with vs but if he vnderstand it as M. Perkins doth of ordinary assurance he had no cause to denie it For seeing in the first conclusion of dissent he graunteth Certainty or assurance by hope and requireth therewith doubting yea affirmeth still that it cannot be without doubting what reason had he to denie the conclusion being indifferently propounded of assurance afterwards more particularly to be distinguished but that he well knew not what he was to say But in that conclusion he should haue taken knowledge what manner of Certainty or assurance of Saluation it is that we teach not such as whereby a man is meerely secure and made absolutely out of doubt but such as many times is assaulted and shaken with many difficulties and feares and doubts which oft do intricate and perplexe the soule of the righteous and faithfull man Which notwithstanding arise not of the nature and condition of faith as if it ought so to be but of the frailty and corruption of our euill nature by reason whereof faith is not such as it ought to be For the true and proper worke of faith is to giue to the beleeuer a stedfast and vnmoueable assurance of the loue of God that he may fully enioy the comfort thereof without interruption or let and whatsoeuer is aduerse and contrary to this assurance and comfort is to be accounted the enemie of faith Therefore it is not the office of faith to cherish and maintaine such feares and doubts but to resist them to fight against them and so much as is possible to expell them and driue them out But yet by reason of the strength of our naturall corruption and the weakenesse of our faith we attaine not to this and how much the weaker our faith is so much are we the further from it So that the case standeth betwixt faith and doubting as it doth betwixt righteousnesse and sinne For there is true righteousnesse in the faithfull and sometimes it mightily preuaileth and the conscience euen gratulateth it selfe and reioyceth in the vse and practise thereof But anone it beginneth to find defect the temptations of sinne iustle it aside the man stumbleth falleth and the light whereby he shined before as a starre in the firmament becommeth eclipsed and darkned and he seemeth to himselfe not to be the man that he was before Neither doth this seldome fall out but euen daily is there a vicissitude and change by turnes euery day bringing his griefes of infirmity and weaknesse and sometimes giuing occasion of great lamentation and mourning by great and grieuous trespasse against God and men But God that a 2. Cor. 4.6 commaundeth the light to shine out of darknesse and can of a poison make a preseruatiue turneth these infirmities to their good making them by experience of sinne to loue righteousnesse the more and to become more wise and warie against temptation and in rising to take the better heed not to fall againe Euen in like sort the case standeth with the assurance of faith wherein is a comfortable testimonie of the loue of God towards vs which we receiue as b 1. Kings 19.7.8 Elias did his meate from the hands of the Angel securing our selues to go in the strength thereof vnto the mount of God and that c 1. Pet. 1.5 thereby we shall be kept through the power of God vnto that saluation which is prepared to be shewed in the last time But yet in the course thereof there is much variety and change by reason that we apprehend not this assurance directly and immediatly as a principle but by consequence and collection as a conclusion so that being subiect to alteration in the apprehending of the premisses there must necessarily be an alteration in the apprehending of the conclusion Our eies are not alwaies alike intent to the word of God we do not alwaies alike conceiue the promises of God nay temptation sometimes hideth them out of our sight The effects of grace do not alwaies appeare the same yea sometimes they seeme to be quite ouerwhelmed with contrarie effects Moreouer in nature it selfe is a voluntary shrinking and relinquishing of the comfort of faith through the seeds of vnbeleefe that originally are sowen in vs so that the ground of our owne hearts is euery while casting vp obiections and questions as mire and dirt to trouble d Iohn 7.38 the spring of the waters of life that they runne not so pure and cleare as otherwise they should do By all which occasions it commeth to passe that the daies of faith are as the daies of the yeare some faire some foule one while a sunne-shine sommer another while a long and tedious winter sometimes no more but a storme and away one while cast downe as it were to hell another while seeming to be as it were in the courts of heauen where is assured standing and no falling sometimes labouring and strugling some other times triumphantly reioycing but in all perplexities and distractions conceiuing still what it hath felt and striuing to attaine to the same againe And as a child affrighted runneth to the father looking for defence and helpe of him euen so in the middest of all feares and temptations faith is stil running vnto God stil importuning of him calling vpon him expostulating with him casting it selfe stil vpon him depending vpon his aid and expecting of him that things become otherwise then presently they are and seldome going so farre but that it seeth a glimse at least of light in darknesse of hope in despaire of comfort in distresse of life in death of heauen in hell or if it loose the sight thereof yet recouereth it soone againe Of all which we see pregnant example in the distresses and temptations of the Saints which for our instruction and comfort are recommended vnto vs in the word of God And this God doth to the intent that being in some sort for the time put off from him we may take the faster hold when we returne againe that the tast of his loue may be the sweeter and our ioy thereof the greater when out of these flouds of temptations we arriue vnto it that e Rom. 5.3 affliction may bring forth
BEcause M. Perkins sets not downe well the Catholikes opinion I will helpe him out both with the preparation and Iustification it selfe and that taken out of the Councell of Trent Where the very words concerning preparation are these Sess 6. c. 6. Men are prepared and disposed to this iustice when being stirred vp helped by Gods grace they conceiuing faith by hearing are freely moued towards God beleeuing those things to be true which God doth reueale and promise namely that he of his grace doth iustifie a sinner through the redemption that is in Christ Iesus And when knowledging themselues to be sinners through the feare of Gods iudgements they turne themselues to consider the mercie of God are lifted vp into hope trusting that God wil be mercifull vnto them for Christs sake and beginning to loue him as the fountaine of all iustice are thereby moued with hatred and detestation of all sins Finally they determine to receiue baptisme to begin a new life and to keepe all Christs commandements After this disposition or preparation followeth Iustification and for that euery thing is best knowne by the causes of it all the causes of Iustification are deliuered by the Councell in the next Chapter which briefly are these The finall cause of the Iustification of a sinner is the glory of God the glory of Christ and mans owne Iustification the efficient is God the meritorious Christ Iesus Passions the instrumental is the Sacrament of Baptisme the onely formall cause is inherent iustice that is Faith Hope and Charity with the other gifts of the Holy Ghost powred into a mans soule at that instant of Iustification Of the Iustification by faith and the second Iustification shall be spoken in their places So that we agree in this point that Iustification commeth of the free grace of God through his infinite mercies and the merits of our Sauiours Passion and that all sinnes when a man is iustified be pardoned him The point of difference is this that the Protestants hold that Christs Passion and obedience imputed vnto vs becommeth our righteousnesse for the words of iustice and iustification they seldome vse and not any righteousnesse which is in our selues The Catholikes affirme that those vertues powred into our soules speaking of the formal cause of Iustification is our iustice that through that a man is iustified in Gods sight accepted to life euerlasting Although as you haue seene before we hold that God of his meere mercy through the merits of Christ Iesus our Sauiour hath freely bestowed that iustice on vs. Note that M. Perkins comes too short in his second rule when he attributeth the merits of Christs sufferings to obedience whereas obedience if it had bene without charity would haue merited nothing at Gods hands R. ABBOT The doctrine of the Councell of Trent concerning preparation to Iustification is the very heresie of the Pelagians as may appeare by that that before hath bene said thereof in the question of a Sect. 5. Free will Out of the free will of man only stirred vp and helped by grace b Coster Enchirid cap 5. Haec gratia impulsus tantum motio spiritus s adhuc foris degentis liberum arbitrium auxilio Dei necdum inhabitantis sed mâ—uâ—nus adiunantis se praeparat ad iustificationem not any intrinsecall or infused but only outwardly assisting grace which is no more but what Pelagius himselfe acknowledged they deriue faith hope loue repentance the feare of God the hatred of sinne and purpose of new life whereby he prepareth and disposeth himselfe to receiue in his Iustification another faith hope charity and other gifts of the holy Ghost then to be powred into his soule Whereby though they will not seeme so to do yet indeed they runne into the affirming of that which if Pelagius had not denied condemned he had bene condemned himselfe c August epist 206 gratiam Dei secundum merita nostra dari that the grace of God is bestowed vpon vs according to our merits In which sort Bellarmine saith that d Bellarm. de Iustificat lib. 1. cap. 1â— Fides â—ustificat per moduÌ„ dispositioâ—is merin meretur remissionem peccateruÌ„ suo quodam modo faith iustifieth by way of merit that faith in it manner doth merit forgiuenesse of sinnes applying thereto some speâ—ches of Austine which to that purpose were neuer meant In seâ—â—ing downe the causes of Iustification out of the Councell he committeth an absurd errour in saying that the finall cause of the iustification of a sinner is mans owne Iustification as if it selfe could be the final cause of â—â—eâ—fe whereas the Councel nameth in steed thereof eternall life Whereâ—â— he saith that they agree with vs in this point that Iustification 〈◊〉 of the free grace of God through his in◠〈…〉 our Sauiours Passion he doth but sop◠〈…〉 For if Iustification be of the free grace of God then it is not of works according to that of the Apostle e Rom. 11.6 If it be of grace it is not of works otherwise grace is no grace But he afterwards professedly disputeth that his works of preparation are the very cause of Iustification It were odious to refuse the name of the free grace of God and therefore formally he nameth it but by the processe of this discourse it will appeare that he meaneth nothing lesse then to make it free That our Iustification and righteousnesse before God standeth not in any inward vertues and graces powred into our soules but in the imputation of Christes obedience and righteousnesse made ours by faith shall be proued vnto him God willing by better arguments then he shall be able to disprooue But that we are not to expect much of him for disproouing he himselfe here sheweth vs by a silly note in which he telleth vs that M. Perkins comes too short in his second rule when he attributeth the merits of Christes sufferings to obedience whereas obedience saith he if it had bene without charity would haue merited nothing at Gods hand Wherein what doth he but giue check to the Apostle in that he saith f Rom. 5.19 By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous For to him he might likewise say that he comes too short in attributing to Christes obedience that many by it are made righteous whereas by his obedience if it had bene without charity many could not haue bene made righteous But the mans simple ignorance appeareth in this diuiding of obedience from charitie whereas charity is the very mother of obedience neither is there any true obedience but what issueth therefrom And therefore M. Perkins well noted though Maister Bishops narrow eyes beheld it not that Christ in his obedience shewed his exceeding loue both to his Father vs. But we must be content to beare with many such idle and bootelesse notes 2. W. BISHOP And whereas M. Perkins doth say that therein we raze the foundation that is
Christ had imposed vpon him Now M. Perkins to take away the opinion of our owne Righteousnesse and to shew that we haue no other but the Righteousnesse of Christ to rest safely vpon alledgeth as Gregorie doth the rigour and seueritie of Gods iudgement which admitteth of nothing but what is exact and perfect according to the rule of iustice prescribed vnto vs. Where M. Bishop sheweth himselfe a verie stupide and senslesse man not moued with the l 2. Cor. 5.11 terrours of the Lord and the dread of that iudgement which the very Angels tremble at We know it well saith he Yea do but what is then your refuge and defence Marrie seeing there is no condemnation to them that by Baptisme be purged from Originall sinne as saith he M. Perkins himselfe confesseth the Apostle to teach what then needeth any iustified man greatly feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge Wherein he notably abuseth M. Perkins for the hiding of his owne shame For neither the Apostle nor M. Perkins do teach that by Baptisme we are purged from Originall sinne but onely that in baptisme it is remitted and pardoned so that though it continue still in vs yet the faithfull are not thereby holden guiltie before God So then by forgiuenesse of sinnes through the imputation of Christs merits and obedience it is that there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ it is not for that there is nothing in them for which otherwise they might iustly be condemned Surely they that rightly know themselues do know that in themselues there is that still being for which God might iustly cast them away if he should iudge them in themselues but their comfort hope is that for Christs sake it is not imputed vnto them that they shall stand before Gods iudgement seate in the veile of his innocencie and most perfect Righteousnesse and in him shall haue eternall life adiudged vnto them But with M. Bishop the case is farre otherwise There is no condemnation because there is nothing worthie of condemnation all iustice all innocencie no impuritie or vncleannesse no more sinne then was in Adam in the state of innocencie as he hath m Sect. 10 before spoken in the question of Originall sinne May we not maruell that an hypocrite should thus securely flatter himselfe being occasioned to bethinke himselfe of that dreadfull and fearefull day We are purged from Originall sinne saith he vvhat needes then any iustified man greatly to feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge But farre otherwise thought Saint Austine when he sayd as we heard before n August epist 29. Cum rex iustus sederit in throne quis gloriabitur se castuÌ„ habere cor aut quis gloriabâ—tur se esse immunem à peccato Quae igitur spes est nisi superexultet miserecordia iudicium When the iust king shall sit vpon his throne vvho shall glorie that he hath a cleane heart or that he is free from sinne What hope then is there saith he vnlesse mercie be exalted aboue iudgement And what in the rest of his life hath the iustified man no cause greatly to feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge no sinne no trespasse for the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge to take any hold of We haue seene before that our best workes will not endure seueritie of iudgement how shall we then quaile by reason of our sinnes S. Austin saith very well o Aug. in Psal 42. Quiâ—unque hic viâ—it quantum libet iuste viuaâ— vae illi sicum illo in iudicium intrauerit Deus Who so liueth here howsoeuer iustly he liue wo vnto him if God enter into iudgement with him And fully answerable hereunto is that which Gregorie saith p Greg. Moral li 8. c. 21 Quantalibet iustitia polleant nequaquam sibi ad iustâ—tiam vel electi sufficieÌ„t si districtè in iudicio requirantur Not the very elect howsoeuer they excell in iustice shal be able to approue themselues innocent if they be narowly sifted in iudgement But most effectuall to the purpose is that of Hierome q Hieron in Esa l. 6. c. 13. Quum dies iudicij vel dormitionis aduenerit dissolueÌ„tur omnes manus quia nâ—llum opus dignum Dei iustitia reperietur c. Omne quoque corâ—siue anima hominis tabescet pauebit conscientia peccati sui When the day of iudgment or of death shall come all hands shal be dissolued because there shal no worke be found vvorthie of the iustice of God neither shall anie man liuing be iustified in his sight Whereupon the Prophet saith O Lord if thou markest iniquities who shall endure it euerie heart and soule of man shall faint and feare by reason of the conscience of his owne sinne And will M. Bishop notwithstanding say what needeth any iustified man greatly feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge The best is that he leaueth no man to make vse of that which he sayeth because he will giue no man leaue to assure himselfe that he is iustified Yet to make his matter good he alledgeth that Sainr Paul saith that he had runne a good race c. and therefore there vvas a crowne of iustice layed vp for him by that iust iudge c. Of which place we would gladly haue knowne how he maketh application to his purpose The Apostle maketh mention of a crowne of iustice layed vp for him and to be rendered vnto him by a iust iudge but he doth not say that he needeth not to feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge God is a iust iudge as well when he iudgeth by lawes of mercie as when he iudgeth by lawes of extremitie as well in the r Rom. 3.27 law of faith as in the law of workes but the rigorous sentence of this iust iudge is onely when he iudgeth by the law of workes By the law of faith God forgiueth and pardoneth he considereth with fauour and Å¿ 2. Cor. 8.12 if there be a vvilling mind it is accepted according to that a man hath not according to that that he hath not and all this he doth as a iust iudge because by law he doth whatsoeuer he doth But in the rigor of the law which is the law of workes he remitteth nothing but requireth all to t Mat. 5.26 the vttermost farthing nothing pleaseth but what is exact and perfect and fully answerable to the rule S. Paul then expected that God as a iust iudge would yeeld vnto him the crowne not by the law of workes but by the law of faith wherein God u Psal 103 4. crowneth in mercy and louing kindnesse because this crowne is a crowne of iustice x Bernard de grat lib. arbit sub finem Corona iustitiae sed iustitiae Dei non suae JustuÌ„ est quippe vt reddat quod debet debet autem quod pollicitus est Et haec est iustitia de quae praesumit Apostolus promissio
Iesus Tit. 3. The like description of our Iustification is in S. Paul Of his mercie he hath saued vs by the lauer of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghost whom he hath powred into vs abundantly through Iesus Christ our Sauiour that being iustified by his grace we may be heires in hope and not in certaintie of faith of life euerlasting Where the Apostle inferring that being iustified by his grace declareth that in the words before he had described the same Iustification to consist in our new birth of Baptisme and the renewing of our soules by the infusion of his heauenly gifts which God of his mercie did bestow vpon vs for his Sonne Christs sake Many other places I omit for breuitie sake and will be content to cite few Fathers because the best learned of our aduersaries do confesse that they be all against them as I haue shewed before De peccat merit remis cap. 15. Epist 85. lib. 12. de Trinit cap. 7. Lib. 6. de Trinit First Saint Augustine saith That this iustice of ours vvhich they call Righteousnesse is the grace of Christ regenerating vs by the holy Ghost and is a beautie of our inward man It is the renewing of the reasonable part of our soule And twentie other such like whereby he manifestly declareth our iustice to be inherent and not the imputed iustice of Christ Let him suffice for the Latine Fathers And Saint Cyril for the Greekes who of our Iustification writeth thus The Spirit is a heate who as soone as he hath powred charitie into vs and hath with the fire of it inflamed our minds we haue euen then obtained iustice R. ABBOT a Eccles 19.24 There is a subtiltie that is fine saith Ecclesiasticus but it is vnrighteous and there is that wresteth the open and manifest law M. Bishop is none of those that deale finely that will cogge by art and will lie and yet not seeme to lie what he doth he will do outright and will lie so as that euerie man may see him to be a liar that he may not be taken for other then indeed he is Tell vs M. Bishop where is it that M. Perkins saith that in heauen we shall haue no other but imputed iustice or Righteousnesse where doth he make any shew or semblance of saying so Fie M. Bishop fie for shame leaue this lying and belying of men a good cause needeth no such meanes for the vpholding of it they that in apparent vntruth see you thus wilfull and shamelesse cannot but take you for a cosiner in all the rest M. Perkins saith that imputed Righteousnesse continueth for euer but doth he say that in heauen there shall be no other who plainely saith that sanctification shall be perfect in the world to come We shall for euer enioy eternall life by vertue of that whereby we are first admitted vnto it because thereby we are admitted to it to enioy it thereby for euer But he who by his merit purchased for vs eternall life purchased for vs also to be made meete for the enioying of it and therefore shall then make vs vnto himselfe b Ephe 5.27 a glorious Church not hauing spot or wrinckle or any such thing but c 1. Cor. 15.28 God shall be all in all Whereas he maketh M. Perkins to say that perhaps inward Righteousnesse shall be perfect in the end of this life he againe abuseth him for he asketh the question onely as a supposition what if it be so but maketh no perhaps that it is so denying that if it were so we could be iustified thereby The rest of this Section as touching the maine drift of it is altogether impertinent tending to proue Inherent iustice which we denie not but onely the perfection thereof in this life But whereas he seeketh to make good that our iustification consisteth therein he commeth much too short and one of his proofes directly proueth the contrarie For when the Apostle saith d 1. Cor. 6.11 You are washed you are sanctified you are iustified vndoubtedly he meant not by iustification and sanctification to import one and the same thing But there is no question but that by sanctification is meant inherent iustice Therefore inherent iustice cannot be vnderstood in iustification And this is apparent by those very authors whom he himselfe citeth for exposition of the place as namely Chrysostome saying e Chrysan 1. Cor. cap. 6. hom 16. Abluit nosmunquid igitur hoc solùm Minimè sed sanctificauit neque hoc etiam sed iustificauit Atqui liberari à peccatu magnuÌ„ munus est nunc autem te etiam innumeris impleuit bonis He washed vs and what did he so onely Nay but he also sanctified vs and not this onely but also he iustified vs very plainely putting difference betwixt iustification and sanctification and expounding iustification in the next words to be this liberari à peccatis to be deliuered from sinnes So doth Theophylact also expresly referre iustification to forgiuenesse of sinnes f Theoph. in 1. Cor. ca. 6. Vos ille sanctificat Quo pacto Iustificando inquit Cum enim prius vos abluisset iustitia condonasset mox sanctimoniam contulit When he had first washed you and by iustification had pardoned you forthwith also he bestowed sanctification Oecumenius likewise seuereth theÌ„ as Chrysostome doth g Oecumen ibid. Nec id solum verum etiam sanctificauit neque hoc tantum sed iustificauiâ— He hath not onely washed you but also sanctified you and not that only but also iustified you He citeth Ambrose also but Ambrose saith not one word to import that Iustification should be construed of inherent iustice h Amâ—ros ibid. Illic omnibus peccatis aâ—â—uitur credens iustificatur Dei nomine per spiritum Dei nostri Deâ— filius adâ—ptatur In baptisme all sinnes being done away the beleeuer is washed is iustified in the name of the Lord and by the spirit of our God is adopted to be a sonne of God Now we may see what credit is to be giuen to this gamester who shewing his cardes in packe telleth vs he hath wonne the game when he hath nothing at all to helpe for the winning of it As for the other place to Titus That being iustified by his grace c. There is no argument to proue the contrarie but that the Apostle may comprehend the whole worke of sauing vs which he before mentioneth vnder the name of Iustification as the maine point whereupon dependeth all the rest But more properly we may take it in the third place as in the former text to the Corinthians distinguished from the sanctification and renewing of the holy Ghost and expressing the other speciall effect of the washing of the new birth consisting in the forgiuenesse of our sinnes The places of Austin and Cyrill being spoken of inherent iustice begunne in this life not denied by vs say nothing against vs. How
of her head And as she had true repentance of her former life so no doubt but she had also a firme purpose to leade a new life So that in her conuersion all those vertues met together which we hold to concurre to iustification and among the rest the preheminence worthily is giuen to loue as to the principall disposition She loued our Sauiour as the fountaine of all mercies and goodnesse and therefore accounted her precious ointments best bestowed on him yea and the humblest seruice and most affectionate she could offer him to be all too little and nothing answerable to the inward burning charity which she bare him Which noble affection of hers towards her diuine Redeemer no question was most acceptable vnto him as by his owne word is most manifest for he said That many sinnes were forgiuen her because she loued much But M. Perkins saith that her loue was no cause that moued Christ to pardon her but onely a signe of pardon giuen before which is so contrary to the text that a man not past all shame would blush once to affirme it First Christ saith expresly that it was the cause of the pardon Because she had loued much Secondly that her loue went before is as plainly declared both by mention of the time past Because she hath loued and by the euidence of her fact of washing wiping and anointing his feete for the which saith our Sauiour then already performed Many sinnes are forgiuen her So that here can be no impediment of beleeuing the Catholike Doctrine so clearlie deliuered by the holy Ghost vnlesse one will be so blindly led by our new Maisters that he will beleeue no words of Christ be they neuer so plaine otherwise then it please the Ministers to expound them And this much of the first of those reasons which M. Perkins said were of no moment R. ABBOT I wished thee gentle Reader before to obserue that which here plainly thou seest that by the Romish doctrine there is one faith hope charity before iustification which must prepare a man in iustification to receiue and is the cause for which in iustification he doth receiue another a faith which is the cause why God endueth him with faith a hope which is the cause for which God endueth him with hope a charity which is the cause for which God bestoweth vpon him the gift of charity A strange doctrine and the same for which Pelagius was of old condemned a August epist 46. that vpon our merits the grace of God is bestowed vpon vs. M. Bishop will say that they make no merits of these yet he himselfe knoweth that their schooles do make them merits ex congruo though not ex condigno merits which are of force to moue God and which it is conuenient that God should respect though they do not fully deserue grace And this merit b Bellarm. de iustif lib. 1. cap. 17. Fides suo quodaÌ„ modo meretur remissionem peccatorum iustificat per moduÌ„ dispositionis ac meriti Bellarmine himselfe affirmeth as before was said But let vs know why they account them not properly merits The reason indeede is because they say they are not the effects of any infused grace for they make them intrinsecally the acts onely of mans free will though adioyning the shew of a counterfeit grace which doth as it were put a hand vnder the arme to helpe lift it vp for the acting thereof Yet M. Bishop at randon not knowing what he saith calleth them diuine qualities contrary to the doctrine of his owne schooles For if faith hope and charity before iustification be diuine qualities and essentially the works of grace there can nothing hinder but that they should be as properly meritorious as those infused graces wherein they affirme iustification to consist But now he must vnderstand that the Fathers did not take merit so strictly as that they giue him way to shift off from himselfe the assertion of Pelagius They vnderstood it so largely as that c August epist 105. Si excusatio iusta est quisquis ea vtitur non gratia sed merito liberatur if a man can but plead a iust excuse for his deliuerance he that vseth it is not deliuered by grace but by merit if there be but d Cont. 2. epist Pelag. lib 1. cap. 19. Pro meritis videlicet voluntatis bonae ac sic gratia nö sit gratia sed sit illud c. gratiam Dei secundum merita nostra dari a good will before grace then grace is not grace but is giuen vpon merit And if he will say that they affirme not any good will before grace let him remember that Pelagius affirmed such a preuenting grace as they do but S. Austine professeth to know no grace but iustifying grace as hath bene shewed e Cha. 1. sect 5. before so that if before iustifying grace there be any good will or good worke then the grace of God is not freely giuen but by merit according to the doctrine of Pelagius Yea Bellarmine himselfe confesseth that the f Bellarm. de grat li. arbit lib. 6. cap. 5. Gratiam secundum merita nostra dari intelligum patres cùm aliquid sit proprijs viribus etiamsi nâ—n sit meritum de condigno ratione cuius datur gratia Fathers do vnderstand the grace of God to be giuen by merits when any thing is done by our owne strength in respect whereof grace is giuen though the same be not any merit de condigno of condignity or worth Such are the faith hope and charity that they teach before iustification which therefore as I haue said are denied to be merits de condigno because they proceede from our owne strength Yea say they but not without the helpe of God But so Pelagius also said as we haue shewed in the place before quoted in the question of Free wil and therefore in that they say nothing to free themselues from saying that which the Fathers condemned in Pelagius that according to our merits the grace of God is bestowed vpon vs. And this M. Bishop will proue by the example of the woman who in the Pharisees house washed the feete of Christ of whom our Sauiour saith g Luk. 7.47 Manie sinnes are forgiuen her because she hath loued much She was iustified therefore saith he because of her loue M. Perkins answereth that that because importeth not any impulsiue cause of the forgiuenesse of her sinnes but onely a signe thereof as if Christ had said It is a token that much hath bene forgiuen her because she loueth much But M. Bishop like to bad disposed persons who face the matter most boldly where their cause is woorst saith that this is so contrary to the text that a man not past all shame would blush once to affirme it The text of it owne accord yeeldeth this construction and no other The creditour forgiueth to one fiue hundred talents to the other fifty whether of
glory of his grace And what of that Marry then hath charitie the principall part therein saith he for the directing of all to the honour and glory of God is the proper office and action of charity But therein he deceiueth himselfe for the Apostle hath expressed it as the very proper office and act of faith y Rom. 4.20 to giue glory vnto God and therefore Moses and Aaron at the waters of strife are said z Num. 20 12. not to haue sanctified the Lord that is to say not to haue giuen him glory because they beleeued him not For a 1. Iohn 5.10 not to beleeue God is to make him a liar which is the reproch and dishonour of God but to beleeue God is to ascribe vnto him truth and power and wisedome and iustice and mercy and whatsoeuer else belongeth vnto him Therefore Arnobius saith that b Arno in Psal 129 Bene facere ad gloriam hominis benè credere ad gloriam Dei pertinet to do well belongeth to the glory of man but to beleeue well concerneth the glory of God c Chrysost ad Rom. hom 8. Qui mandata illius implet obedit ei hic autem qui credit conuenienteÌ„ de eo opinioneÌ„ accipit cumque glorificat atque admiâ—atur nuâ—lo magis quà m operuÌ„ demonstratio Jlla ergò gloriatio eius est qui rectâ— factuÌ„ aliquod praeâ—titeriâ— haec autem Deum ipsum glorificat ac quâ—â—ta est tota ipsius est Gloriatur enim ob hoc quòd magna quaedam de eo concipiat quae ad gloriam eius redundant By works saith Chrysostome we obey God but faith entertaineth a meete opinion concerning God and glorifieth and admireth him much more then the shewing forth of workes Workes commend the doer but faith commendeth God onely and what it is it is wholy his For it reioyceth in this that it conceiueth of him great things which do redound to his glory And whereas our Sauiour in the Gospell teacheth vs that our good works do glorifie God saying Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorifie your Father which is in heauen he saith that it is of faith that our good works do glorifie God d Jbid Ecce hoc fidei esse apparuit Behold saith he it appeareth that this commeth of faith M. Bishops argument therefore maketh against himselfe and proueth that we are iustified rather by faith then by charity because it is faith principally that yeeldeth honour vnto God The last place alledged out of Austine is nothing against vs for although we defend that a man is iustified by faith alone yet we say that both faith hope and charity must concurre to accomplish the perfection of a Christian man whereof anone we shall see further 23 W. BISHOP The third of these trifling reasons is peruersly propounded by M. Perkins thus Faith is neuer alone therefore it doth not iustifie alone That this argument is fondly framed appeareth plainly in that that Catholikes do not deny but affirme that faith may be without charity as it is in all sinfull Catholikes we then forme the reason thus If faith alone be the whole cause of iustification then if both hope and charity were remoued from faith at least by thought and in conceipt faith would neuerthelesse iustifie But faith considered without hope and charity will not iustifie ergo it is not the whole cause of iustification The first proposition cannot be denied of them who know the nature propriety of causes for the entire and totall cause of any thing being as the Philosophers say in act the effect must needs follow and very sense teacheth the simple that if any thing be set to worke and if it do not act that which it is set too then there wanted some thing requisite And consequently that was not the whole cause of that worke Now to the second proposition But their imagined faith cannot apply to themselues Christes righteousnesse without the presence of hope and charity For else he might be iustified without any hope of heauen and without any loue towards God and estimation of his honour which are things most absurd in themselues but yet very well fitting the Protestants iustification which is nothing else but the plaine vice of presumption as hath bene before declared Yet to auoid this inconuenience which is so great M. Perkins graunteth that both hope and charity must needs be present at the iustification but do nothing in it but faith doth all as the head is present to the eie wheÌ„ it seeth yet it is the eie alone that seeth Here is a worthy peece of Philosophy that the eie alone doth see wheras in truth it is but the instrument of seeing the soule being the principall cause of sight as it is of all other actions of life sense reason and it is not to purpose here where we require the presence of the whole cause and not onely of the instrumentall cause And to returne your similitude vpon your selfe as the eie cannot see without the head because it receiueth influence from it before it can see so cannot faith iustifie without charity because it necessarily receiueth spirit of life from it before it can do any thing acceptable in Gods sight R. ABBOT He may indeede very iustly call them trifling reasons if at least trifles may carie the name of reasons As for this reason it is not peruersely propounded by Maister Perkins but in such sort as some of Maister Bishops part haue propounded it vpon supposall of our assertion that faith can neuer be alone But as he propoundeth it himselfe the termes of his argument being declared the answer will be plaine and he shall be found a Sophister onely and no sound disputer It is therefore to be vnderstood that remouing or separating of things one from the other is either reall in the subiect or mentall in the vnderstanding Reall separation of faith and charity we wholy denie so as that true faith can no where be found but it hath charitie infallibly conioyned with it Separation mentall in vnderstanding and consideration is either negatiue or priuatiue Negatiue when in the vnderstanding there is an affirming of one and denying of another and the one is considered as to be without the other which vnderstanding in things that cannot be really and indeed separated in the subiect is false vnderstanding and not to be admitted Separation priuatiue in vnderstanding is wheÌ„ of things that cannot be separated indeed yet a man vnderstandeth the one and omitteth to vnderstand the other considereth the one and considereth not the other Thus though light and heate cannot be separated in the fire yet a man may consider the light and not consider the heate though in the reasonable soule vnderstanding reason memory and will and in the sensitiue part the faculties of seeing hearing smelling c. cannot be remoued or separated one from the other yet a man
may conceiue or mind one of these without hauing consideration of the rest Now if M. Bishop by negatiue separation do remoue hope charity frō faith so as that his meaning is that if faith alone do iustifie thē though there be neither hope nor charity yet faith will neuerthelesse iustifie his maior proposition is false For though it be true that the totall cause of any thing being in act the effect must needs follow yet from the totall cause can we not separate those things together with which it hath in nature his existēce and being and without which it cannot be in act for the producing of the effect though they conferre nothing thereto because that is to denie the being of it and the destroying of the cause But if his meaning be that if faith alone do iustifie then though we consider not hope and charitie as concurring therewith yet it selfe doth iustifie we graunt his maior proposition for true but his minor is not true We say that faith considered without hope and charitie that is hope and charitie not considered with it doth iustifie Then saith he a man may be iustified without any hope of heauen and without anie loue towards God or estimation of his honour True say I if his meaning be that the hope of heauen or loue of God and estimation of his honour be excepted onely priuatiuely and only not considered with faith as causes of iustification But if his meaning be as it is that a man then is iustified without hauing any hope of heauen or loue towards God or estimation of his honour he playeth the part onely of a brabler inferring a reall separation of those things in the subiect which the argument supposeth onely respectiuely separated in the vnderstanding Here is then no presumption in the Protestants iustification but M. Bishop is much to be condemned of presumption that hauing left his head at Rome and broken his braines in contending against the Iesuites he would notwithstanding take vpon him to be a writer and do it so vainely and idlely as he hath done According to that that hath bene said M. Perkins answereth that though faith be neuer subsisting without hope and loue and other graces of God yet in regard of the act of iustification it is alone without them all euen as the eye in regard of substance and being is neuer alone yet in respect of seeing it is alone for it is the eye onely that doth see Here is saith M. Bishop a worthie peece of Philosophy that the eye alone doth see Why I pray what is the default Marrie the eye is but the instrument of seeing saith he the soule being the principall cause of sight as it is of all other actions of life sense and reason But did not your sense and reason serue you to vnderstand that M. Perkins meant accordingly that the eye alone doth see that is that the eye alone of all the mēbers parts is the instrument of seeing and proportionably that faith alone of all the vertues and graces of the soule is the instrument of iustification As the soule then seeth onely by the eye so the soule spiritually receiueth iustification by faith alone If his head had stood the right way he might verie easily haue conceiued that M. Perkins in saying that the eye alone doth see did not meane to exclude the soule that seeth by the eye but onely all other parts of the bodie from being consorted with the eye in the soules imployment seruice for that vse And that that M. Perkins saith therein is directly to the purpose because the question is not here of the whole cause of iustification but onely of the instrumentall cause Of the efficient and finall cause of iustification there is no question which is God in Iesus Christ for our saluation and the glorie of his name The materiall cause we say and haue proued to be the merite and obedience of Christ The formall cause is Gods imputation apprehended and receiued by vs. The instrument of this apprehension we say is faith alone which is the verie point here disputed of But here he will returne the similitude vpon vs the eye cannot see without the head because it receiueth influence from the head before it can see Be it so no more can faith iustifie without Christ without God whose ordinance and gift it is of whom it hath it force and power being by him as peculiarly appointed to iustifie as the eye is to see The eye is a naturall instrument receiuing his influence frō the head wherof it is naturally a member and part but faith is an instrument supernaturall not any naturall part or power and facultie of the soule but the instinct and worke of God and therefore receiueth all the force and influence that it hath from the spirit of Iesus Christ But he maketh other application hereof So cannot faith iustifie without charitie because it necessarily receiueth spirit of life frō it before it can do any thing acceptable in Gods sight So then charitie is the head and faith the eye and we must needs take it so because M. Bishop hath told vs that it is so But if it be so then it should be as strange a matter to see faith without charitie as it is to see an eye without a head as strange that charitie being extinguished and gone there should remaine a faith whereby to beleeue as that the head being dead there should remaine an eye whereby to see But that that giueth influence and life to another thing must needs haue a prioritie to that that receiueth it Charitie hath no prioritie to faith but charity it selfe is obtained by faith For a Eccles 25 13. faith is the beginning to be ioyned vnto God b Aug. de praedest sanct cap. 7. Fides prima daetur ex qua impetrentur caetera Faith is first giuen by which the rest is obtained c Prosp de voc gent. lib. 1. cap. 9. Cum fides data fuerit non petitae ipsius tam petitionibus bona caetera consequuntur which being first giuen vnrequested at the request thereof all other benefites or good things do ensue and follow d Aug. in Psal 31. Laudo superaedificationē boni operis sed agnosco fidei fundamentum fidei radicem Nec bona illa opera appellauerim quādiu non de radice bona procedant Faith is the roote and foundation of good works from which vnlesse they grow they are not to be called good euen e Origen in Ro. cap. 4. Fides tanquam radix imbre suscepto haeret in animae solo vt surgantromi qui fructus operū ferant illa scil radix iustitiae qua Deus accepto fert iustitiam sine operibus that root of righteousnes wherby the Lord imputeth righteousnes without works which receiuing the deaw or showre sticketh in the groūd that thence the branches may spring which bring forth the fruits of good works Faith is
being any causes thereof and onely in men of God who are first iustified that they may be meÌ„ of God affirmeth a iustification by works in that sence as S. Iames speaketh thereof which as I haue said is nothing else but a declaration and testimonie of their being formerly iustified by the faith of Iesus Christ In what sence he speaketh of free will it hath bene shewed before in the question of that matter and that he acknowledgeth no free will to righteousnesse but onely that that we do which is made free by the grace of God To the last place of S. Austin we willingly subscribe condemning them i De fide oper cap. 14. Si ad eam salutem obtinen dam sufficere solam fidem putanerint benè auteÌ„ viuere bonis operibus vâ—aÌ„ Dei tenere neglexerint who thinke that onely faith is sufficient to obtaine saluation and do neglect to liue well and by good workes to keepe the way of God which last words seruing plainely to open S. Austins meaning M. Bishop verie honestly hath left out We teach no such faith as S. Austin there speaketh of We teach onely such a faith as iustifieth it selfe alone but is neuer found alone in the iustified man neuer but accompanied with holinesse and care of godly life and therefore condemne those as spirits of Satan which teach a faith sufficient to obtaine saluation without any regard of liuing well The summe of our doctrine S. Austin himselfe setteth downe in the very same Chapter that good workes k Ibid. Sequâ—tur iustificatum non praecedunt iustâ—fâ—candum follow a man being iustified but are not precedent to iustification Now therfore in all these speeches there is hitherto nothing to crosse that which M. Perkins hath affirmed that nothing that man can do either by nature or grace concurreth to the act of iustification as any cause but faith alone Of works of nature there is lesse question but of works of grace of workes of beleeuers the Apostle specially determineth the questioÌ„ that we are not iustified therby as shal appeare M. Perkins further saith that faith is but the instrumentall cause of iustification as whereby we apprehend Christ to be our righteousnesse and neuer doth any of vs make faith the onely and whole cause of iustification in anie other sence We make not the verie act of faith any part of our righteousnesse but onely the merit and obedience of Christ apprehended and receiued by faith But by this meanes M. Bishop saith that faith is become no true cause at all but a bare condition without which we cannot be iustified But that is but his shallow and idle conceipt for the necessarie instrument especially the liuely instrument is amongst the number of true causes not being causa sine qua non a cause without which the thing is not done but a cause whereby it is done Causa sine qua non is termed causa stolida otiosa a foolish and idle cause because it is onely present in the action and doth nothing therein It is not so with faith but as the eye is an actiue instrument for seeing and the eare for hearing c. so is faith also for iustifying and M. Bishops head was scant wise to make a principall instrument a foolish and idle cause But he asketh then whose instrument faith is and maketh his diuision that either it must be charitie or the soule of man without any helpe of grace We answer him that it is the instrument of the soule wrought therein by grace being l Ephes 2.8 the gift of God and m August de praedest sanct cap. 7. the first gift as before we haue heard out of Austin whereby we obtaine the rest and therefore whereby we obtaine charitie also so that his diuision goeth lame and neither is faith the instrument of charitie nor yet of the soule without grace but of the soule therein and therby endued with the grace of God R. ABBOT But to come to his reasons The first is taken out of these words As Moses lift vp the serpent in the desart so must the sonne of man be lift vp that whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall not perish but haue life euerlasting True if he liue accordingly and as his faith teacheth him but what is this to iustification by onely faith Marrie M. Perkins drawes it in after this fashion As nothing was required of them who were stong by serpents but that they should looke vpon the brazen serpent so nothing is required of a sinner to deliuer him from sinne but that he cast his eyes of faith vpon Christs righteousnesse and apply that to himselfe in particular But this application of the similitude is onely mans foolish inuention without any ground in the text Similitudes be not in all points alike neither must be stretched beyond the verie poynt wherein the similitude lieth which in this matter is that like as the Israelites in the wildernesse stong with serpents were cured by looking vpon the brazen serpent so men infected with sin haue no other remedy then to embrace the faith of Christ Iesus All this we confesse but to say that nothing else is necessary that is quite besides the text as easily reiected by vs as it is by him obtruded without any authoritie or probabilitie R. ABBOT Similitudes M. Bishop saith must not be stretched beyond the verie point wherein the similitude lieth but Christ himselfe here directeth vs to conceiue wherein the similitude lyeth Christ himselfe expresseth that in their looking vpon the Serpent was figured our beleeuing in him What shall we then conceiue but as they onely by looking were cured of the sting so we onely by beleeuing are cured of sinne So S. Austin saith a Aug. in Joan. tract 12. Quomodo qui intuebantur serpeÌ„tem illum sanabantur à moâ—sibus serpeÌ„tum siâ— qui intueÌ„tur fide morteÌ„ Christi sanatur à morsibus peccato rum Attenditur serpeâ—s vt nihil vâ—leat serpens attenditur mors vt nihil valcat mors As they that beheld that Serpent were healed of the stinging of the Serpents so they who by faith behold the death of Christ are healed of the sting of sinne And againe A Serpent is looked vnto that a Serpent may not preuaile and a death is looked vnto that death may not preuaile In like sort doth Chrysostome expresse the similitude b Chrys in Ioan. hom 26. Illiâ— corporeis oculis suscipientes corporis sâ—lutem hic incorporeis peccatorum omnium remissionem consecuti sunt There by bodily eyes men receiued the health of the body here by spirituall eyes they obtaine forgiuenesse of all their sinnes So saith Cyril c Cyril id Ioan. lib. 2. cap. 20. Respicientibus in euÌ„ fide sincera aeternae salutis largitor ostenditur He is shewed hereby to be the giuer of eternall saluation to them that by true faith do looke vnto him d Theophyl in Joan.
to the same grace and therefore very fondly doth M. Perkins inferre that in that sentence S. Paule speaketh of workes of grace because in the text following he mentioned good workes Whereas the Apostle putteth an euident distinction betweene those two kind of workes signifying the first to be of our selues the second to proceede from vs as Gods workmanship created in Christ Iesus and the first he calleth Works simply the second Good workes prepared of God for vs to walke in after our first iustification What grosse ignorance then was it to take these two so distinct manner of workes for the same and to ground himselfe so boldly vpon it R. ABBOT The question intended by M. Perkins is expresly propounded how farre foorth good workes are required to iustification namely before God which he determineth thus that they are required not as causes for which we are iustified either in the beginning of grace or in the proceeding thereof but onely as effects and fruites of iustification Which although it be implyed in that that before hath bene said of being iustified by faith alone yet neither as touching first nor second iustification is directly handled by M. Perkins but only in this place Here therefore he disputeth wholy as touching iustification before God that good workes concurre not as any causes thereof and bringeth his arguments directly to that point First the Apostle saith a Rom. 3.28 We conclude that a man is iustified by faith without the works of the law M. Bishop excepteth against this place as meant of the first iustification of a sinner not appertaining to the second iustification But we find but one iustification spoken of by S. Paule both beginning and continuing in faith for being still sinners so long as here we liue it must needes be that that which the Apostle saith of the iustification of a sinner must stil appertaine vnto vs and therfore that both firstly and lastly we are iustified by faith without the workes of the law And if there were any second iustification that which the Apostle saith must necessarily be taken to belong to it For he writeth these things to the Romaines to the Galathians which long before had beleeued and bene baptized and yet now still informeth them that their iustification is by faith without the works of the law still he saith b Gal. 2.21 If righteousnesse be by the law Christ dyed in vaine yea he proueth by the Prophets words not that the sinner onely but c Cap. 3.11 the iust shall liue by faith as Hierome mentioning out of the vulgar Latin translation of the Psalmes these words d Psal 55.7 vulg Lat. Pro nihilo saluos faciet eos He will saue them for nothing addeth e Hieron aduer Pelag. lib 2. Haud dubium quin iustos qui non proprio merito sed Dei salâ—aÌ„tur clementia No doubt but he meaneth the iust who are not saued by their owne merit but by the mercie of God But it is further to be noted that he bringeth in Abraham for an example of this iustification euen then when he had long bene the seruant of God and shewed singular deuotion and obedience vnto him He bringeth for another example the Prophet Dauid a man according to Gods owne hart who from his childhood had bene called of God yet now still acknowledging his blessednes to consist in the f Rom. 4.6 Lords imputing of righteousnesse without workes It is euident therefore that M. Bishops exception is vnsufficient and that not only at a mans first entraÌ„ce into the state of grace which he calleth the first iustificatioÌ„ but afterwards also a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the law and therfore works can be no meritorious cause of any second iustification His acknowledgement that a sinner is iustified freely of the meere grace of God through the merit of Christ only without any merit of the sinner himselfe is a meere collusion and mockerie For if a man be iustified by workes then it is not by meere grace He saith g Sect. 21. before of the woman that washed the feet of Christ that her loue and other vertuous dispositions were causes why she was iustified and determineth still that hope feare repentance charitie concurre as causes thereof Yea but saith he they are no meritorious causes there is the merit of Christ onely and no merit of the sinner himselfe So then iustification is by workes but not by merits But we see the Apostle resolueth against workes of merits he saith nothing he speaketh of that that is not of that that cannot be workes there may be but merit there can be none as is afterwards to be declared See then the madnesse of these men the Apostle saith h Gal. 2.16 Ephes 2.9 Not by workes yes say they it is by works but it is not by merits the Apostle saith i Rom. 11.6 If it be of grace it is not of workes yes say they it is both by grace and by workes but it is not by merits Thus impudently they confront the Apostle and seek to tye vpon him a flat contradiction to that he saith They will seeme to vphold grace by excluding merit when as the Apostle testifieth they plainely ouerthrow it by affirming workes because as hath bene before alledged out of Austin grace is not grace in any respect except it be free in euery respect Yea neither do they wholly exclude merit but affirme the same k Bellar. de iust lib. 1. cap. 17. in some sort euen in their first iustificatioÌ„ as I haue before diuers times obserued out of Bellarmine Thus they play fast and loose and wold faine say but cannot well tell what to say With Pelagius they are ashamed to omit the grace of God and yet they so teach it as that they make it of no effect Now because our iustification is meerely by the gift of God therefore M. Perkins saith that the sinner in his iustification is meerely passiue meaning that we do nothing at all wherein consisteth any part of our righteousnesse with God M. Bishop saith that this is absurd because a man must beleeue and to beleeue is an action But it is absurd onely to an absurd and ignorant man who vnderstandeth not what he readeth To beleeue is an action but he hath had occasion enough to know and vnderstand if ignorance had not blinded him that we place no part of righteousnesse in the very act of faith but in the thing receiued thereby Christ onely is our righteousnesse and him we receiue by faith God iustifieth we are iustified God imputeth righteousnesse to vs it is imputed God then is the agent we the subiect whereon he worketh patients receiuers and no way workers of that which is our righteousnesse before God And to this his vnderstanding should leade him in that iustification which they maintaine For although they say that by faith hope charitie repentance which are actions they obtaine
Cum est aliquid concupiscentiae carnalis c. noÌ„ omnimodò ex tota anima diligitur Deus so long as there is any carnall concupiscence God is not loued with all the soule And so long as we liue here there is carnall concupiscence against the law of the minde Therefore so long as we liue here charity is neuer perfect in vs as it ought to be neither can any perfect good worke be effected by vs. M. Bishop minceth and qualifieth the matter that no man hath so perfect charity but that sometimes he doth lesse then he ought to do But the argument prooueth that charity is alwaies vnperfect in this life and therefore not sometimes onely but alwaies a man doth lesse then he ought to do There is alwaies a blot that staineth our charity l Hilar. apud August cont Julian lib. 2. Supra sect 44. by reason whereof we haue nothing in vs cleane nothing innocent as before was cited out of Hilary and therefore it can yeeld no workes that are free from blot and staine But the Reader is here to note the constancie of this man who affirmeth here that no man hath so perfect charity in this life but that sometimes he doth lesse then he ought to do whereas before he hath told vs of a righteousnesse so perfect in this life as that m Sect. 45. it faileth not in any duty which we are bound to performe Thus giddily he runneth to and fro being vncertaine what to say and neuer knowing where he may stand sure Now here he saith that the other saying of Austine Woe to the laudable life of man if it be examined without mercy is spoken in respect of veniall sinnes wheras Austine vseth the words in respect of hell fire which they say is not incident to their veniall sinnes For hauing professed that he he durst not say that after baptisme no word went out of his mothers mouth against Gods commaundement and that Christ saith that if a man say to his brother foole he is guilty of hell fire he addeth these words n Aug. Confess lib. 9. cap. 13. Vae etiam laudabili vitae hominum si remota misericordia discutias eam And woe euen to the commendable life of man if thou set aside mercy in the examining or sifting of it To which purpose he saith also in another place o Idem In Psal 42. Quicunque hic viâ—â—â— quantumlibet iustè viuat vae illi si cuÌ„ illa in iudicium intrauerit Deus Whosoeuer liueth here howsoeuer iustly he liue woe vnto him if God enter into iudgement with him In which sort Arnobius also saith p Arno. in Psal 135. Vae nebis si quod debemus exegerit vae nobis si quod debet reddiderit Woe vnto vs if he require what we owe to him woe vnto vs if he pay what he oweth to vs. These woes are not vttered in respect of Purgatory or any temporall affliction but in respect of the issue of that finall dreadfull iudgement the sentence whereof shall stand for euer Now if they haue learned by the word of God to denounce this woe then woe to M. Bishop that to the contrary defendeth a righteousnesse so perfect in this life as that his righteous man q Sect. 4. needeth not greatly to feare the rigorous sentence of a iust Iudge as who faileth not in any duty that he is bound to performe who can keepe himselfe from all but veniall sinnes which are easily forgiuen r Rhem. Testam Annot. Mat. 10.12 Sext. Proaemaâ— glossa by the Bishops blessing by holy water by knocking the brest by saying a Pater noster by extreame vnction and some other such deuotions madly deuised to that end As touching the other place of Austine it hath bene already shewed that our righteousnesse in this life is vnperfect not onely by comparison but simply in it selfe and according to that that here is required of vs The imperfections of wit and will which M. Bishop speaketh of are so great and so many as that if he did but with a feeling heart and conscience consider the same he would finde that there is small cause in the most perfect of this life to pleade for that perfection that he maintaineth But being a man of a frosen and dead heart and neither knowing others nor himselfe by the name of many light faults he passeth ouer those things which make the most righteous and iust to groane vnder the burden of them and to say with Dauid Å¿ Psal 38.4 Mine iniquities are gone ouer my head and are like a sore burden too heauie for me to beare t Psal 40.12 My sinnes haue taken such hold vpon me that I am not able to looke vp they are moe in number then the haires of my head and my heart hath failed me Tush saith M. Bishop what neede all this adoe all these are but light and veniall faults but hereby we conceiue that neither his will nor his wit haue indeede that perfection that it were fit they should haue His answer to the words of Gregory is ridiculous and childish Gregorie forsooth by our vertue meaneth the vertue that we haue of our owne strength when as Gregorie teacheth that we haue no vertue of our owne strength but onely by the gift of God u Greg. Moral lib. 24. cap. 5. Iustitia nostra dicitur non quae ex nostro nostra est sed quae diuina largitate fit nostra It is called our righteousnesse saith he in another place not which is ours of our owne but which by the gift of God becommeth ours According to this meaning he saith that x Ibid. li. 9 ca. 1. Sanctus vir quia omne virtuâ—is nostrae meritum vitium esse câ—nspexit si ab interno arbitro districté iudicetur rectè subiungit si voluero c. the holy man Iob because he saw all the merit of our vertue to be vice if it be strictly iudged by the internall Iudge did rightly adde If I will contend with him I shall not be able to answer him one for a thousand He applieth his speech to Iobs righteousnesse which he had no cause to imagine that Iob alledged as attained vnto by his own strength And shall we be so mad as to thinke that if Iob had bene perfect by a righteousnesse receiued by the gift of God he would say he could not therefore answer God because he saw all the merit of the vertue that he had by his owne strength to be but vice It is strange to see that these men should be so blinde as not to see the grosse absurdity of these shifts Gregory spake to the instruction of his hearers whom surely he thought not to be worse then the Pharisee but knew that they attributed their vertue and righteousnesse to the gift of God and of that righteousnesse which they confessed to be Gods good gift teacheth them to acknowledge that through our weaknesse
giuen vnto vs and not the cause for which hee is moued to bestow the same vpon vs euen as Saint Augustine speaketh e August in Psalm 109. Via qua nos perducturus est ad finem illum queÌ„ promisit the way by which hee will bring vs to that end which hee hath promised Now what sayth M. Bishop to this place of Bernard no question but he hath an answer readie though by his owne confession he neuer saw the place so notable a facultie haue these men to tell an Authors meaning before euer they looke into him forsooth Bernards meaning is that merits are not the whole cause but the promise of God through Christ and the grace of God freely bestowed vpon vs out of which our merits proceed Thus he answereth Bernard by a plaine contradiction to Bernards words Bernard saith they are not the cause Yes saith M. Bishop they are the cause though they be not the whole cause But see how scholerlike he dealeth therein for it is as much as if he should say The tree is not the whole cause of the fruite that it bringeth foorth but the roote whence it proceedeth and the boughes whereupon it groweth whereas the roote and the boughes are parts of the tree without which it is not a tree and therefore the exception maketh nothing against it but that the tree is called the whole cause of the fruite So saith he Merits are not the whole cause of saluation but the grace and promise of God distinguishing merits as one part of the cause from the grace and promise of God as another part of the cause whereas merite by his owne rule in the beginning of this question doth alwayes necessarily include the promise and grace of God and can be no merite but as it proceedeth from grace and hath of God a promise of reward By this exception therefore he saith nothing to hinder but that merits are the whole cause of saluation fully and directly contrary to that that Saint Bernard saith that merites which he intendeth no otherwise but implying the grace and promise of God are the way to the kingdome but not the cause of our obtaining the kingdome Yet of that which he saith he telleth vs that it is Saint Bernards owne doctrine not alledging any words of Bernard to that purpose but onely quoting a sermon of his where there is nothing for his purpose as afterwards shall appeare in answering his testimonies of the Fathers In the meane time whereas he excepteth that Bernard liued a thousand yeares after Christ I must aunswer him that his testimonie is so much the more effectuall in that God in the middest of so great corruption and darknesse did still by him and others continue the light and acknowledgement of this truth The next place cited by M. Perkins is vnder S. Austins name though that booke indeed be none of his f August Manuâ—l ca. 22. Tota spes mea est in morte Domini meis mors eius meritum meum refugium meum salus vita resurrectio mea All my hope is in the death of my Lord his death is my merite M. Bishop hereto saith that it is true in a good sence Where we see him to be an apt scholler and well to haue learned the lesson of the Index Expurgatorius g Jndex Expur in castigat Bertram We set some good sence vpon the errors of the Fathers when they are opposed against vs in contentions with our aduersaries But what is that good sence Marry by the vertue of his death and passion grace is bestowed on me to merite But surely hee doth not thinke that euer the author of those words intended that sence If he will make that sence of the one part of the sentence he must necessarily make the like of the rest The death of the Lord is my merite my refuge my saluation my life and resurrection If his meaning be the death of the Lord is my merite that is hath purchased for me that I should merite for my selfe then in the rest also shall be likewise said the death of the Lord is my refuge that is hath purchased for me that I should be a refuge for my selfe the death of the Lord is my saluation life and resurrection that is hath purchased for me to be saluation life and resurrection to my selfe So likewise where he addeth h Meritum â—â—eâ—â— miseratio Domini noÌ„sum meriti inops quamdiis miserationum Dominus non de fuerit My merite is the mercie of the Lord so long as the Lord of mercie shall not faile I shall not want merite the meaning shall likewise be the mercie of the Lord giueth mee ablenesse to merite for my selfe and so song as his mercie faileth not so long shall not I faile of good workes to merite and deserue heauen Now these constructions are lewd and absurd and indeed farre from the conscience of the writer of those words who findeth nothing in his owne workes to comfort himselfe withall and therefore flieth vnto the death and merite of Christ and the mercie of God as his onely succour and the onely stay that hee hath to rest vpon Which that the Reader may throughly vnderstand I hold it not amisse to set downe what the same author hath written in another place of the same booke euen out of the same spirit i Ibid. cap. 13. Sileat sibi ipsae anima et traÌ„seat se noÌ„ cogitaÌ„do se sed te Deus meus quoniam tu es reuera tota spes fiducia mâ—a Est enim inte Deo meo Domino nostro Iesu Christo vniuscuiusque nostrum portio et sangâ— câ—ro Vbi ergo portio mea regnat ibi regnare me credo Vbi sanguis meus dominatur ibi dominaeri me confido Vbi caro mea glorificatur ibi gloriosum me esse cognosco Quamuis peccator sim tamen de hac communione gratiae non diffido Etsi peccata mea prohibent substantia mea requirit Etsi delicta propriae mea excludunt naturae communio non repellit c. Desperare vtique potuissem propter nimia peccata mea vitiae culpas infinitas negligentias meas quas egi quotidi è indesinenter ago corde ere opere omnibus modis quibus humana fragilitas peccare potest nisi verbum tuum Deus meus caro fieret habitaret in nobis Sed desperare iam non audeo quoniam subditui ille tibi vsque ad mortem mortem autem crucis tulit chyrographum peccaetorum nostrorum affigens illud cruci peccatum crucifixit mortem In ipso autem securus respiro c. Let my soule saith he be silent to it selfe and passe ouer it selfe not thinking of it selfe but of thee O my God because thou art indeed my whole hope and trust There is in thee my God and our Lord Iesus Christ the portion and flesh and bloud of euery
blindly proposed by M. Perkins I will confirme the first with such texts of holy Writ as specifie plainly our good workes to be the cause of eternall life Mat. 25. Come vnto me ye blessed of my Father possesse a kingdom prepared for you And why so For when I was hungry ye gaue me meat so forth the like is in the same chapter of the seruants who employed all their talents for their Lord said vnto them Because you haue bene faithfull in few things I will place you ouer many And many such like where good workes done by the parties themselues are expresly said to be the very cause why God rewarded them with the kingdome of heauen Therefore he must needes be holden for a very wrangler that doth seek to peruert such euident speeches and would make the simple beleeue that the cause there formally specified is not to be taken for the cause but doth onely signifie an order of things But if any desire besides the euidence of the text to see how the auncient Fathers take it let him reade S. Augustine In Psal 40. where he thus briefly handleth this text Come ye blessed of my Father receiue what shall we receiue a kingdome for what cause because I was hungrie you gaue me meate c. Of the reall imputation of Christs merits there was no tidings in those daies and that iudicious Doctor found that good works was the cause of receiuing the kingdom of heaueÌ„ R. ABBOT M. Bishop to helpe the former argument addeth some texts of holy writ which specifie plainely as he saith our good workes to be the cause of eternall life To this purpose he alledgeth the words of Christ as touching the last iudgement a Mat. 25.34 Come ye blessed of my Father possesse or rather b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inherite ye the kingdome prepared for you before the foundations of the world for I was hungry and ye gaue me meate c. Where the very place it selfe disproueth that that he intendeth to proue by it for by that that he saith Inherit ye the kingdome it is plainely gathered which S. Ambrose thence affirmeth c Ambros de abitis Theodosij Tanquam possessionem haereditariam recipimus ea quae promissa sunt â—â—bis We receiue as a possession of inheritance those things that are promised vnto vs. And if we receiue the kingdome by way of inheritance then it is not by merit as hath alreadie bene declared Againe when he saith prepared for you from the foundations of the world euen as S. Paule saith d Eph. 1.4 God hath chosen vs in Christ before the foundations of the world he sheweth that the kingdome was prepared for them that inherite it before they had any works and therfore to reason in the same maner as the Apostle doth e Rom. 9.11 not by workes but by the grace and mercie of him that calleth it is said Come ye blessed inherit the kingdome c. For to say that God f August contra Iulian. Pelag. li. 5 cap 3. Ne fortè ante constitutionem mundi ex operibus praecognitis putarentur electi seâ—utus est adiunxit si autem gratia c. vide Epist. 105. prepared the kingdome for them vpon foresight of their workes is the heresie of the Pelagians long agone condemned It must needes be therefore that it was prepared for them without respect of works and that their workes are alledged not as the proper cause fot which the kingdome is giuen vnto theÌ„ but as signes and tokens that they are they for whom it is prepared euen as before we heard out of S. Bernard that g Bernard de grat lib arb Occultae praedestinationis indicia futurae foelicitatis praesagia via regni noâ— causa regnandi they are tokens of our predestination foretokens of our future happinesse the way to the kingdome not the cause of our obtaining it No more can be argued out of the other place Reward we find there but Merit we find none neither can the one of these be euicted by the other It onely sheweth how God graceth his faithfull seruants by assigning vnto them vnder the name of reward that which indeed he otherwise freely bestoweth vpon them A most cleare example whereof we ha◠〈◊〉 our father Abraham to whome God made at first an absolute promise that he would h Gen. 12.2.3 make of him a great nation and would blesse him and in him all nations of the earth should be blessed and yet afterwards vpon the triall that he made of him for the offering of his sonne Isaac taketh occasion to renew the promise as if he would do it for his obedience therein i Cap. 22.16 Because thou hast done this thing and hast not spared thine onely sonne therefore will I surely blesse thee and I will multiply thy seede after thee c. and in thee shall all nations of the earth be blessed because thou hast obeied my voice The blessing was assured to Abraham infallibly by the former absolute promise of God k Prosper de vocat gent. lib. 1. cap. 3. Sine conditio ne promisit sine lege dâ—nauit without any caution or condition as Prosper well saith but he would haue Abraham to take knowledge by occasion of that that he had done that the promise before freely made should inuiolably without any impeachment stand good vnto him Euen so God from our works taketh occasion of the renewing of his promises thereto for our assurance tieth the performance therof vnder the name of reward when as the true cause of all is his mercy in Iesus Christ by whom onely it is that the worke is accepted in his sight Now if God vouchsafe to honour vs let not vs thereby take occasion to dishonour him or chalenge proudly to our merits that for which we should sing praise onely to his mercy Neither do we herein wrangle or peruert the Scripture but finding by the Scripture that God hath chosen and called vs l Ephe. 1.6 that we should be to the praise of the glory of his grace m Aug. cont Pelag Celest lib. 2. cap. 24. NoÌ„ enim Dei gratia gratia erit vllo modo nisi fuerit gratuita omni modo which is not grace in any sort except it be free in euery sort we endeuour that this glory may be yeelded entirely vnto God and that to this end it may alwaies be acknowledged that n Rom. 6.23 eternal life is the gift of God through Iesus Christ our Lord. Now whereas he alledgeth S. Austin to his purpose he abuseth S. Austin as he is wont to do who questioneth not any cause in the place by him cited but vsing the words Come ye blessed of my Father receiue ye a Kingdome goeth on hereupon to demaund not as Maister Bishop saith For what cause but o Aug. in Psal 49. Quid percipite Regnum Pro quare
it true of the scriptures now that they are able so to do when as by the new Testament so much light is added for the cleering of the old The doctrine which the Apostles preached in the new Testament they confirmed by the old They taught no other faith but what was contained therein onely the faith was more plainely and cleerly deliuered by them because as S. Austin saith ſ August de catech rud In veteri testamēto est ocultatio noui in nouo testamento est manifestatio veteris in the old Testament the new is hidden and in the new Testament is the manifesting of the old t Idem in Ioan. tra 45. Tempora variata sunt nō fides c. Eadem fides vtrosque contungit The times saith he are diuers but the faith is one Seeing then the old Testament was sufficient to instruct men to the faith of Christ and the instruction thereof notwithstanding is much more manifestly deliuered in the new and no other faith is taught in the new Testament then is contained in the old who doth not see that the conclusion standeth strong on our part that much more the scripture now containeth all doctrine necessary to instruct vs to the faith of Christ Albeit it is not true which M. Bishop saith that S. Paul meaneth here only the scriptures of the old Testament For although when Timothy was a child there were no other scriptures but onely of the old Testament yet when Paul wrote these words to Timothy the greatest part of the books of the new Testament were extant He wrote this epistle newly before his death as appeareth by that he saith u 2. Tim. 4.6 I am now ready to be offered and the time of my departing is at hand He had then writtē all the rest of his epistles as we may easily conceiue neither is it likely but that the gospels of Mathew Mark and Luke with the Acts of the Apostles were written before that time the first by S. Mathew being testified to be written at the time of Pauls first imprisonment at Rome x Jren. li. 3. ca. 1. Matth. Hebraeis in ipsorū lingua scripturā edidit Euangelij cum Petrus et Paulus Romae euangelizarent et fundarent Ecclesiam founding the Church there where S. Luke makes an end of the history of the Acts of the Apostles after which being not lōg after the beginning of the raigne of Nero the Apostle liued for the space of 12. or 13. yeares being put to death in the y Func Chronol 14. yeare of the same Nero. Of S. Marks Gospel it is also manifest because he died z Hierō in Catal. Mortuus est 8. Neronis anno sepultus Alexandriae in the 8. yeare of Nero as Hierome testifieth six yeares before S. Pauls death and therfore before the writing of this epistle The like also is plaine of the former epistle of S. Peter as appeareth for that his second epistle was written about the same time that S. Paul wrote this secōd epistle to Timothy S. Peter being put to death at the same time as S. Paul was and saying as he doth in the same second epistle a 2. Pet. 1.14 I know that the time is at hand that I must lay downe this my tabernacle Now therefore so many of the books of the new Testament being extant at that time who can doubt but that the Apostle naming all Scripture did speake of those bookes vnlesse he will be so mad as to say that at that time they were no Scriptures And as when we say that a man hath known the laws frō a child we do not meane to restraine his knowledge only to those laws which were when he was a child but will signifie his knowledge also of such lawes as haue bin since made euen so when the Apostle saith that Timothy had known the Scriptures from a child he would giue to vnderstād that he was conuersant not only in the Scriptures that then were but also in such other as frō time to time thenceforward were written for the same vse Nay who would make question but that the Apostle setting downe by the direction of the holy Ghost this commendation of all Scripture would hereby giue vs to vnderstand what to conceiue of other scriptures also that were to be published afterwards Therefore M. Bishop hath hitherto answered nothing to take away the euidence of the argument taken out of the words of the Apostle and the Protestants Achilles is stronger then that he may take vpon him the part of Hector to encounter therewith But yet well fare a good stomacke for though he haue said as good as nothing yet he setteth a good face vpon the matter and concludeth this point with an inuincible argument like the inuincible nauie of Spaine Nothing is necessary to be beleeued but that which is written in holy Scripture Very true But in no place of Scripture is it written that the written word containes all doctrine needful to saluation as hath bene proued But that is not true the proofes that it doth so are pregnant and cleere but his proofes to the contrary are childish and vaine and therefore his conclusion cannot hold In steed therefore of his presumed and inuisible argument we wish him to consider of this Whatsoeuer the written word teacheth vs of it selfe that is necessary to be beleeued But the written word teacheth vs concerning it selfe that it is able to make vs wise to saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus It is necessarie therefore for vs to beleeue that it can so and therefore to reiect all doctrine that cannot be approoued and warranted thereby 10. W. BISHOP And by the same principle I might reiect all testimonie of Antiquity as needlesse if the Scriptures be so all-sufficient as they hold Yet let vs heare what testimonie M. Perkins brings out of antiquitie in fauour of his cause Tertullian * De resur carni◠saith Take from heretikes the opinions which they defend with the Heathens that they may defend their questions by Scripture alone and they cannot stand Answ Here Scripture alone is opposed as euery one may see vnto the writings of heathen authors and not to the traditions of the Apostles and therefore maketh nothing against them Againe saith M. Perkins out of the same author We need no curiositie after Iesus Christ nor inquisition after the Gospell when we beleeue it we desire to beleeue nothing besides it for this we must beleeue that there is nothing else which we may beleeue Answer By the Gospell there is vnderstood all our Christian doctrine written and vnwritten and not onely the written word of the foure Euangelists else we should not beleeue the Acts of the Apostles or their Epistles no more then traditions which Christian doctrine written and vnwritten we onely beleeue by diuine faith to all other authors we giue such credit as their writings do deserue If any man
ipsa nisi quaedaÌ„ scriniaria Christianorum baâ—ulans legem Prophetas in testimonium assertionis ecclesiae the roll-keepers of the Christians as Saint Austine noteth carying the law and the Prophets for the testimonie of that which the Church teacheth If God then haue appointed them to be witnesses of those bookes of the old Testament which should serue for the assertion of our faith in the new wee should doe amisse to admit of other bookes of the old Testament for assertion of our faith whereof they giue no witnesse This computation of the Scriptures according to their tradition is followed by the fathers of the Christian Church professing exactly to set downe the number of Canonicall bookes as by z Euseb lib. 4 cap. 25. Veteris instrumenti libros diligenter cogritos subieci Where wisedome in the Greeke is added by apposition to the Prouerbs so called by the auncients Melito Bishop of Sardis by a Jdem lib 6. cap. 24. Where a fault is committed by Eusebius in leauing out the booke of the twelue lesser Prophets for the two and twentith Origen by b Athan. in Synopsi Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria by c Epiphan de mens pond Epiphanius Bishop of Cyprus by the whole Councell of d Concil Laodic cap. 59. Laodicea for the Greeke and Easterne Churches and for the Latine and Westerne Churches by e Hilar. Prolog in Psal Ita secundum traditiones veterum deputantur Hilarie by f Hieron in Prolog Galeato Hierome by g Ruffinus in expositione Symboli Ruffinus all reckoning for Canonicall Scriptures the same that wee doe and excluding from the Canon the same that wee exclude The same reckoning we finde in the Canons which haue gone in the Church of Rome vnder the name of the Canons of the Apostles onely h Canon Apostol 84. three bookes of Machabees are foisted in of which we reade not to that purpose any other-where Yea and that they went not in that account in the Church of Rome is apparent by Gregory Bishop there who being to apply the example of Eleazar in the Machabees to the matter that he had in hand saith i Gregor Moral lib. 19. cap. 13. De quae re non inordinatè agimus si ex libris licet noÌ„ canonicis sed taâ—â—n ad ecclesiae edificationeÌ„ editis exempliâ—m proferamus Eleazar enim c. Of this thing we shall not doe amisse to bring an example out of the bookes though not canonicall yet set forth for the edification of the Church In which words he plainly sheweth that neither the bookes of Machabees nor the rest of that sort were holden for canonicall Scriptures albeit they were set forth to be read for that they contained many things profitable for the edifying of the people For this cause S. Austine reckoneth them amongst the canonicall bookes but because he confesseth as we haue seene that in contradiction they haue not that k August cont faust lib. 28. cap. 4. Confirmatiua authoritate clarescerent confirmatiue authority which elsewhere he nameth for the prerogatiue of the Scriptures he thereby confesseth that they are not truly canonicall because it is for that authorities sake that the name of canonicall Scriptures is giuen to those to which it doth appertaine Therefore we reckon him also as a witnesse of this tradition whereby our Church discerneth what books wee are to approoue for determining faith and doctrine in the Church and vnder that name to commend as the infallible Oracles of God to the deuotion of the people But now Maister Bishop will aske what the reason is that admitting this tradition we do not admit also of other their traditions of which we also reade in the writings of the fathers Whereto to say nothing that their traditions are vncertaine as touching their beginning variable in their proceeding corrupt in their vse and many of them vpstart deuices shamefully and lewdly attributed to the fathers whereas this tradition of the Scriptures without alteration or interruption hath had constant perpetuall acknowledgment both of the whole nation of the Iewes and of the whole Christian Church throughout the whole world from the beginning vntill this day wee answere him that by this tradition it selfe wee are instructed against the admitting of their traditions For this tradition or deliuering of the Scriptures from God is as the deliuering of a commission from a Prince For as by the commission the subiect is directed what to do in the Princes seruice and is thereby listed and bounded so as to do nothing but according to the tenure and warrant of the commission being punishable if he shall attempt any thing further vpon his owne head so by this commission of holy Scripture deliuered vnto vs by the Church from God we are instructed and limited what to beleeue and what to doe as touching faith and dutie towards God and are iustly to be punished if we shall dare in any sort to go beyond the bounds and warrant of this commission yea and the Church it selfe is to hold and professe it selfe so tied to the precepts and rules of this commission as that it may not presume to obtrude or thrust any thing vpon the people of God to be beleeued and taught but whereof it hath thereby receiued warrant and instruction from God himself And if the Church shall further attempt or enterprise any thing as the Church of Rome doth it is to receiue checke and controlement from this writ of Gods commission neither are we to thinke our selues discharged for that we are thus told by the bearer of the writ so long as by the writ it selfe we are commaunded otherwise 18. W. BISHOP The two next arguments for traditions be not well propounded by Master Perkins The third is to be framed thus Either all the bookes of holy Scripture containe all needfull doctrine to saluation or some certaine of them without the rest not some of them without the rest for then the other should be superfluous which no man holdeth therefore all the bookes of holy Scripture put together do containe all necessary instruction Now then the argument followeth but some of those bookes of holy Scripture haue bene lost therefore some points of necessary doctrine contained in them are not extant in the written word and consequently to be learned by tradition Master Perkins answereth first supposing some of the books to be lost that all needfull doctrine which was in them is in some of the others preserued But why did he not solue the argument proposed were then those bookes superfluous Doth the holy Ghost set men to pen needlesse discourses which this answer supposeth therefore he giues a second more shamefull that none be perished which is most contrary vnto the plaine Scriptures * 1. Paral. vit 2 Paral. 9. as S. Iohn Chrysostome proueth * Hom. 9. in Mat. Et hom 7 an priorem ad Corinth where he hath these expresse words
Church nor Councell can define any thing but as shall be pleasing to the Pope The Church cannot erre the Councell cannot erre but the reason is because the Pope cannot erre Set aside the Pope and the Church may erre and the Councell may erre but the Pope onely cannot erre This is a drunken fancie witlesse senslesse such as the auncient Fathers neuer imagined or dreamed of nay vnworthy whereof there shold be any question whether those godly Fathers approued it or not If we would argue froÌ„ the temporall state as M. Bishop doth what state is there or hath bene that maketh one man Iudge and interpreter of all lawes He nameth it to haue bene so in the old Testament amongst the Iewes but either he knoweth not or impudently falsifieth the storie in that behalfe For the law of Moses did not make the high Priest alone a Iudge but onely as elsewhere it is expounded l 2. Chro. 19.11 the chiefe of them that were appointed Iudges for al matters of the Lord. There was a whole Councell to which those causes were referred and by common consultation and iudgement things were agreed vpon and the sentence accordingly pronounced by the Priest He had not to say I determine thus or thus but as we haue example in the Gospell he said m Mat. 26.66 What thinke ye as being to haue consent of the rest before he could giue a sentence Therefore Moses setteth all downe in the plurall number as of many n Deut. 17.8.9 If there arise a matter too hard for thee c. thou shalt come to the Priests of the Leuites and to the Iudge that shall be in those dayes and aske and they shall shew thee the sentence of iudgement and thou shalt do according to all that they of that place shall shew thee According to the law which they shall teach thee thou shalt do c. Onely because the sentence in common agreed vpon was pronounced by the Priest as the chiefe therefore it is added o Ver. 12. And the man that shall do presumptuously not hearkening to the Priest as touching matters of the Lord or to the Iudge as touching ciuill causes for we see these two plainely distinguished each from other that man shal die Now if God would not in that small kingdome haue all to depend vpon the iudgement of any one how improbable is it that to one should be committed a iudgement of all matters of the Lord throughout the whole world And how do they make it good that any such power or authoritie should belong vnto him They tell vs much of Peter but we find not that attributed to Peter which they ascribe to the Pope neither do they giue vs any warrant froÌ„ Christ that that is descended to the Pope which is attributed to Peter Surely if Christ would haue had the Pope to succeed in Peters place the Popes should haue bene qualified as Peter was But we see the contrarie for amongst all the generations of men since the world was it cannot be shewed that euer there was such a succession of rake-hels and hel-hounds such monsters and incarnate diuels as haue bene amongst them men that haue giuen themselues wholy to the diuell as their owne stories do report Heretikes Apostaties Atheists dogges most vnworthy of all other to haue the Sunne shine vpon them or the earth to beare them Alphonsus de Castro said once though afterwards he was made to vnsay it p Alphâ—nsâ—â—e Castro lib. 1 ca 4 contra haeres CuÌ„ consâ—â—t plâ—â—res corâ—â—â— adâ—â—â—sse illâ—teratos vt Graâ—â—â—atram penitùs ignoraÌ„t qui fit vt sicras literas interpretari pâ—â—sâ—â—t Thus it was printed twice at first but after for thâ— Popes credit he was instructed to leaue it out When as it is certaine that many Popes are so vnlearned as that they are vtterly ignorant of their very Grammer how can it be that they should be able to expound the Scriptures Surely very vnlikely it is and who doth not see it to be the most certaine and ineuitable danger of the Church that the moderation thereof and the detennining of the faith should be committed to one but specially to such a one Gregorie Bishop of Rome saw it well when the Patriarch of Constantinople making claime to be vniuersall Bishop he gaue this for one reason against that vniuersalitie for that q Gregor lib. 4. Ep. 32. Vniuersa Ecclâ—sia quod absit à statu suo corruâ—t quando is qui appellâ—tur vâ—â—uersaelis cadit Et lib. 6 Epâ— 24. if there be one to be vniuersall Bishop in his fall must be the fall of the whole Church And that God by the multitude of the ouerseers of his church hath prouided for the safetie thereof Cyprian well obserueth who one where affirming that r Cipria de simp Praelat Episcopatus vâ—â—â—â— est câ—â—â—â—â— a singulis in sâ—â—â—dum pâ—â—â— tâ—â—â—tur the office of Bishopricke is but one whereof euery Bishop fully hath his part and therefore signifying that none hath therein to challenge prerogatiue aboue another addeth further in another place that Å¿ Idâ—â—â— lib. 3. Ep. 13 〈…〉 erâ—â—runt c. vt si quis ex hoc coâ—â—â—â—io haereâ—â—◠〈◊〉 gregeÌ„ Christ â—â—cerare vâ—stare tâ—â—â—rit saâ—ueni 〈◊〉 caererâ— quasi pâ—â—teres vtilâ—s 〈◊〉 Sâ—â—cordâ—s 〈◊〉 Dominicâ—s 〈…〉 therefore the corporation of Bishops consisteth of many that if any one of this Colledge or company shall assay to bring in heresie and to rend and waste the flocke of Christ the rest shold helpe and as good and compassionate Pastors should gather the Lordes sheepe into his fold This prouision of God Antichrist the man of sinne the Bishop of Rome being to bring the abhomination of desolation into the church of Christ hath defeated and made voide challenging to himselfe alone an vniuersall power and authoritie of iudgement ouer the whole Church and vnder pretence thereof deuising and establishing in the Church whatsoeuer he list to the dishonour of God to the peruerting of the faith of Christ and to the destruction of infinite soules making a meaning of the word of God to serue his turne that nothing which he saith or doth may seeme to be controlled or checked thereby To this purpose they haue bewitched the world to entertaine this paradoxe which in the old Christian world was neuer heard of that t Hosius de expresso Dei verbo Siquis habeat interpretationem Ecclesiae Romanae de aliquo loco Scripturae etiaÌ„si nec sciat nec intelligat an quomodo cum Scripturae verbis conueniat tamen habet ipsissimum verbuÌ„ Dei if a man haue the interpretation of the Church of Rome of any place of Scripture albeit he neither know nor vnderstand whether and how it agreeth with the words of the Scripture yet he hath the very word of God And in like sort do our Rhemish impostors labour to perswade their Reader that u Rhem. Testam Argument of
tieth theÌ„ to euen to a number of mad witlesse fancies such as that a man may well think theÌ„ to be bewitched of Satan in that they place deuotion holinesse in such toies We leaue their obedience to theÌ„ not only of these absurdities but of those other matters which carie some better shew of sobriety grauity we say as S. Ambrose hath said m Ambros de Virg. lib. 3. Nos nouâ— omnia quae Christus noÌ„ docuit iure daÌ„namus quia via fidelibus Christuâ— est Siergo Christus non docuit quod docemus nos illud detestabile iudicamus We iustly condemne all new things which Christ hath not taught because Christ is the way for faithfull men If Christ haue not taught what we teach we hold it worthy to be detested Now therefore let them magnifie their three vowes whilest they wil but because Christ neuer knew them for his we coÌ„demne them as superstitiously deuised blasphemously maintained to the iniury and wrong of the crosse We magnifie the vow of baptisme as the onely Christian vow approuing no other vowes but what are implied contained therein because therein for the whole course of our life we vow dedicate our selues wholy vnto God M. Bishop saith that that is no vow but a full and assured promise and yet in the former section he hath told vs that to promise to God is a vow We vow our selues therein to the keeping of Gods commandements and we endeauour to keepe them and by the grace of God we attaine to the keeping of theÌ„ but yet so as that we know it to be one of Christes commandements to say daily vnto God n Aug. cont 2. epist Pelag. lib. 3 ca. 7. Ita dixerim mandata fâ—cerunt vt ipsa mandata memi nerimus pertinere ad orationeÌ„ in quâ— veraciâ—or quotidie dicunt sancti fiâ—uÌ„ promissimis fiat voluntas tua Dâ—mitiâ— nobis c. Forgiue vs our trespasses because we do not so keepe his other coÌ„mandements nor can so keepe them in the infirmity of this flesh but that o Iam. 3.2 in many things we offend all This we teach and this is so true as that M. Bishop himselfe in his owne conscience is forced to subscribe it and yet by a wilfull spirit of contradiction bendeth himselfe to dispute against it The vow of baptisme we alwaies renew in receiuing the Lords supper because therein we professe our selues to be of his retinue and renew the promise of being holy vnto him As for that which Maister Perkins saith of a vow made in our creation as touching our obedience to God in what meaning he spake it I cannot determine There may be nouelty in the word but p 1. Tim. 6.20 prophanenesse which is the thing that the Apostle condemneth there is none He might suppose Adams promise thereof before his fall or the bond and duty arising of our creation whereby we are no lesse tied then by a vow Of his termes of rauing and decaied wits we will leaue him to consider further presuming that one day he will thinke that in all this matter he hath but raued and that his wits were not right in taking vpon him the defence of so bad a cause CHAPTER 9. OF IMAGES OVr consents We acknowledge the ciuill vse of Images M. Perkinâ— as freely truly as the Church of Rome doth By ciuill vse I vnderstand that which is made of theÌ„ in the coÌ„mon societie of men out of the appointed places of the solemne worship of God And this to be lawfull appeareth because the arts of painting and grauing are the ordinances of God and to be skilful in them is the gift of God as the example of Bezaleel and Aholiab declare * Exod. 35. This vse of Images may be in sundry things First in adorning and setting forth of buildings so the Lord coÌ„manded his Temple to be adorned with Images of Palme-trees and Pomegranates of Buls Cherubs and such like Secondly they serue for distinction of coyns Thirdly Images serue to keepe in memory friends departed whoÌ„ we reuerence therfore in the daies after the Apostles Christians vsed priuatly to keepe the pictures of their friends departed which afterward saith he by abuse came to be set in Churches and worshipped of which hereafter Second conclusion We hold the historicall vse of Images to be good and lawfull that is to represent to the eie the acts of Histories whether they be humane or diuine and thus we think that the histories of the Bible may be painted in priuate places Third conclusion In one case it is lawfull to make an Image to testifie the presence or effects of the maiestie of God namely when God himselfe commands it so was the brazen Serpent made to represent Christ crucified * Iohn 3. and the Cherubs ouer the Mercie seate to represent the maiestie of God whom the Angels adore And therefore it is said Thou shalt not make to thy selfe that is vpon thine owne head any grauen Image This by the way is a very wilfull peruerting of those words to thy selfe which cannot signifie but to thine owne vse that is to adore them as is plainly declared in the text following The fourth conclusion The right Images of the new Testament are the doctrine and preaching of the Gospel wherin Christ and his benefites are liuely represented vnto vs but these be metaphoricall Pictures not belonging to this purpose for it is one thing to describe in words another to expresse in liuely colours and lineaments 1. W. BISHOP These conclusions containe as M. Perkins affirmeth the doctrine of the Church of England which I would beleeue if I did not see the Magistrates publikely to take away Pictures from Catholikes to teare and burne them which were kept but in priuate places yea their more feruent disciples cannot abide a Crosse standing by the high-way-side or in any neuer so prophane a place but either they beat and hale them down or most despitefully deface them bewraying indeede vnto all moderate men their cankred stomakes against him that died on the Crosse who will one day when he pleaseth confound them But to couer this their malice they cast ouer it the mantle of zeale saying that the Papists make them their Gods and that therefore they are to be abolished O men blinded with spite against true deuotion We Catholikes are a thousand times more zealous of the true honour of the liuing God than any Protestants euer were or will be And that small reuerence which we yeeld vnto Images is more different from the honour and obedience due vnto Almighty God than the cope of heauen is distant from the center of the earth R. ABBOT They say the diuell neuer goes away but he leaues a stinke behind him M. Bishop as it appeareth had giuen ouer this worke at the question of satisfaction but better remembring himselfe he tooke the matter in hand againe and then would by no
of Baal for the vpholding of the worship of those Calues vaunteth of u 2. King 10.16 the zeale that he had for Iehouah the Lord and the Samaritans accepting of the same worship are said therby x Ibid. ca. 17.32 to serue the Lord. Hereby theÌ„ it is plaine that an Idol is not that only which representeth that to be a God which is not but also that wherein is intended the representation worship of the true God Last of al M. Perkins alledgeth that Hierome saith that Idols are the images of dead men Adde saith M. Bishop that are taken for Gods for many Idols be images saith he all such as truly represent any person that was once liuing here but no image is an Idoll vnlesse it be taken for a God But that this is very false it is manifest because the Pagans themselues at least the wiser sort of them neuer tooke their images to be Gods yea they scorned them that thought them to be so witlesse as to vnderstand theÌ„ so y Origen cont Cels li. 7. Quis nisi sit totus fatuus haec Deos credit noÌ„ dijs dicatas statuas Who saith Celsus vnlesse he be altogether out of his wits taketh them for Gods and not for images dedicated to the Gods z Ibid. li. 1. Probabile non est inter Deos ceÌ„seri nequaÌ„ artificuÌ„ et pleruÌ„que scelestoruÌ„ hominum opera It is not probable or likely saith he that the works of base artificers who are ofteÌ„times lewd meÌ„ should be reckoned amongst the Gods So Olympius another Pagan Philosopher when he saw the people of his part dismaied at the casting downe of their images a Sozom. hist lib. 7. ca. 15 Hortatur ne à religione deficerent assereÌ„s simulachra statuas nihil aliud esse quam materiaÌ„ corruptibileÌ„ ac proinde in nihiluÌ„ potuisse redigi inhabitasse auteÌ„ his virtutes quâ—sâ—am eas iam in coelum auolasse exhorteth theÌ„ not to fall away froÌ„ their religion for as for those images they were no other but corruptible matter therfore might be brought to nought but there had dwelt in theÌ„ diuine powers and those were now gone to heauen Thus Arnobius bringeth them in excusing themselues that b Arnob. adu Gent. li. 6. Deos inquitis per simulachra veneramus by the images they worshipped the gods and Austine c Aug. in Psal 85. Jsta non co limus haec signae sunt We worship not these things these are but onely signes So Athanasius mentioneth that they pleaded for their images that d Athan. adu Jdola Aâ—unt tiltusmodi simulachra pro elementis literarum humano generi esse quae num leguni Dei notitiam condiscere possiâ—t they serued for letters which whilest men did reade they might thereby learne the knowledge of God Seeing then that the heathen images were Idols and yet were not holden to be very gods it is hereby manifest that an image may be an Idoll though it be not taken to be a God If Maister Bishop will say that the multitude notwithstanding tooke the images themselues to be gods we answer him that so the vulgar people do amongst them also as before I shewed out of Polydore Virgil but the heathen were of his minde to haue their religion esteemed according to the vnderstanding of such wise men as he is But in the conclusion he will mend the matter saying that an Idoll requires beside the image that it be made a God or the image of a false God So then though it be not taken for a God yet it must be the image of a false God Where to omit what hath bene already said for disproofe hereof by the example of the golden Calues and to say nothing of Micahs mothers idoll who saith of the siluer wherewith she would make it that for that vse e Iudg. 17 3. she had dedicated it to Iehouah the Lord therby shewing that she meant to do it as a seruice to the true God to let these go I say we finde Hierome alledging that where we read in Genesis f Gen 4.26 Then began men to call vpoÌ„ the name of the Lord g Hieron tradit Heb. in Genes Plerique HebraeoruÌ„ arbitraÌ„tur quòd tunc primum in nomine Domini et in similitudine eius fabricata sint idolae most of the Hebrew writers did so take it that then Idols were first made in the name of the Lord to resemble him By which testimony it is plaine that the name of Idols belongeth not only to the images of false gods but to those images also that are set vp in the name of the Lord and to resemble him In which sort h Synod Nicen 2. Act. 4. in epist GermaÌ„ Hoc vnuÌ„ arbitrati non esse Deum neque veruÌ„ neque falsum nisi cuius idoluÌ„ formatum videant Germanus the patriarch of CoÌ„stantinople saith of the Israelites that they thought him not to be a God neither true nor false of whom they saw not an Idoll framed before them plainly calling that an Idoll also which is framed and set vp in the name of the true God And that this may the better appeare vnto vs we may obserue that the Idols of the Gentiles were not condemned by the fathers only for that they were the images of false gods but vpoÌ„ supposall that those were truly gods whoÌ„ they worshipped yet they dispute against images as things too base and vile and vnfit to be vsed for seruice of theÌ„ to whoÌ„ they would yeeld the acknowledgment of being gods i Arnob. adu Gent. lib. 6. Si certuÌ„ est Deos esse quos remini atque in summis coeâ—i regionibus degere quae causa quae ratio est vt Simulachra ista fingantur à vobis cùm habeatis res certat quibus preces possitis offundere auxiliuÌ„ rebus in exigentibus postulare c Quid fieri pote est iniuriosius coÌ„tumeliosiuâ— durius quà m Deum alterum scire rei alteri supplicare opeÌ„ sperare de numine nullius sensus ad effigieÌ„ deprecari If it be certaine that those be Gods whoÌ„ you think so to be saith Arnobius and that they dwell in the highest regions of heauen what cause what reason is there that you should make these images or as they wil haue it these idols seeing ye haue otherwise to whoÌ„ to pray of whoÌ„ in extremities to request help What can there be more iniurious reproachfull intollerable then to know one to be God and to make his supplication to another to looke for helpe of the diuine power and to make his praier to a senselesse image So Lactantius saith k Lactaent Justitut li. 2. cap. 2. Quid simulachra volunt quae aut mortuorum aut absentiuÌ„ monumenta sunt c. Si dij absentes esse non possunt qui quoniam diuini sunt in quacunque muÌ„di parte fuerint
Christi etsi non fuerit vnitae verbo Dei in persona fuit tamen ei vnita per repraesentationem contactum because by representation or touching it is vnited vnto Christ being in this respect much more iustly to be condemned of idolatry in thus worshipping the crosse then Nestorius was for worshipping the sole manhood of Christ because albeit Nestorius acknowledged not any substantiall or personall vnion betwixt the godhead and the manhood yet he acknowledged a farre greater vnion then that which Thomas assigneth betwixt Christ and the crosse And here it were worthy to be enquired what manner of vnion or coniunction this is that they tell vs of by what bond it holdeth what effects it worketh whether it be any offering of violence to Christ when the woodden Roode is rotten and worme-eaten to hew him in pieces and cast the same into the fire and so disunite the things that were before vnited But Maister Bishop somewhat resolueth vs of this matter teaching vs to conceiue of Christ and the crucifixe as of the King and his purple robe the woorst is that he saith that there is not any worship due to the robe whereas Thomas out of his idle dreames hath before told vs that wee worship the Kings garment with the same worship as the King himselfe So then the matter is come to a faire passe that there is no worship at all due to the Crucifixe because there is none due to the Kings robes and then what is it that we dispute of all this while He telleth vs that the worship of the King cannot be seperated from the robe that is so closely ioyned to his person But what is the Crosse or Crucifixe as closely ioyned to Christ as the robe is to the King If downe before the crosse but if Christ be in heauen and the crosse vpon the earth then is this a poore simple defence of their worshipping the crosse The diuine person of Christ he saith is properly adored True but that diuine person of Christ is in heauen and why are they not content to worship him properly where he is Why do they vnder a foolish pretence of a Kings robe bring in an improper worshipping of that which being here vpon the earth is so farre and so wholy disioined from him Will not M. Bishop thinke him either a foole or a mad man who finding the Popes robes in his Castle of S. Angelo will kneele downe to the robes and make his request to them when the Pope himselfe is in his Lateran consistorie Surely euen so must we thinke that they egregiously play the fooles who stand babling to a crosse here on earth when their suite is to Christ himselfe sitting aboue in heauen Thus we haue giuen him an eare to the hearing of all this but wee haue therein heard what he saith out of Bellarmine not what Thomas Aquinas saith but by Thomas his owne words wee say still that he ascribeth the same worship to the crosse as he doth to Christ himselfe 15. W. BISHOP Lastly M. Perkins saith without quoting any place that Augustine and Gregory in plaine termes deny images to be odored and so do we too taking adoring as they do for the worship that is proper to God R. ABBOT Saint Austine saith that by the commaundement of God a August epist. 119. cap. 11. Prohibetur coli ali qui in figâ—neâ—tis hominum Dei similitudo Wee are forbidden to worship any similitude or image of God that is deuised or framed by man Hee noteth b Idem de morib eccles Cathol cap. 34. Noui midioâ—esse sepulchorum es picturaâ—uÌ„ adoratores c. Quos ipsa â—o demnat ecclesia c. worshippers of pictures and reliques to haue bene then condemned by the Church He commendeth Varro the old Romane a heathen man for c Idem De ciu Dei lib 4. cap 31. Castiùs existiniat sine simulaâ—â—ris obseruari religionem Quis non videat quantum propinquauerit veritati thinking that religion is more purely obserued without Images and affirmeth that therein he drew neere to the knowledge of the truth Hauing in another place shewed how a shadow of the wisedome of God appeareth in men in making the pourtraitures and images of the creatures which he hath made and namely of men he addeth d Idem in lib. 83 quaest 78. Qui talia opera etiam coluerunt quâ—ntum deuiauerint à veritate hinc intelligi potest quiasi ipsa anim â—hum corpora celerent quae muâ—tò excellentiùs faebricata sunt quorum sunt illa â—â—itamenta quid eis infaelicius diceremus As for them who haue worshipped such how farre they haue gone away from the truth may hereby be vnderstood because if they should worship the very bodies of those liuing creatures which are much more excellently made wherof those images are but imitations we would pronounce them to be most vnhappy In a word those discourses which he vseth to shew e Idem in Psal 113. Jlla causa est maxima impietatis in sanae quòd plùs valet in affectibus miserorum similis viuenti forma quae sibi efficit supplicari quà m quòd manifestuÌ„ est eam non esse viuentem vt debeat à viueÌ„te coÌ„temni Vide ibid. plura epist 49. the certaine danger of superstitious fancies arising of the resemblances of images to the formes and shapes of men do fully and without exception determine against all vse of Popish images As for Gregory he had some speciall cause giuen him fully to signifie his mind as touching this matter of images and albeit he approued the historicall vse of them in the Church yet he absolutely condemned the worshipping of them Serenus the Bishop of Massilia seeing the people to worship images brake them and defaced them Gregory hearing thereof writeth to him thus f Gregor lib. 7. epist 109. DuduÌ„ ad nos peruenit quòd fraternitas vestra quosdam imaginum adoratores aspiciens easdem ecclesiae imagines confregit atque proiecit Et quidem zeluÌ„ vos habuisse nequid manufactuÌ„ adorari possit laudauimus sed frangere easdem imagines non debuisse iudicamus Id ircò enim pictura inecclesiijs adhibetur vt qui literas nesciunt saltem in parietibus videndo legant quae legere in codicibus non valent Tua ergò fraternitas illas seruare ab earum adoratu populum prohibere debuit quatenus literarum nescij haberent vnde scientiam historiae colligerent populus in picturae adoratione minimè peccaret It is lately reported to vs that your brotherhood beholding some worshipping images did breake the same images being belonging to the Church and threw them away And indeed we commended you for hauing a zeale that nothing made with hands should be worshipped but yet we iudge that the images should not haue bene broken For therefore are pictures vsed in the Church that they who are vnlearned may by sight
Tertul. Apol. cap. 16. Solem credunt Deum nostrum c. Inde suspicio quod innotuerit nos ad Orientis regionem precari prayed to or towards the East thought they worshipped the Sunne and gaue out that they made the Sunne their God The Christians worshipped Christ onely in bending themselues towards the East and so the faithfull Iewes in bending or bowing towards the Arke intended the worship of God onely and therefore a senslesse part it is to alledge those wordes of the Prophet for the defence of the worship of Popish idols And if they would proue the worshipping of any thing thereby or the praying at or before any thing it should be the worshipping and praying before that that was prefigured by the Temple and the Arke The Temple one way was a figure of heauen as before was shewed wherein Gdd doth dwell and hath n Dan. 7.10 thousand thousands of Angels standing before him and tenne thousand thousands ministring vnto him M. Bishop then should by his course of interpretation conclude from the Prophets words that we should worship heauen But he should rather conceiue that as we worship and pray towards heauen but yet do not worship heauen or pray to heauen so did they also worship and pray towards the Temple and the Arke but did not worship or pray to them Another way the Temple was a figure of the Church of Christ and of euery faithfull man o 1. Cor. 3.16 Know ye not saith the Apostle that ye are the Temple of God and againe p 2. Cor. 6.16 ye are the Temple of the liuing God The Arke whereat and whereby he is present with vs and dwelleth in vs is the faith of Iesus Christ our q Rom. 3.25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 propitiatorie and mercy-seate and by his presence the Angels also attend vpon vs r Heb. 1.14 being ministring spirits sent foorth for their sakes that shall be heires of saluation Now therefore M. Bishop shold rather proue by the Prophets words our kneeling in our prayers before a faithfull man or worshipping a faithfull man then our kneeling before an Image or worshipping an Image and if it be absurd thereby to affirme the worshipping of a liuing man in whom God dwelleth much more the worshipping of a dead and senslesse blocke which hath no fellowship with God Yea and if by those words it were warranted to set vp the images of dead men and to worship them what was the cause that the Iewes conceiued not so much Why were they without that heauenly shew as M. Bishop in the height of his earthly wisedome calleth it If they neuer conceiued it neuer practised it what shall we but take them for cousiners and deceiuers who offer this violence to the Scriptures and most impudently wrest theÌ„ to the maintenance of that filthinesse and abhomination which expresly they condemne But yet Master Bishop telleth vs that it is otherwise very euident that the Israelites worshipped the Arke And how I pray you First none but the high Priest might come into the place where it was Well and what then It was carried before the campe with great solemnitie to search out a resting place for the whole hoast True and what more When they were to fight against the Philistines they had great confidence in the presence of the Arke There was great cause why they should so carrying themselues respectfully towards God because it was the token that God had giuen them of his presence amongst them let vs heare the rest Fiftie thousand of the Bethsamites were slaine for seeing the Arke It is true indeed that for looking into the Arke so many of theÌ„ were slaine is there any thing yet behind Oza was by God smitten to death for touching the Arke Well and what of all this Doth not all this conuince in what reuerence the Arke was had euen by Gods owne testimonie As if to proue M. Bishop to be a profound Clearke a man should say He hath learned a little Rhetoricke and lesse Logicke and is per saltum a Doctor of Diuinity and per inopiam a Priest and doth not all this conuince that he hath some learning Witlesse cauiller is there any thing in all those allegations that importeth the worshipping of the Arke Nay marke gentle Reader that whereas he propoundeth to prooue that the Arke was worshipped he maketh his conclusion that the Arke was had in great reuerence But they had the temple also in great reuerence and the altars and the offerings and al things that by the law were coÌ„manded to be holy and will he thereof inferre that all these were to be worshipped They were to haue the Priests in great reuerence and specially the high Priest and shall we therefore say that they worshipped the Priests What is this reuerence but a religious respect and care of the sacred and due vsage of holy things according to their kind Thus are we to haue our Churches in reuerence with those vtensils and implements that belong to them that they be had and vsed with that decencie and seemelinesse as fitteth to things that serue for holy ministrations As for Hierome M. Bishop wholy abuseth falsifieth his words for he saith nothing at all of worshipping the Arke for the Cherubims and pictures of Angels that were erected at the ends of it this is a very wilfull and impudent forgerie but he saith that Å¿ Hieron ad Marcel vt cont nâ—gret Bethleem Venerabantur quondam Iudaei Sancta sanctoruÌ„ quia ibi erant Cherubim propitiatorium arca testameÌ„ti Manna virga Aaron altare aureum the Iewes of old reuerenced the Sancta sanctorum because there were the Cherubims and the mercy-seate and the Arke of the TestameÌ„t and Manna and Aarons rod and the golden altar He knew well that if he had reported Hieroms words aright they would not sound for his purpose but to frame them to his turne he changeth the reuerencing of the holy place because of the Cherubims and the Arke into worshipping the Arke because of the Cherubims as if worship were performed properly to the Cherubims whereas * Origen contra Cels lib. 5. Coelestes Angelos nemo adorat qui se legi Mosis subdedit by the lawe of Moses as Origen saith no worship was done to the Angels themselues and much lesse to the Cherubims which represented the Angels The word venerari which Hierome vseth albeit it be often vsed for worship and seruice done to God yet is of so large signification as that it is yeelded to all those things to which we yeeld any reuerend and dutifull respect So doth t August de doctr Christ li. 3. cap. 9. Sicuti est baptismi Sacramentum celebratio corporis sanguinis Domini Quae vnusquisque imbutus agnoscit vt ea noÌ„ carnali seruitute sed spirituali potius libertate veneretur Saint Austine vse the word of the reuerence that we vse to the Sacraments not onely the
adde a supply of humane satisfaction ergo they make it no satisfaction at all Answ This is a substantiall argument to raise the cry vpon which hath both propositions false The first is childish for he that satisfieth for halfe his debts or for any part of theÌ„ makes some satisfaction which satisfaction is vnperfect yet cannot be called no satisfaction at al as euery child may see His second is as vntrue mans satisfaction is not to supply the want of Christs satisfaction but to apply it to vs as M. Perkins saith his faith doth to them and to fulfill his will and ordinance God doth in baptisme for Christs sake pardon both all sins and taketh fully away all paine due to sinne so that he who dieth in that state goeth presently to heauen But if we do afterward vngratefully forsake God and coÌ„trary to our promise transgresse against his commandements then lo the order of his diuine iustice requires that we be not so easily receiued againe into his fauor but he vpon our repentance pardoning the sin and the eternall punishment due vnto it through Christ doth exact of euery man a temporall satisfaction answerable vnto the fault committed not to supply Christs satisfaction which was of infinite value and might more easily haue taken away this temporall punishment then it doth the eternall but that by the smart and griefe of this punishment the man may be feared from sinning and be made more carefull to auoyd sinne and also by this meanes be made members conformable to Christ our head that suffering with him we may raigne with him And therefore he hauing satisfied for the eternall punishment which we are not able to do doth lay the temporall paine vpon our shoulders that according vnto the Apostle Gal. 6. Euery man do beare his owne burden R. ABBOT M. Bishop well knew that M. Perkins speech importeth no contradiction because in the one he intendeth that euery man is to make satisfaction for his sins either by himselfe or by a Mediator and in the other denieth that any man maketh this satisfaction or any part thereof by himself Though the phrase were not so easie of our making satisfaction when he meant it by another yet his meaning was very plaine There must be a satisfaction yeelded to the iustice of God which is done onely in Iesus Christ a Rom. 3.25 whom God himselfe hath set foorth to be an attonement or reconciliation through faith in his bloud Here is therefore no broken rubbish but a sure foundation laid and the building setled vpon it standeth firme and fast the wind wherwith M. Bishop hath blown against it being only his owne breath And because b 1. Cor. 3.11 there is no other foundation to be laid but only that which he hath laid which is Iesus Christ therefore not like a blind man but vpon good discernement and sight he hath made the outcry that the Papists laying another foundatioÌ„ in the merits and satisfactions of men do erre in the very foundation and life of Christian faith To shew this he argueth in this sort A satisfaction that is made imperfect either directly or by consequent is no satisfaction at all But the Papists make Christs satisfaction imperfect in that they adde a supply of humane satisfactions therefore they make Christs satisfaction no satisfaction at all A substantial argument saith M. Bishop well if it be not so we expect that M. Bishop make it appeare to vs by a very substantiall answer He telleth vs that both the propositions are false yea the first saith he is childish but well we wot that he hath giuen vs a very childish reason why he so saith He that satisfieth for halfe his debts or any part thereof saith he makes some satisfaction But we tell him that therein he fondly misapplyeth the name of satisfaction which is a word of perfection and therfore cannot be rightly vsed of that that is vnperfect It importeth the doing of that that is sufficient and enough to giue full contentment to the party to whom it is done and fully to quit the offence and wrong that is done vnto him Therefore no man but M. Bishop is so mad as to say that by the tender of a penny a man offereth a satisfaction when the debt or damage is an hundred pounds Yea and howsoeuer the name of satisfaction may be abused in party-payment for matters of meere debt yet he should remember that in their schooles it is resolued that because Satisfaction as here it is spoken of is c Thom. Aquin. Supplement q. 14. art 1. c. Cùm per satisfactioneÌ„ tolli debeat offensa praecedentis peccati offensae autem ablatio sit amicitiae diuinae restitutio quaeper quoduis peccatuÌ„ impeditur sieri non potest vt homo de vno peccato satisfaciat alto retento Vide in corpâ—art the taking away of displeasure and offence and the taking away of offence is the restitution of friendship and loue and there cannot be restitution of friendship and loue so long as any impediment therof coÌ„tinueth therfore there can be no satisfaction for one sin that is for one part of a mans debt so long as there is a remainder of another M. Bishop might very well conceiue that God receiueth not recompence of his wrongs by pence and halfpence nor doth account the sacrifice of a sheep to be some satisfaction towards the sauing of a soule But it is the 2. proposition that specially concernes the point To that he answereth that mans satisfaction is not to supply the want of Christs satisfaction Where we see it to be with them as Tertullian mentioneth of the Valentinian heretickes d Tertullian aduers Valent. Nihil magis curant quà m occultare quod praedicant si tamen praeditant qui occuliant c. Negant quicquid agnoscum They care for nothing more then to hide that which they preach if at least they preach who conceale and hide they deny it howsoeuer they well know it They do indeed make the satisfaction of Christ vnperfect our satisfactions to be the supply of his want but yet because that soundeth odiously they will not haue it knowne or taken that they do so Yet M. Perkins brought proofe thereof out of one of their great Schoolemen Gabriel Biel who plainly saith that although the passion of Christ be the principall merit for which is conferred grace and the opening of the kingdome and glory yet it is neuer the alone and totall meritorious cause It is manifest saith he because alwaies with the merit of Christ there concurreth some worke as the merit of congruitie or condignitie of him that receiueth grace or glorie if he be of yeares and haue the vse of reason or of some other for him if he want reason Here it is expresly affirmed that the passion of Christ is not a totall meritorious cause and if it be not a totall cause then it wanteth a supply that that is
added for the producing of the effect must necessarily be holden to be added for a supply of that that it wanteth Seeing then to the satisfaction of Christ as not being a totall and perfect cause our satisfactions are added for the producing of the effects of grace and glorie it cannot be denied but that our satisfactioÌ„s are a supply of somwhat wanting to the satisfaction of Christ To this acknowledgment taken out of their owne bookes why doth M. Bishop answer nothing but that in his conscience he knoweth that they are guilty of that wherwith they are charged Yea and the thing is very apparent of it selfe for if they held the satisfaction of Christ to be a totall and perfect satisfaction then they must needs confesse that in the nature of a satisfaction nothing else should be needfull for vs. But they require somwhat else as needfull in the nature of a satisfaction Therfore they do not confesse the satisfaction of Christ to be a total and perfect satisfaction for it implieth a manifest contradiction to affirme any thing to be a totall cause and yet to require another cause as necessary for the same effect M. Bishop telleth vs that the vse of our satisfactions is to apply vnto vs Christs satisfaction and to fulfil his will and ordinance A goodly and witty deuice I haue a medicin fully sufficient and auaileable for the curing healing of my wound I must haue another medicin for the healing of the same wound which I must apply and lay to the former medicine My surety hath fully and perfectly discharged my debt and I must my selfe pay the debt againe that my sureties paiment may stand good for me A satisfaction to apply a satisfaction is a toy so improbable senslesse as that we may thinke them miserably put to shifts that could find no better cloke to hide their shame Yet this is the couer of al their poisoned cups They multiply their witchcrafts and sorceries without end bring into the Church what they list lewdly to deuise and then tell vs that these things serue to apply vnto vs the merit passion of Christ The sacrifice of the Masse is the propitiation for our sins but it applyeth vnto vs the sacrifice of the crosse of Christ The bloud and sufferings of Saints and Martyrs are auaileable for the forgiuenesse of sins but they apply vnto vs the vertue of the bloud and sufferings of Christ But here M. Perkins noted that the meanes of application consist in Gods offering to vs and our receiuing of him God offereth Christ vnto vs by the word SacrameÌ„ts we receiue him by faith He required it to be proued that by satisfactions Christ is either offered on Gods part or receiued on our part Why did M. Bishop omit to do this why doth he neither bring reason example nor authority to shew vs that satisfaction hath any such nature or vse of application or in what sort it should be said to apply We haue shewed e Of Iustification Sect. 19. 29. before that faith is as it were the hand of the soule an instrument properly seruing for apprehending receiuing laying hold of and applying to our selues why doth not he make the same appeare to vs concerning satisfaction But why do we require him to do more then he can do But here is a secret gentle Reader which I wish thee to take knowledge of and if thou be acquainted with him aske him if occasion serue the solution of this doubt He telleth vs through all this discourse that the vse of Christs satisfaction is to take away the guilt of sin the eternal punishment therof that this we obtain in the forgiuenes of our sins But now after the forgiuenes of our sins these satisfactions remaine to be performed by vs. If this be so if the vse of Christs satisfaction be determined in the forgiuenes of our sins these satisfactioÌ„s follow after how or to what vse do these satisfactions apply vnto vs the satisfaction of Christ As for example M. Bishop giueth a man absolution before he dieth he hath therupon his sins forgiuen him a release froÌ„ eternall punishment but yet being not yet throughly scoured to Purgatory he must go Now then in what sort and to what end doth Purgatorie apply vnto him the satisfactioÌ„ of Christ For the satisfaction of Christ medleth not with temporall punishments he hath left the kingdome of temporall satisfactions the whole reuenew thereof to the Pope What do we here then with applying the satisfactioÌ„ of Christ Riddle this riddle he that can for M. Bishop cannot do it yet he telleth vs further that our satisfactioÌ„s are to fulfill the wil and ordinance of Christ and hereupon he entreth into a goodly tale to declare vnto vs this ordinance But his declaratioÌ„ is such as that we may see in him that which Hilary said of the Arian heretikes f Hilar. de Trin. lib. 6. Ingerunt nomina veritatis vt virut falsitatis intrâ—â—at They thrust in words of truth that the poison of their falshood may find entrance It fitteth them which Tertullian said of the Valentinians g Tertul. aduers Valent. Sanctis nominibus titulis argumentis verae religionis vanissima turpissima sigmenta coâ—figurant They fashion their most vaine filthy deuices to the holy names and titles and arguments of true religion He telleth vs that God in Baptisme for Christs sake both pardoneth all sin and taketh fully away all paine due to sin But where I maruell hath he seene this miracle wrought That God in Baptisme giueth full forgiuenesse of sins we acknowledge but yet did we neuer find but that baptisme for pain outward grieuances leaueth a man the same that it found him sicke and diseased before sicke and diseased still lame before lame still blind before blind still We see that infants baptized who he saith haue no sin to satisfie for yet haue many pangs and frets and sicknesses and how then doth baptisme take away al paine due to sin He who dieth in that state saith he goeth presently to heauen but he who dieth in that state dieth he without pain We see he talketh at randon wholy by fancy not by reason neither do his eyes look which way his feet go Well let this passe What after baptisme If after we transgresse saith he then loe the order of his diuine iustice requires that we be not so easily receiued againe into his fauor Why but the Apostle S. Iohn saith to them that are baptized h 1. Ioh. 22. If any man sin we haue an aduocate with the Father Iesus Christ the iust and he is the propitiation or satisfaction for our sins What is the difference then if both in baptisme and after baptisme Christ be the attonement satisfaction for our sinnes Yea saith M. Bishop God vpon our repentance pardoneth the sinne and eternall punishment due vnto it through Christ but doth