sinne be ascribed to that person which hath neither will nor power to sinne so do I answere to this scholler of Iulian that d Cont. Iulian lib. 6. ca 4. Aliud est perpetratio propriorum aliud alienorum contagio delictorum it is one thing to speake of committing sinnes of a mans owne another thing to speake of he contagion that commeth by anothers sinne Our speech is here of a sinne that without any consent or act of ours is deriued vnto vs by contagion from our father Adam which though it be ours without any consent of ours and against our wils doth tempt vs and entise vs yet we confesse cannot be perpetrated and committed but by the consent and liking of the will M. Bishop if he had meant honestly should haue accordingly propounded the obiection as M. Perkins did that the answer might be seene to be direct and plaine as indeed it is But he thought that was not for his turne he knoweth that by truth simplicity he cannot thriue with bad wares and therefore must vse shufling and shifting for the vttering of them But let vs now see what his reply is to M. Perkins answer to that obiection M. Perkins saith that the proposition that euery sin is voluntary is a politicke rule pertaining to the courts of men and doth not hold in the court of conscience which God holdeth in mens hearts in which euery want of conformity to the law is made a sinne To this M. Bishop answereth full wisely Little knowes this man what belongeth to the court of conscience there secret faults indeed be examined but nothing is taken for sinne by any one learned in that facultie which is done without a mans free consent Where when M. Perkins hath spoken of a court of conscience kept by God he answereth of a court of conscience kept by men and those as we must vnderstand him his owne fellowes and so to the purpose answereth nothing In Gods court of conscience e Mat. 15.19 euill thoughts defile a man what they do in their courts of conscience it skilleth not In Gods court of conscience f Rom. 7.7 to lust is to sinne because the law hath said Thou shalt not lust it is a signe that they haue no conscience that keepe a court of conscience to iudge against that that God hath iudged that to lust is no sinne In Gods court of conscience g 1. Iohn 5.17 all vnrighteousnesse is sinne and therefore all transgression of the law because it is vnrighteousnesse is sinne if their court of conscience determine otherwise it must abide the censure of his court and receiue check and charme frō thence In Gods court of conscience is required h Deut. 6.3 all the heart and all the mind and all the soule and all the strength and the true informed conscience for not giuing all resteth conuicted of sinne what court of conscience do they keepe that giue but a part in steed of all and yet haue a conscience to say that they sinne not therein What court of conscience do they keep that frame Gods commandements to their conscience and not their conscience to Gods commandements whose conscience is like the bed of Procrustes the giant whatsoeuer God saith that is too short for it they haue a rack to stretch it longer whatsoeuer God saith that is too long for it they haue an axe to cut it shorter M. Bishop did amisse in steed of a court of conscience kept by God to tell vs of a court of conscience kept by them But if we will speake of a court of conscience for resoluing cases of conscience we may well esteeme by that that we see that M. Perkins did much better know what belongeth to the court of conscience then M. Bishop doth As for those learned in that faculty of whom he speaketh all whelps of the same foxe what they think it is nothing to vs but more learned then they are do know as hath bene shewed that sinne may be without consent of the will nay against the will of him in whom it is sinne For euill motions and thoughts arise in the regenerate man against his will and it hath bene sufficiently proued that such euill motions and thoughts are sinne and who is there that hath a feeling conscience that doth not condemne himselfe in the arising thereof and aske God forgiuenesse that his mind hath bene ouertaken and caried away into such thoughts howsoeuer he haue preuented the consent and liking of them But saith M. Bishop to say with M. Perkins that any want of conformity to reason in our body is sinne is so absurd that a man might if that were true be damned for a dreame how well soeuer he went to sleepe if he chance to dreame of vncleannesse whereupon doth ensue any euil motion in his flesh Where he hath turned conformity to Gods law into conformity to reason and maketh M. Perkins to talke of conformity in the body who mentioneth nothing of the body onely that he may make way thereby to a dreaming answere of an vncleane dreame Which dreames notwithstanding are a very strong argument of a pollution and vncleannesse of nature yet habitually remaining and a very proper effect thereof which it is Gods mercy not to impute vnto vs for i August cont Iulian lib. 4 ca. 2. Cum sopitos deludunt omnia sensus nescio quomodo etiam casiae animae in turpes labū ur assensus quae si imputares Altissimus quis viueret castus if the most high should impute the same saith S. Austine who should liue chast M. Bishop maketh nothing hereof but S. Austine saith that such dreames are breach of chastity and therein sinne if God should impute the same And therefore he saith that when k Jbid. Si quādo ab eis vllum vel in somnis furatur assensum cū euigilauerint gemere compellit et inter gemitus dicere Quomodo impleta est anima mea illusionibus concupiscence thus in sleepe stealeth a consent when chast soules hereby fall into consent of filthinesse they mourne and grieue thereat when they are awake He teacheth his hearers l De Temp. ser 45. Aliquando ista concupiscentia sic insidiaetur sanctis vt faciat dormientibus quod non potest vigilantibus pudet hic immorari sed ne pigeat inde deü precari not to thinke much to aske God mercy for it when concupiscence so snareth them to do that to them when they are a sleepe which it cannot do when they are awake And this he himselfe bemoneth to God cōcerning himselfe m Confess lib. 10 cap. 30. In somnis occursant mihi talium rerum imagines non solum vsque ad delectationem sed etiam vsque ad cōsensionē factūque simillimum c. Potens est manus tua sanare omnes languores animae mea c. Perpetrat istas corrupielarum turpitudines c Lugens in eo quod inconsummaetus sum
peccatum sic nunc non sit fieriprorsus non potest that it is impossible that the nature of sinne and the nature of concupiscence abiding still the same that concupiscence before Baptisme should be sinne and after Baptisme should be no sinne Now as both before Baptisme and after Baptisme it is called by S. Austin a defect so is it also called infirmitas an infirmitie laâ—guor a faintnesse or weaknesse not growing of a bare priuation as I said before but of a vicious constitution a corrupt and euill habite which therefore he compareth to a l Aug. de nupt con uâ—â—s l. 2 c. 34 Sicut utala in corpore valetudo c. Et cont Iul. l. 6. c. 7. Quodam operamte contagio id est cocupiscentra affectir sicut de pare â—tibus morbidis mâ—rbida soboles procreatur corrupt and noysome distemper of the body wherby diseases are propagated in generation from the parents to the children The Apostle expresseth the whole corruption of mans nature by the name of infirmitie or weaknesse when he saith m Rom. 5.6 When we were yet infirme or weake Christ died for vs. Whereas S. Austin witnesseth the Apostle by n Aug epist 59. Hos dixit infirmos queâ— impios quos infirmos eos peccatores c. infirme or weake meaneth the same as he doth when he saith immediatly vngodly sinners enemies vnto God Infirmitie therfore implieth and importeth sinne vngodlinesse enmity against God Thus doth Austin say that o De Triuit lib. 3. cap. 10. Lâ—ue aliquid vinetur infirmitas sed aliquando talis est vt impietas nomiâ—ciur infirmitie seemeth a light matter but yet sometimes it is such as that it is called impietie And thus doth he call the penall disease of Originall sinne p Dâ— peccat mer. remiss lib. 2 cap. 17. an infirmitie as before was sayd This is q De nupt coâ—cupisc lib. 2. cap 34. languor quo benè viuendi virtus perijt the fainting weaknesse whereby we lost the power of liuing well otherwise by him termed r Ibid. vulnus quod vulnerat ipsam vitam qua rectè viuebatur a wound that woundeth that life whereby man should liue aright This infirmitie S. Austin acknowledgeth euery where to continue still Å¿ De pecâ—â—t mer reâ—â—ss l. 2 â—ap â— Non ex qua nota quisqu mi bap izatur omnis vetus infirmitas eius absumitur It is not he saith wholy consumed in Baptisme t Cont. 2. epist Pelag lib 3. cap. 3 Propter hoc dicens miserere mei Domine quonium infirmus sum of it and for it we haue still cause to cry Haue mercy vpon me for I am weake u Ibid. Haec infirmitas cum qua vsque ad corporis mortem defectu profectus alternante contendimus with it we are still to wrastle and striue so long as we here liue which being the same that it was before x Gal. 5.17 contrary to the spirit of God y Rom. 7.23 rebeling against the law of God though the guilt thereof be pardoned must needs in it selfe be sinne as it was before And thus much of M. Bishops insoluble argument containing nothing in it against vs which the ancient Church doth not wholy disauow 11. W. BISHOP 2. Obiect Euerie sinne is voluntarie and not committed without the consent of man but this concupiscence whereof we talke hath no consent of man but riseth against his will therefore is no sinne M. Perkins answereth That such actions as are vsed of one man towards another must be voluntarie but sinne towards God may be committed without our consent For euery want of conformitie vnto the law euen in our body although against our will be sinnes in the Court of conscience Reply Full little knowes this man what belongeth to the Court of conscience the secret faults indeed be examined but nothing is taken for sinne by any one learned in that facultie which is done without a mans free consent all of them holding with S. Augustine Lib. 3 de lib. arâ— cap. 17. That sinne is so voluntarie an euill that it cannot be sinne which is not voluntarie And to say with M. Perkins that any want of conformitie to reason in our body is sinne is so absurd that a man might if that were true be damned for a dreame how well soeuer disposed he went to sleepe if he chance to dreame of vncleannesse whereupon doth ensue any euill motion in his flesh This paradoxeÌ„ of sinning without a mans consent is so contrarie vnto both naturall and supernaturall reason Lib de vera Relig. cap. 14. that S. Augustine auerreth Neither any of the small number of the learned nor of the multitude of the vnlearned to hold that a man can sinne without his consent What vnlearned learned men then are start vp in our miserable age that make no bones to denie this and greater matters too R. ABBOT To the obiection here propounded M. Perkins hath giuen a double answer To the one M. Bishop replieth making choice of that that his wit would best serue him to play vpon but to the other which is the same that S. Austin still vsed against the same obiection of the Pelagian heretikes he vseth not a word Let vs aske M. Bishop himselfe What is there not sinne in infants before they be baptized He will tell vs that there is But then we vrge him with their owne rule Euery sinne is voluntarie but that that is in infants vnbaptized is not voluntarie because they haue no act of will therefore that that is in infants vnbaptized is no sinne Will he not here say as M. Perkins doth according to S. Austins doctrine which indeed is true that the sinne that is in infants is a Aug. Retraâ—t lib. 1. cap. 13. Supra Sect. 2. voluntarie by the will of him that first sinned but not by the will of them to whom it is originall that it is now b De ciuiâ— Dei li. 12. ca. 3 Quod vrtium consuetudine â—mio è progressu roboratum naturaliter â—nolenit à voluntate sumpsit exerdium naturall to man but yet the beginning of it was by the will of man Which answer when he hath giuen vs let him take it backe againe to himselfe that the sinne of concupiscence is voluntarie by the will of him by whom it first came not by our will and that if he meane that to be voluntarie which is by the act of a mans owne will his rule is true onely in actuall sinnes and not in sinne Originall whereof we dispute But of this point I haue answered sufficiently before in the question of c Sect. 18. Free will and need no further here to stand vpon it only I wish the Reader to obserue how M. Bishop hath here foisted in that sin is not committed without mans consent whereof M. Perkins mentioned nothing And therefore as Austine said to Iulian obiecting how should
and how much would it haue renowned the bountie of Christ Well M. Bishop we wish you to consider throughly of the matter we cannot see in the Gospell but that you may as well take vpon you to be a Pope as he that is Pope and you may as stoutly alledge for your selfe that your Popedome doth highly recommend the bountie of Christ But it seemeth to vs that you do too much abridge the Popes vsing of his faculties when you mention the employing of them onely in Christs seruice and to his honor and glorie Let him M. Bishop first serue himselfe let him enlarge S. Peters patrimonie and aduance the glorie of his owne seate let him proclaime Iubiliees and Pardons that he may gather gold and treasure let him claw them that claw him and wreake his anger vpon them that resist him as for Christ he is but a poore man let him attend for the reuersion a little will serue him This deuice of theirs is wholy to be derided their words are the words of shamelesse hypocrites not blushing to auouch the bounty of Christ in an authority which though there were from time to time after fiue or sixe hundred yeares diuers degrees and steppes vnto it yet in that sort as they now defend it was not knowne in the world for the space of eight or nine hundred yeares after the time of Christ which hath no warrant of the Gospell of Christ nor fauoreth at all of the kingdome of Christ which the auncient Fathers neuer dreamed of and could not haue gone without most illustrious and cleare testimony witnesse amongst theÌ„ if euer it had bene practised in their times Let them in all antiquitie parallell the Pope and we will neuer open mouth further to speake against them but because they cannot so do let them confesse themselues to be false wretches and him to be a Pseudochrist a false and counterfeit Christ in truth very Antichrist himselfe who by hypocrisie hath intruded himselfe to sit in the place of Iesus Christ But M. Bishop telleth vs that their Vicar cannot change any one of Gods Commandements nor adde any contrary vnto them Where we see that the Pope apparantly doth that which they are ashamed to defend They well know that he setteth nothing at all by the lawes of God and that whilest he taketh vpon him to be the expounder thereof he maketh what meaning he list thereof and there by giueth himselfe libertie to do what he list and yet to say he doth nothing against the law of God It hath bene holden for a rule amongst them as Bodin mentioneth k Bodin de republ lib 1. cap 8. Qui a pontâ—si e maxime diuinis legibus salutus sic huis apud deuÌ„ immortalem satis cautum esse Canonic regula That he is safe enough with God who by the Pope is freed from the lawes of God Thus they haue told vs and according to that they haue told vs they haue practised that l Decret Greg. de concess prebend ca 4 Proposuit secundum plenitudinem pocestatis de iure possumus supra in dispensare the Pope aboue law can dispense of law by the fulnesse of his power that m Ibid. in glossa Papaâ—dispe sas contra ApostoluÌ„ contra Canones Ap stoli contra vetus Testamentum he can dispense against the Apostle against the Canons of the Apostle and against the old Testament that n 25. Sunt quidam in glossa satis potest sustineri quod Papa contra Apostolum dispensat it may well be maintained that he doth dispense against the Apostle Shall we not thinke that he changeth and thwarteth the commandement of Christ who with a Non obstante taketh that away which Christ hath sayd Drinke ye all of this o Concil Constamiens sess 13. Hoc non obstante This notwithstanding the Church doth thus and thus Doth not he contrary Gods commandement who requireth vs to worship Idols and Images when God hath forbidden so to do When God hath charged subiects to be obedient to their Princes and Gouernours doth he not crosse the commandement of God who taketh vpon him to dispense with them p 15.7.6 Authoritatem ibid. Alius for their oaths of allegiance and giueth them licence to rebell Doth not he make the law of God of no effect who giueth licence of mariage in those degrees of affinitie and bloud in which God hath forbidden any mariage to be accounted lawfull as was here done in England to king Henry the eight for the mariage of his brothers wife and to Philip the late king of Spaine for the mariage of his owne sisters-daughter Many such other matters are there wherein this Vicar of Rome grosly and palpably bendeth himselfe against God and yet these hypocrites are so impudent as that either by expositions they will seeme to defend them or else if they can find no meanes for defence they vtterly deny them Thus M. Bishop will here make vs beleeue that the Pope maketh lawes onely conformable to Gods lawes when as by that which he himselfe addeth he proueth him therein presumptuously and arrogantly to put himselfe into the place of God For to make lawes and publish doctrines to bind the conscience belongeth onely to Christ who in that respect is called the q Iam. 4.12 one Lawgiuer r Ephes 4.5 one Lord Å¿ Mat 23 8.10 one Doctor and maister Yet M. Bishop maketh this a thing common to euery Soueraigne gouernour and taketh vpon him to proue it by S. Paul saying t Rom. 13.1.5 Let euery soule be subiect to the higher powers and that for conscience sake But he abuseth the words of the Apostle which haue no intendment concerning their Vicar but are spoken of the higher powers that is of the temporall and ciuill gouernours either u 1. Pet. 2.13 the king as the superior or other rulers that are sent by him as S. Peter giueth vs to vnderstand the meaning thereof Therefore Chrysostome expoundeth the words thus Let euery soule be subiect x Chrysost 14 Rom. hom 23. though thou be an Apostle though thou be an Euangelist though thou be a Prophet thereby informing vs that Apostles Euangelists Prophets are of the soules that are to bee subiect and not the higher powers to which the subiection there spoken off is required The Apostle did not write it to chalenge thereby a subiection to S. Peter or to himselfe but to acknowledge a subiection due to be performed by them and others to the ciuill power Againe the Apostle teacheth vs for conscience sake to be subiect to the higher powers he teacheth vs not that the conscience is bound as touching the things themselues wherein we are to shew our subiection to the higher powers Lawes are sayd to bind the conscience when they tie the conscience to the things themselues which they command as to be perswaded of a religious and necessary duty and seruice therein immediatly
performed vnto God the transgressing whereof to be a sinne against God not onely mediatly by not yeelding subiection to the Law-giuer but immediatly in the very thing it selfe which it hath done or left vndone It is the prerogatiue of God onely to tie the conscience in this sort and whosoeuer else taketh vpon him thus to do he is an vsurper against God And thus doth the Pope bind mens consciences he maketh his lawes matters of religion and of the worship of God and will haue men beleeue that in the very doing of the things which he commandeth they immediatly please God merit at the hands of God make satisfaction to him for their sinnes and purchase eternall life On the other side that in the trespasse thereof not onely in respect of disobedience to the higher powers but for the very not doing of the things themselues there is sinne against God a breach and wound of conscience and the guilt of euerlasting death This is one speciall matter for which we iustly detest that Romish idol and do chalenge him not onely for sitting in the Temple of God by vsurping an outward superioritie in the visible state of the Church but also for y 2. Thes 2.4 sitting as God in the temple of God by chalenging to himselfe and possessing in such sort as hath beene sayd the consciences of men in which God onely ought to raigne As for Princes and temporall gouernours if they keepe them within their bounds they make no lawes in that kind for causes seeming good vnto them they require outward conformity and obedience to their lawes for conscience sake of the authority committed vnto them of God but they leaue the conscience free from any inward opinion or perswasion of the things themselues wherein they require to be obeyed Here therefore a man is outwardly bound and seruant to the law but inwardly he still continueth free to God being perswaded that the doing or not doing of such or such a thing in and for it selfe maketh him to God neither the better nor the worse and therefore the thing in it selfe being either way indifferent to God he yeeldeth himselfe in the outward man vpon conscience of giuing obedience to the power seruiceable and comformable to the law And this is that Christian libertie which the Scripture teacheth which is not as some men would haue it a licentious immunity in outward things to do euery man what we list but a freedome of the heart from any seruile opinion of any thing that we do The doctrine whereof Luther very excellently propounded in two paradoxes as they seemed to them that vnderstood them not as touching conuersation in outward things that z Luther de libert Christiana a Christian man is free from all men a Lord and subiect to no man And again that a Christian man is a diligent seruant and vassall to all men and subiect to all Inwardly in conscience he is free and bound to nothing but saith a 1. Cor 10.23 All things are lawfull for me Outwardly in conuersation he is bound to that that is expedient and serueth for edification whereby he may yeeld obedience to gouernours loue to neighbours instruction to the ignorant strengthening to the weake comfort to the strong good example to them that are without auoiding all scandall whereby he should cause the libertie whereof he is inwardly perswaded to be blasphemed and slandered Now therefore Princes in their lawes are to be obeyed vpon conscience of their authoritie being from God but this hindereth not but that the Pope is iustly accused for thrusting Christ out of his place by requiring obedience vpon conscience of the things themselues which he commandeth As for the opening and shutting of heauen we doubt not but that the Pope if he be the minister of Christ may chalenge the office and function thereof according to the tenor of the commission wherewith Christ hath left it to his Church But he not contented with that authoritie which Christ hath left indifferently to the ministery of the Church immediatly from Christ himselfe deriued in common to the whole body of the Church vsurpeth vnto himselfe a singularity in this behalfe making himselfe in Christs steed the head from whence the power of binding and loosing is deriued to all the rest and in that respect at his owne pleasure reseruing to himselfe a prerogatiue of speciall cases and causes which are most for his aduantage wherein no man may meddle but himselfe It is true that the master by appointing afterward ouer his houshold or a porter at his gates doth not diuest himselfe of his supreme authoritie but sith it is the peculiar honour of the Lord to giue that power and to determine the offices and places of his seruants surely he who being left but afterward of a house will lift vp himselfe to be a Lieutenant generall of a Realme and of a porter will make himselfe a Potentate and take vpon him to be euen as the Lord himself he is to be taken for no other but a traytor to his Lord and therefore is by his fellow seruants to be resisted in his course This is the Popes case He had the keyes of heauen committed vnto him in common with his fellow seruants to euery man for his part and portion of the Lords house and to the great disturbance and disorder of the house he hath chalenged vnto himselfe the soueraigntie and Lordship of the whole He hath made himselfe master of the Church and all the rest seruants vnto him By this extrauagant and exorbitant power he handleth all things as he list and abuseth the keyes to shut them out of heauen so farre as he can who in the behalfe of their maister do seeke to hinder his wicked and vngodly proceedings What then shall we adiudge him but a traytor to his Lord and maister Iesus Christ vsurping that which is proper to Christ alone In a word M. Bishop must vnderstand that though the Popedome were drowned in Tiber and Babylon were cast as a milstone into the sea yet Christ needeth not to be maister and man to but without the Pope hath seruants enough to attend him in his seruice W. BISHOP Come we now to the second It is that we make Christ an Idoll for albeit we call him a Sauiour yet in vs in that he giues his grace to vs that by our merits we may be our owne sauiours c. I maruell in whom he should be a sauiour if not in vs What is he the Sauiour of Angels or of any other creatures I hope not but the mischiefe is that he giues grace to vs that thereby we may merit and so become our owne sauiors This is a phrase vnheard off among Catholikes that any man is his owne sauiour neither doth it follow of that position that good workes are meritorious but well that we apply vnto vs the saluation which is in Christ Iesus by good wo kes as the Protestants auouch they do
15.10 the law was a yoke which saith he neither we nor our fathers were able to beare Whence euen by the very words it must needs follow that we are not able to fulfill the law M. Bishops answer is that that law could not be fulfilled by the onely helpe of the same law without further ayde of Gods grace As though they had not the grace of God who notwithstanding complained of the law as of a yoke too heauie for them to beare euen in that state of grace Therefore we will say to M. Bishop as Orosius did to the Pelagian hereticke b Oros Apolog. de arbit libert Samuel Elias c. Patres sine dubio nostri sunt eâ—â—neminem Patrum Petrus affirmat sed neque semel ipsos hoc est Apostolos cuÌ„ essent Judaei â—nus legis ferre potuisse sed fide Christi secundum spem gratiae fuisse saluatos An fortè secundum te omnes isti sansti Patres Dei adiutorium non habebant Samuel Elias Elizeus Esay Ieremie Daniel Zachary all those holy ones either Iudges or Kings or Prophets were vndoubtedly our Fathers and Peter affirmeth that none of the Fathers no nor themselues that is the Apostles being Iewes could beare the burden of the lawe but were saued by the faith of Christ according to the help of grace What had not all these holy Fathers thinkest thou the hope of grace Hauing then the helpe of the grace of God yet they still acknowledged the law to be a heauier burthen then that they were able to stand vnder the waight thereof To this purpose he vrgeth the hereticke with that which is written in the law c Deut. 6.5 Thou shalt loue the Lord thy God with all thy heart c. d Oros ibid. Responde non mihi sed Deo non vâ—co sed conscientia si ita ex toto corde Deum diligis vt nullam vn quam in eo cogitationem quae absque timore dilectione Dei intelligi possit admittas ita in tota anima sequeris vt suscepta semel cruce in nullam penitus oblectationem habita ad tempus iâ—cunditatu succedas c. Answer saith he not to me but to God not with thy voyce but with thy conscience whether thou so loue God with all thy heart as that thou neuer admit any thought therein that may be conceiued to be without the feare and loue of God whether thou so follow him with all thy soule as that hauing once vndertaken the crosse thou be neuer caried for the time to fall into any delight or contentment of pleasure c. Where as he sheweth how farre it is beyond our power to keep our selues within the lists bounds of this commandement so he taketh away M. Bishops second exception that the law was thus called a yoke c. in respect of the sacrifices sacraments and ceremonies by the multitude whereof he saith that it was so burdensome and comberous as that it could hardly be kept by the helpe of ordinary grace For if the law be there vnderstood which saith Thou shalt loue the Lord thy God c. as Orosius declareth then it is false which M. Bishop saith that that speech is to be referred to the ceremonies of the law But the reader is well to obserue the manner of his speech It could hardly be kept It could then or might be kept though hardly be kept No question then but some did keepe it if it might be kept But the yoke of which S. Peter speaketh is such as none was able to beare It is not then to be vnderstood of the ceremonies of the law And indeed there is no doubt but that the ceremoniall law by ordinary grace of God as touching the outward practise thereof might exactly be performed The multitude of those obseruations is equalled in the Romish Church and yet they haue nimble fellowes that can attaine to all But out of M. Bishops words we will argue à minori ad maius if the law of ceremonies were so heauie a yoke which consisted only in outward obseruations how much heauier is that that giueth law to the whole man to all his thoughts and words and deedes taking exception against any thing either inwardly or outwardly whereby we step aside from the rule thereof And yet he as a man void of sence conscience saith of the ceremonies that they could very hardly be obserued but of the rest of the commaundements that they are very possible and easie to be kept as we shall see anon In the meane time to proue it he bringeth exaÌ„ple of diuers who he saith did fulfill all the lawe but he is preuented and bereaued of those examples by Cyprian who saith of all those excellent men and Priests and Prophets before Christ that e Cyprian de Ieiun tent Christi Fuerant ante Christum viri insignes Prophetae Sacerdotes sed in peccatis concepti nati nec originali nec personali caruere delicto inuenta est in omnibus vel ignorantia vel insufficientia in quibus erronei peccauerunt egu erunt misericor dia Dei per quaÌ„ edocti restituti gratias egeruâ—t Deo ad plenitudinem iustitiae multùm sibi de esse confessi sunt sperantes in Deo nullam sibi soliditatem attri buere praesumpserunt being conceiued and borne in sinnes they were neither without originall nor personall fault and there was found in them all either ignorance or vnsufficiencie by which going astray they sinned and stood in need of the mercy of God by which being instructed and restored they gaue thankes to God and confessed that much was wanting vnto them to perfection of righteousnesse and trusting in God presumed not to attribute any soundnesse to themselues As touching them all we must answer the same that Saint Austine answered the Pelagian hereticks f August de pec mer. remiss lib. 2. cap. 14. Scripturarum testimonijs quibus de illorum laudibus credimus hoc etiam credimus non iustificari in conspectu Dei omnem vinentem ideo rogari ne inireâ— in iudicium cum seruis suis By the testimonies of the Scripture which we beleeue as touching their commendations we beleeue this also that no man liuing shall be found iust in the sight of God and that therefore he is requested not to enter into iudgement with his seruants Whereby what we meane when we request it the same S. Austin sheweth g Jdem de Tem. Ser 49. Nestes micum in iudicio exigendo à me omnia quae praece pisti omnia quae iussisiâ— NaÌ„ me inuenies reuÌ„ si in iudicium iniraueris mecuÌ„ c. Stand not with me in iudgement by exacting of me all that thou hast commanded and all that thou hast charged vs. For thou shalt find me guiltie if thou enter into iudgement with me This S. Austine maketh the common confession of all the seruants of God that
thomb and another while ioining both his hands his putting to the right eie then to the left with a number of such other absurd and foolish deuises The like absurdity haue I noted before that when the Priest hath pronounced absolution and forgiuenesse they appoint a man for penance to say Forgiue vs our trespasses and againe that they make their praiers like a charme which to worke their effect must be said ouer thus or thus many times I remember I haue read some where that one of the Popes would haue ordered that the Pope his Cardinals should ride vpon Asses in token of humility for imitation of Christ riding into Ierusalem vpō an Asse The Cardinals thought that the foole rid the Pope took this for a childish and idle fancy Now if the Pope the head of their Church could be possessed with so childish vaine a toy why should we doubt but that against their Church there is cause of the first caution that the Church is not to prescribe any thing that is childish or absurd The second caution is that nothing be imposed as any part of Gods worship This saith M. Bishop is cōtrary to the conclusion And why so For order and comlinesse to be vsed in Gods worship saith he is some part of the worship But who taught him that deepe point of Philosophy that an accident is a part of the subiect that the beauty or comelinesse of the body is a part of the body Order and comelinesse are matters of ceremony not of substance of outward ornament not of inward deuotion properly and immediatly respecting men but by consequence onely reduced to God therfore can be no parts of the worship of God The third caution is that what the Church prescribeth be seuered from superstition opinion of merit Of opinion of merit M. Bishop saith nothing which is a case that in high degree toucheth the Church of Rome which of her own traditions hath made meritorious works and hath bewitched the people to thinke that by the obseruation thereof they may purchase deserue heauen As touching superstition he saith the caution is needelesse for if it be not absurd saith he which is the first prouiso it is already seuered frō superstition Which indeed is rightly spoken according to the truth of the thing because in truth all superstition is absurd therefore there should need no distinction betwixt that that is superstitious and that that is absurd but yet the distinction here hath vse in respect of the opinion of men because many things are superstitious which yet with men are hardly deemed absurd for that c Col. 2.23 they haue a shew of wisedome as S. Paul saith in voluntary religion and humblenesse of mind and in not sparing the body so that they many times blind the eies of thē that seem to be of very good sight And this is the case of many Popish traditions wherein as there are many things so absurd as that they are faine to vse their wits to deuise couers excuses that they may not appeare to be so grosse as they are yet many other there are which are so fairely varnished with colours of piety holinesse as that by the means therof Satan first preuailed to bring thē into the Church dazeling the eies of mē that they saw not the mischiefe that in time he should work thereby to the religion and faith of Christ The last caution is that the Church of God be not burdened with the multitude of traditions A thing wherof S. Austin cōplained in his time that d August epist 119. Tam multis praesumptionibus sic plena sunt omnia c. Ipsā religionem quā pancissimu manifestissimis celebrationū sacramentis miserecordia Dei esse liberam voluit scruilibus oneribus premunt vt tolerabilior sit cōditio Iudaeorū qui etiamsi tempus libertatis non agnouerint tamē legalibus sarcinu non humanis praesumptionibus subijciunti◠all was full of manifold presumptions and that the religion which the mercy of God would haue to be free by hauing but a very few very manifest sacraments obseruations was so oppressed with seruile burdens as that the state of the Iewes was more tolerable thē it who though they knew not the time of liberty yet were subiect to the burdens of Gods lawes not to mens presumptions This cautiō M. Bishop saith may passe but in this the Church of Rome hath more deepely offended then did those times whereof S. Austin complained hauing infinitely intangled the consciences of men with the multiplicity of her witchcrafts sorceries endlesse variety of superstitious obseruations These things now M. Bishop telleth vs are but meere trifles but the reason is because he wanteth vnderstanding to cōceiue the waight and importance of thē And from that want it proceedeth that he alledgeth a triflle indeed as a matter of more importance That is that M. Perkins calleth the decree registred in the fifteenth of the Acts by the name of a tradition hauing before defined traditions to be all doctrines deliuered beside the written word But if his sight had serued him he might very readily haue seene that in the first place M. Perkins had defined traditions as they are in question betwixt vs them and referreth the same only to matters of doctrine in which sort we admit of no traditions but that here he speaketh of traditions more generally in such sort as we grant traditions as he expresseth which are the positiue temporary ordinances cōstitutions of the Church The decree then of the Apostles was no tradition in that meaning wherin we questiō traditions because it was no matter of doctrine but only of cōuersation temporary obseruation but in the general vse of the name of traditions it was a matter of tradition because all ordinances of the Church are imported by that name 4. W. BISHOP The Difference Catholikes teach that besides the written Word there be certaine vnwritten traditions which must be beleeued and practised as both profitable and necessary to saluation We hold that the Scriptures containe in them all doctrine needfull to saluation whether it concerne faith or manners and acknowledge no traditions for such as he who beleeueth them not cannot be saued Before we come to the Protestants reasons against Traditions obserue that we deuide Traditions into three sorts the first we termed Diuine because they were deliuered by our blessed Sauiour who is God the second Apostolical as deliuered by the holy Apostles the third Ecclesiasticall instituted and deliuered by the Gouernours of the Church after the Apostles daies And of these three kinds of traditions we make the same account as of the writings of the same Authors to wit we esteeme no lesse of our Sauiours traditions than of the foure Gospels or any thing immediatly dictated from the holy Ghost Likewise as much honour and credit do we giue vnto the Apostles doctrine vnwritten
the mouth of the Lord neither to make other interpretation of the laws of God then by the same lawes can be iustified and made good Thus we see that as God tied the Iewes to the sentence of the Priests so he required the sentence of the Priests to be according to the law r Deut. 17.11 According to the law which law they shall teach thee thou shalt do thou shalt not decline from the thing which they shall shew thee Å¿ Lyra. ibid. Hic dicit glossa Hebraica si dixerint tibi quòd dextera sit sinistra vel sinistra dextera talis sententia est tenenda quod pataet manifestè falsuÌ„ esse quòd senteÌ„tia nullius hominis cuiuscunque sit authoritatis est tenenda si contineat manifestè falsitatem vel errorem hoc patet per hoc quod praemittitur in textu Indicalunt tibi iudicij veritateÌ„ postea subditur Et docuerint te iuxta legem eius Ex quo patet quòd si dicunt falsum vel declinem à lege Dei manifestè non sunt audiendi The Hebrew glose saith Lyra here teacheth that if they say to thee that the right hand is the left or the left the right this sentence is to be holden which appeareth to be manifestly false saith he because the sentence of no man is to be holden of what authoritie so-euer he be if it do manifestly containe falshood and errour and this is plaine by that that is put before in the text They shall shew thee the truth of iudgement is afterwards added They shall teach thee according to the law whereby it is plaine that if they say any thing false or decline manifestly from the law of God they are not to be hearkened vnto It is not then so to be conceiued as that obedience should be absolutely due vnto them because as in the ciuill state there may be corrupt Iudges that wrest the law and giue sentence against law so there may be corrupt men also in places of ecclesiasticall iudgement men more affected to their owne will then to the word of God seeking rather themselues then Iesus Christ It is therefore to be obserued that as in matters of ciuill iustice some things there are in the law so cleare that if the sentence of the Iudge be contrary thereto euery man may discerne and see that he swarueth from the truth neither will a man take it to be law which the Iudge pronounceth because his owne eies perceiue the contrary so those things that concerne faith and religion towards God some things by the Scripture it selfe are so apparent and plaine as that it is manifest that not for any ambiguity in themselues but by the iniquity and frowardnesse of men they are called into question and that to question the exposition is nothing else but to seeke collusion In which cases the Iudge hath no more to do but to deliuer the peremptory sentence of God himselfe t Aug. ac bapt cont Donat lib. 2. ca. 6. Ass ramuâ— fraâ—eram diuinam in scripturis sanctis in illa quid sit grauius appendamus immâ— non appendamus sed à Domino appensa recognoscamus not to weigh as S. Austine saith but to recognize and acknowledge what the Lord hath already weighed Sometimes matters are more hard and doubtfull not so much haply of themselues as by meanes of opposition and contradiction and therfore are not so readily plaine vntill they be made plaine For the explaning and declaring whereof the Church as the Iudge is to vse the help of the law it selfe that is of the holy Scripture and to that purpose to apply the rules before expressed and so not by meere authority but by testimonie and warrant to approue to the conscience of euery man the sentence that shall be giuen for determining the thing in doubt u Oâ—â—gen in Leâ—â—â— hâ—â— 5. Inductus testaâ—entâ—s lâ—â—â—t omne veâ—â—uÌ„ quod ad Deaâ—â—â—â—tinet requiri disâ—uti atque ex â—â—sis omnim rerum scientiâ—m capi Siquid auteÌ„ superficerit quod non diuina scriptura decernat nulla alia tertia scriptura debet ad authoritatem scientia suscipi sed quod superest Deo reserueniâ— By the two testaments saith Origen euery word that pertaineth to God may be seaâ—ched out and discussed and all knowledge of things may be taken from them and if there be any thing further which the holy Scripture determineth not there ought no other writing be receiued for authority of knowledge but what remaineth we must reserue to God x IdeÌ„ in Ierem. ho. â— Necesse est nobis Scripturas sanctas in testimonium vocare Sensus quippe nostri enarrationes siâ—e his testibus non habent fidem It is necessary for vs saith he that we call the holy Scriptures to witnesse for our sences and expositions without these witnesses haue no credit y Idem in Math. tr 25. Dibemus ad testimonium omnium verboruÌ„ quae proferimus in doctrina proferre sâ—â—sum Scripturae quâ—si confirm entera queâ— expâ—â—â—mus sensum Sicut enim omne aurum quod-quod fuerit extra templum non est sancti fiâ—arum sic omnis sensus qui â—uerit extra diuinam Scripturam quâ—muis adâ—â—rabâ—lis videatur quibusdam non est sanctus quia non continetur à sensu Scripturae quae solâ—â— cum solum sensum santifiâ—are quâ—â— in se habet We must saith he again for witnesse of all the words which we vtter in teaching bring forth the sence of Scripture as coÌ„firming the sence which we deliuer for as all the gold which was without the temple was vnholy so euery sence which is without the holy Scripture though to some it may seeme admirable is vnholy because it is not contained of the sence of Scripture which is wont to make holy only that sence which it hath in it selfe By this rule the iudgment of the Church is to proceed so to vse the gift of interpretation as that he that gainsaieth may be conuicted as by the testimony of God himselfe and they who haue not the gift of interpretation may yet see perceiue that their constructions and expositions are according to the Scripture Now if the Church in their affirming or expounding shall contrary that which the Scripture hath manifestly taught vnder pretence of being the Iudge in the causes of God shall iudge against God what shall we then do Surely as a priuate man may by ordinary knowledge of the law be able to accuse a Iudge of high treason against his Prince eueÌ„ so in this case a priuate man by ordinary knowledge of the law of God may be able to accuse the Church of high treasoÌ„ against God And as it is ridiculous in case of treasoÌ„ to alledge that it belongeth to the Iudge to giue the meaning of the law and to leaue him at liberty to expound it that it may rest therupon whether his own fact be treason or