for no other but a madde and frantike dreame and yet perforce must vse it because hee knew no better shift therefore he thought good to colour it the best he could by curtolling the wordes alleaged naming only imputation of righteousnesse whereas the Apostle nameth imputation of righteousnesse without workes But let him take the wordes as the Apostle setteth them downe and then giue vs his answere and we shall apparantly see him to be a most impudent man making no conscience of that he saith but studying only to blinde the Reader from seeing that truth which he himselfe knoweth not how with any probable shew to contradict Yet he telleth vs for conclusion that there is only a bare sound of wordes for the Protestants the true substance of the text making wholly for the Papists So then the sound of the wordes by his confession is for vs but inasmuch as the wordes are very plaine and cleare how may we be informed that the true substance and meaning of them is wholly for the Papists when as they containe in shew a flat contradiction to the doctrine of the Papists Wee see here the vse of that caueat which the Rhemists haue giuen to their Reader aduertising him o Rhem. Testam ArgumeÌ„t of the Epistles in generall to assure himselfe that if any thing in Pauls Epistles sound to him contrary to the doctrine of their Catholike Church he faileth of the right sense By this meanes if Saint Paul say it is white yet we must not thinke that he meaneth it to be white if it please their Church to call it blacke And therefore though here he speake of imputation of righteousnesse without works and bring testimony of ancient Scripture for confirmation thereof yet he must not be taken to meane that there is any such or any other but the imputation of the righteousnesse of workes because there is no other approued by the Roman Church Well may we thinke the iudgement of God to be fearefull vpon them who are so blinde as to be led with such fopperies and grosse deceipts CHAP. X. That eternall life is meerely and wholly the gift of God and cannot be purchased by merit or desert ANSWERE TO THE EPISTLE PAul teacheth that eternall life is the gift of God through Iesus Christ c. to Hee telleth vs againe and againe c. W. BISHOP IN the same place you had a large solution of this obiection but he that hath made a couenant with hell will not looke vpon that which might helpe him to heauen We teach with the Apostle and with his faithfull interpreter Saint Augustine That eternall life is the gift of God both originally because we must receiue grace by the free gift of God before we can doe any thing that doth deserue the ioyes of heauen and also principally the whole vertue and value of our merits doe proceede of the dignity of Gods grace in vs which doth eleuate and giue such worth to our workes that they thereby deserue life euerlasting Notwithstanding if we take not hold on Gods grace when it is freely offered vs and doe not concurre with it to the effecting of good workes we shall neuer be saued and this our working with the grace of God deserues heauen both which are prouedly this sentence of the same Apostle God will render to euery man according to Rom. 2. vers 6. 7. 8. his workes to them truly that according to patience in good workes seeke glory and honour and incorruption life eternall to them that are of contention and that obey not the truth but giue credit to iniquity wrath and indignation where you may see in expresse termes eternall life to be rendered and repaid for good workes to such men as diligently seeke to doe them and to others who refuse to obey the truth and rather choose to beleeue lies and to liue wickedly eternall death and damnation R. ABBOT WHether M. Bishop or I may bee thought more likely to flatter himselfe in an opinion of hauing made a couenant with hell I leaue it to be esteemed by the whole processe of this worke and the God of heauen shall make it one day more fully to appeare Against his solution of the obiection here propounded he knoweth well that I a Of Merits sect 8. haue returned a replication which sheweth the same to be infirme and vaine and seeing he can fortifie it no further the bare repeating of it is no other but womanish and idle talking The Apostle telleth vs that b Rom. 6. 23. eternall life is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the free grace or gift of God through Iâ—su Christ our Lord. We teach saith M. Bishop that eternall life is the gift of God originally and principally Thus by his shifting termes of originally and principally he limiteth the Apostles wordes and deludeth a maine Theoreme and Canon of Christian faith leauing it to be vnderstood that though eternall life be originally and principally the gift of God yet totally and absolutely it is not so Which iâ— it be true it must necessarily follow that as the Apostle saith truly that eternall life is the gift of God because in part it iâ— so so a man may truly say against the Apostle that eternall life is not the free gift of God because in part and in some sort it is not so And if no man may dare in this wise to gainsay the Apostle then wee must acknowledge that which Origen saith that c Origen in Rom. 4. Stipendia inquit peccati mors Et non addidâ—â— similitèr vt dicâ— et stâ—pendia aâ—â—â— iustitiae vita aterna sed ait Gratia autem Deâ— vâ—â—a aetâ—rna vt stâ—pend â—m quod vtique debiâ—o mercedi similé est retributionem poenâ— esse docâ—â—â—t mortis vâ—tam verâ— aternam soli gratiae consignareâ— the Apostle hauing said that the stipend of sinne is death did not adde in the like sort that the stipend of righteousnesse is eternall life but eternall life is the grace of God that he might teach that the retribution of punishment and death is a stipend which is like to a debt or wages but might assigne life eternall to grace only And thus the Apostle himselfe teacheth vs to conceiue when he saith d Rom. 11. 6. If it be of grace then it is not of workes otherwise grace is no grace For e August coÌ„t Pelag. Celest lib. 2. c 24. Gratia Dei non eriâ— gratâ—â— vllâ— modo nisigratâ—ita fuerâ—t omni modo grace saith Austin shall not be grace in any respect except it be free in euery respect f Idem Epist 120. c. 19. Haec est gratia quae gratis datur non meritâ—s operantis sed miseratione donantis That is grace saith he which is freely giuen not for the merits of the worker but by the mercy of the giuer Thus Hierome saith g Hieron Epist ad Demâ—trâ—ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non opâ—ruâ— retributio sed donamis est
worke it Lastly the same Apostle teacheth that sinne hath no dominion ouer them that are vnder grace which were false if concupiscence were properly sinne for that hath such dominion ouer euery good body that they cannot auoid the motion and sting of it No not S. Paul could be clearely deliuered 2. Cor. 12. vers 8. from that pricke of the flesh though he praied most earnestly for it wherefore by the testimony of S. Paul himselfe concupiscence is not properly sinne no more is it to lust if lust be taken for the first motions of concupiscence But concupiscence when it hath conceiued Iacob 1. vers 15. as S. Iames speaketh that is by our liking beginneth to take hold on vs bringeth forth sinne yet but veniall marry when it is consummate by our consent or long lingring in it then it engendreth death that is mortall sinne R. ABBOT EVen so might the adulterer pleade for himselfe that as Christ is said to haue been made sinne and yet is not properly sinne so adultery though it be called sinne yet is not so called because it is indeede and properly sinne but only because it is an effect of sinne and draweth on to many sinnes Surely in what manner the Apostle saith that adultery is sinne in the same manner doth he say that concupiscence is sinne and very vntowardly and shamefully doth M. Bishop bring that as a speech of the like kinde whereby it is said that a 2. Cor. 5. 2â— Christ for vs was made sinne As for that which he citeth out of St. Austin I haue b Of Original sinne after Baptisme sect 9. elsewhere before examined the places and haue shewed at large how falsly and wickedly they abuse him St. Austin neuer denying concupiscence in the regenerate to be sinne but only as sinne implieth a guilt of punishment which to the faithfull is remitted and therefore the condition of sinne in that respect abolished If we consider the nature of sinne in the corruption and vncleannesse of it St. Austin acknowledgeth concupiscence to be such an euill quality as maketh vs euill which nothing can doe but sinne yea he saith that it is c August coÌ„t Iulian. l. 6. c. 5. Tale ac tammagnum malum tantum quia inest quomodo non tenerâ—t in morte c. so great an euill as that only for that it is in vs it should hold vs in death and bring vs to euerlasting death but that the bond that is the guilt thereof is loosed in baptisme by the remission of all our sinnes I note these things but briefly because I choose rather to referre the Reader to the treaty hereof at large And thereby he shall perceiue how vntruly M. Bishop here saith as by the doctrine of St. Austin that if by the helpe of Gods grace we represse concupiscence we are deliuered from the infection and guilt of it Indeede St. Austin saith so much of the guilt but neuer did he say or thinke that we are or shal be deliuerâ—â—â— from the infection and vncleannesse of it d Aug. Epist 54. Malos diâ—it propter vitia infirmitatis humanae donec totum quo constamus ab omni vitiositate sanatum transeat in eam vitam vbi nihil omninò peccabitur vntill all whereof we consist healed from all corruption shall passe into that life where there shall be no sinne But if St. Austin will not take his part he will proue that which he saith by St. Paul himselfe in the same Chapter He demandeth saith he Who shall deliuer me from this body of death and answereth presently The grace of God by Iesus Christ our Lord. Where we see how according to his vsuall manner he setteth downe the wordes as to haue his Reader thinke that he tendereth him a proofe of that which he saith but neuer goeth about to shew how that which he saith is to be deduced therfrom And here his falshood is the greater for that hee alleageth the Apostles wordes for that which he saith whereas that which he saith is vtterly ouerthrowen by the wordes which he alleageth For let me aske him doth the Apostle by deliuerance from this body of death meane a deliuerance from the infection of originall sinne He will say yes because for proofe thereof he citeth the Apostles wordes Well but tell vs then doe you not beleeue that St. Paul was a partaker of the grace of God and did thereby represse and resist the motions of concupiscence Neither will he here dare to say nay and if he should what Christian man would not spit at him But then we will aske him againe if the Apostle by the grace of Christ did resist concupiscence and euery one that so doth be deliuered from the infection thereof how standeth it that the Apostle did yet remaine in case to be deliuered from this infection Marke I pray thee gentle Reader the Apostle saith who shall deliuer me giuing thereby to vnderstand that he was not as yet deliuered He saith the grace of God shall deliuer me but he doth not say it hath deliuered me from the infection of concupiscence Here M Bishop is mute he hath taken a fall in his owne trippe and knoweth not which way to recouer himselfe The Apostle St. Paul though by the grace of God he resisted the motions of concupiscence yet was not as yet deliuered from the infection of it It is false therefore which M. Bishop saith that if by the helpe of the grace of God we represse it we are deliuered from the infection of it I haue e Of Original sinne sect 4. before shewed that the Apostle in naming this body of death hath reference to this infection meaning thereby f Rom. 6. 6. the body of sinne as he hath termed it in the former Chapter g August de Temp. â—er 45. Per concupiscentiam dâ—ctum est hoc nostrummortis corpus which is to be destroyed and to which by and for concupiscence belongeth death It is true then which M. Bishop saith that the Apostle in desiring to be deliuered from this body of death did thereby intend a release from the infection of concupiscence but where was his vnderstanding that could not see that this maketh directly against himselfe and plainly sheweth that this release and deliuerance is yet to come and befalleth not vnto vs so long as we continue clothed with mortality and corruption But he telleth vs yet further that St. Austin out of the same sentence where concupiscence is called sinne Now not I worke it any more but sinne that dwelleth in me argueth very soundly that the Apostle could not meane sinne properly which cannot saith he be committed without consent of the minde He quoteth for this Lib. 6. cont Iulian. cap. 23. whereas in that sixt booke there are but thirteene Chapters But the place which he meaneth I take to be in the eleuenth Chapter of the same booke where St. Austin hauing mentioned those words of the Apostle goeth
Resurrection of our Lord Iesus This is our religion and herein their example iustifieth vs but their doctrines of transubstantiation and reall presence and concomitancy and sacrifice propitiatory for quicke and dead with the rest of that kinde are additions of theirs whereof the institution of Christ which togither with vs they recite maketh no shew at all If they should haue disclaimed redemption and remission of sinnes by the bloud-shed and death of Christ Christian people would haue defied them therefore they left the name thereof in the Church which is our religion but they defeated the power of it by briâ—ging in a thousand other deuices wherby men should redeeme themselues and purchase the remission of their owne sinnes It is our religion to acknowledge Christ to be the Mediator betwixt God and Man and this they would neuer disauow but to Christ they haue ioyned the Saints also to be our Mediators It is our religion to teach that God is to be worshipped and all spirituall deuotion is to be done vnto him and this they cannot deny but they haue added hereto the worshipping of Saints and Saints Images and thereby haue defiled the worship of the immortall God They deny not grace which our religion teacheth but they put to it the power of nature and free will They dare not but confesse Christ to be the head of the Church which our religion teacheth but they haue added the Pope to be another head and so haue made the Church a Monster with two heads Thus in euery point of doctrine take away those patcheries and additions of theirs which are things not taught vs by the word of God and euen in their religion that which remaineth is our religion the very truth of the Gospell of Iesus Christ For these and such other propositions of true faith the Diuell could neuer abolish out of the Church only by Antichrist he suppressed the knowledge and vse of them and to this wholsome wine put such abundance of his corrupt and poisoned waters as might frustrate the power and effect thereof Wherein notwithstanding he could not so farre preuaile but that the light here and there brake forth by such chinks and lattises as were remaining which many of our forefathers in the time of that Aegyptian darkenesse did discerne and see to their euerlasting comfort and soules health Yea M. Bishop knoweth well that there were in those times both Pastors and Flocks not in one only Countrey but in many who detested those blendings and mixtures of theirs and kept themselues either wholly or for the most part to the entire truth of our religion the light whereof euen then shined vnto them out of the very darkenesse of the Church Which notwithstanding we wonder not that he pretendeth not to know who will seeme not to know that our religion hath spred it selfe into Italie and Spaine when as all the world knoweth that the Inquisition hath shed the bloud of many thousands there only for the profession of our religion Yea the principles of our religion are so residing will they nill they in the very bowels of Popery as that they are forced to vse many sinister courses to drowne and stifle them and to keepe the people from taking knowledge thereof because they see that if there be but winde to blow away the ashes our fire will straightwaies burne amongst them and the flame presently ascend to the consuming of their roofe they see that if men be but stirred a 〈…〉 awaked out of their sleepe they will be forthwith ready out of the very common instinct of Christianity to beeleeue as we doe In Greece in Africa in Asia wheresoeuer the Gospell is there is no other but our Gospell because there is no Gospell but that which the Euangelists and Apostles haue recorded in the writings of the Gospell neither is Christ any where knowen but where he is knowen by that Gospell Therein hath our Gospell beene spred ouer the whole world therein we communicate with the Church of the whole world wheresoeuer this Gospell is free there our religion is not bound but thereby euen amidst errour and apostasie b wisedome is iustified of her children and God Mat. 11. 19. according to the purpose of his grace giueth light vnto euerlasting life As for the Indians lamentable experience haue they had of the Popish Gospell Neuer any Apostle or Euangelist carryed their religion abroade as the Papists haue done thither and they haue cause to wish that the Roman Church had neuer beene so Catholike as to extend to them Vpon some few of the remainder of them they haue forced baptisme some of their ceremonies but they haue taught them nothing of religion nothing of the Gospell of Iesus Christ How otherwise their religion hath beene spred ouer the whole world enough hath beene said already in briefe I say here that they can alleage no age nor time wherein they can make good that it hath so beene We know they can talke at will but farre are they from proofe that their doctrines of the Popes Supremacy his Pardons and Iubilees of Purgatory of Transubstantiation of their priuate Masse and halfe Communion with a number of such other were euer or at any time receiued throughout the whole world CHAP. IIII. That the Church before Christ euen from the beginning was a part of the Catholike Church and that the faith and religion of the new Testament differeth not in substance from the old A BRIEFE DEFENCE OF THE KINGS SVPREMACY ECCLESIASTICALL ANSWERE TO THE EPISTLE NOw as of this Catholike Church from the beginning to the end there is c. to Now whereas he alleageth c. W. BISHOP §. 1. WE agree in this that there is but one faith one baptisme one spirituall foode and one religion in the Catholike Church but M. Abbot is fouly ouer-seen about the time when the true Church beganne first to be called Catholike which was not before Christs time but afterwards according to that alleaged out of Pacianus an ancient Author who writeth of the name Catholike saying Pacian Epist ad Simphor de nomine Catholico Christian is my name Catholike is my surname For when among Christians some beganne to teach false doctrine and to draw others after them into sects they that remained sound and did cleaue fast vnto the whole body of the Church were intituled Catholikes to distinguish them from Heretikes that did not ioyne with the vniuersall corps of Christians in faith and religion which M. Abbot before did in plaine words confesse see his text afore where he beginneth to argue of the word Catholike And the reason is most perspicuous why the Iewes and their religion could not be called Catholike though it were right and according to the will of God for that time because Catholike signifieth that which is spred all the world ouer and receiued of all nations so was not the law of Moyses and the manner of seruing God therein prescribed but was peculiar
grace the substance and truth being reueiled they ought to cease This was the very reason why the Apostles taught the Church x Col. 2. 17. 20. to be disburdened of those rites because they were shadowes of things to come the body whereof is in Christ. But M. Bishop telleth vs by another spirit that therefore the Church of Rome reteineth them because they were shadowes of things to come because they were types and figures of the law of grace and reproueth them of vndiscreet zeale that are minded otherwise Sith then he can obserue vndiscreet zeale in the Apostles I may not maruell that he deemeth my sore eyes darkened with strange defluxion and distillation of corrupt humours but such indeede is the case of mine eyes that in the law of Moses and in the Prophets I cannot see that religion which we call Popery which standeth in those points of faith whereof the question is betwixt them and vs. The rest of his wordes I passe ouer as idle talke What hee hath declared wee see and we see so much folly in it and so little weight as that we cannot but aduise him to take longer time and goe ouer the same againe W. BISHOP §. 5. ANd much more reprâ—chfull is it to hold as he doth That we worship God after the same manner as they did for then should we sacrifice to him Beefs Muttons Calues and Lambs and our sacrificers should be of Aarons issue and order and we all circumcised I omit all their ceremonies because M. Abbot excepteth them And if the Protestants doe altogether pray as they did and in the same termes as M. Abbot affirmeth them to doe they sometimes then doe pray vnto God to remember Exod. 32. v. 13. Abraham Isaac and Iacob and for their sakes to make mercy on them for to that effect and in those termes prayed the Prophet Moyses and that according vnto those Patriarkes expresse order and commandement Genes 48. v. 16. Whereunto if it please the Protestants to ioyne that other prayer of the Psalmist Remember O Lord Dauid Psal 131. and all his mildnesse let them tell mee whether this small prayer with which they finde so great fault Tu per Thomae sanguinem c. Thou O Lord for that blouds sake which thy seruant shed in defence of thy holy Church take compassion vpon vs be not warranted for good by example of the like recorded in the old Testament For if they then did desire God to remember the excellent vertues of his seruants and for their sakes to shew mercy to others why may not we doe the same now why may we not as well beseech God to remember the constant fortitude of S. Thomas as they did the mildnesse of Dauid I will not dwell vpon these impertinent and loose follies which all that be not babes may of themselues easily discry but doe out of the premises inferre first that no religion was to be called Catholike before the Gospell of Christ was preached or to be preached to all nations and therefore the law of Moyses being peculiar to one people and countrey could not be called Catholike secondly that the Roman faith and religion is very conformable to that of the Patriarks and Prophets as the verity is to the figure whence it followeth that the Protestants new deuices hold no due correspondence with them I haue already confuted this his assertion That Christ at his comming confirmed the faith and religion of the Iewes without any additions of his owne and commended it simply and nakedly only stripping it of types and shadowes to be preached to all nations And here I adde that then Christians may yet haue many wiues together as the Iewes had or giue their wiues vppon any displeasure a libell of diuorse for these were no shadowes nor ceremonies And briefly it should follow thereof that all that part of their law that doth belong to iustice and iudgement stands still in full force and vertue among vs Christians which is most opposite to the determination of the Apostles in the first Councel holden at Hierusalem where it was plainly decided that we Christians Act. 15. vers 28. were not bound to keepe the old law Againe if the Apostles were simply and nakedly to preach vnto the Gentiles the law of Moyses stript of types and shadowes why were they commanded to preach vnto them the Sacrament of baptisme or of our Lords Supper which are no where commanded in the law of Moyses Well let this then passe as a most notorious and grosse ouersight But the Apostles saith he added nothing of their owne which is very false for many things were left by our Sauiour to their disposition whereupon Saint Paul saith Caetera cum venero disponam I will dispose 1. Cor. 11. v. 3â— of the rest when I come and was further bold to say Haec dico ego non Dominus For the rest I say 1. Cor. 7. v. 12. not our Lord. M. Abbot goes on belying the Apostle and saying And they preached only the Gospell Rom. 1. promised before by the Prophets where he corrupteth the Text by adding the word only and weaueth into that Text to the Romans these wordes out of the Acts of the Apostles saying none other things then those Act. 26. v. 22. which the Prophets and Moyses did say should come where he both mangleth the Text and also breaks off in the middest of a sentence that it might seeme applyable to all points of the Apostles preachings which the Apostle applyeth only to Christs death and resurrection and the preaching and carrying of light vnto the Gentiles It is a peece of strange alchymie to distill out of these wordes of the Apostle that they preached nothing but the same faith and religion which the Iewes embraced S. Paul saith that he had preached nothing of Christs death and resurrection and that he was the light of the Gentiles but that which the Prophets did speake should come to passe M. Abbot of his owne head enlargeth this his speech to all other points of our faith Againe all is besides the purpose for the Apostle saith not that hee taught any one article which the common sort of the Iewes did beleeue but such things as the Prophets said should come to passe Who knowes not that they foresaw and fore-told many things that were no articles of faith in their dayes and touching these very particulars how many of the Iewes did beleeue that their Messias should die so shamefull a death or that Moyses law should be abrogated by their Messias and that the Gospell of Christ should be preached vnto all nations all these were great nouels and exceeding scandalous to the body of the Iewes wherefore though some better learned among them and more religiously affected might vnderstand the Prophets speaking of those points yet were they farre from the common reach and perswasion of that people of the Iewes from these points that the Iewes beleeued
Iewish Church before receiued not But let him report my wordes as he findeth them and then they shall stand good that Christ taught no other but the same faith and religion that was deliuered by Moses and the Prophets to the former Church which is not hindered by that he instituted new Sacraments because I haue already shewed that in diuersity of Sacraments there is still the same faith Which how handsomely he hath confuted hath before appeared and I suppose by that time he hath further considered of the matter he will finde cause to seeke for a better confutation But yet taking it vpon him that he hath confuted me he goeth on saying And here I adde that then Christians may haue many wiues togither as the Iewes had and may giue their wiues vpon any displeasure a libâ—ll of diuorce Where we may well thinke that he was scant in the right that tooke the lawfulnesse of many wiues and the giuing of a bill of diuorce to a wife to haue beene matters of the Iewes faith and religion towards God I haue cited Leo Bishop of Rome saying that h §. 2. of this Chapter the faith whereby we liue hath neuer differed in any age and will M. Bishop inferre against him as he doth against me that Christians then may haue many wiues and husbands may vpon euery displeasure giue their wiues a bill of diuorcement to put them away as it was amongst the Iewes Did not his discretion serue him to put difference betwixt matters of faith and of manners betwixt articles of religion and offices of conuersation Faith and religion import that deuotion seruice which is immediately performed to God and what letteth but that in their lawfulnesse of many wiues they might yeeld to God the same deuotion that we doe and we in single marriage the same that they But haply somewhat it was that he aimed at which his troubled head serued him not to expresse I said in my answere as touching those Fathers of the old Testament According to the approued example of their life we also teach men to liue Now I imagine hereof it is that he meant to say that then Christians may haue many wiues and at their pleasure giue their wiues libels of diuorce If this were his meaning he should haue bethought himselfe where their example in these things is found any where to haue beene approued because I made mention only of approued example For our parts we hold plurality of wiues in those times to haue beene permitted but not approued tolerated by dispensation as i Gregor exposit in 1. Reg. c. 2 l. 2. Quaedam in sacra Scriptura inuenâ—untur praecepta quae dispensatâ—oâ—â— qâ—idâ—m Dâ—â— praecepta sâ—nt sed non amore Deâ— Gregory saith some things were of old but not warranted by institution And of that dispensation the same Gregory taketh an example of the Iewes giuing a bill of diuorce concerning which we see how the Pharisees alleage in the Gospell not that God ordained it but only that Moses so commanded or rather suffered and the reason thereof giuen k Mat. 19 78. because of the hardnesse of their hearts and therefore we hope M. Bishop vpon better aduice will not of vnity of faith conclude any more that it should now be lawfull for vs to doe the same As for the iudiciall law of the Iewes it is wholly without the occasion and compasse of my speech and briefly I answere him that though there be the same faith and the same rules of duty and conuersation yet it doth not therefore follow that censures and punishments or trials and legall proceedings must be the same In a word whatsoeuer the Apostles decreed in their Councell at Hierusalem for the abrogating of the law we acknowledge and obey and that more faithfully then the Papists doe who as M. Bishop confesseth doe hold it their grace still to hold a conformity with the ceremonies of the law Yet againe if the Apostles saith he were simply and nakedly to preach to the Gentiles the law of Moses he should say without ambiguity the faith and religion of the Patriarchs and Prophets stript of types and shadowes why then were they commanded to preach vnto them the sacraments of Baptisme and of the Supper of the Lord An idle question and it is already answered that in deliuering other Sacraments they taught no other but the same doctrine and faith The Sacraments are water in Baptisme bread and wine in the Lords Supper different from those of old The doctrine of faith is the death of Christ and shedding of his bloud for the cleansing of our soules and remission of our sinnes which was the same in all the Sacrifices and Sacraments of the Church since the world beganne And this one doctrine I said the Apostles by the commandement of Christ so taught as that they added nothing of their owne This saith M. Bishop is very false for many things were left by our Sauiour to their disposition Now thou must vnderstand gentle Reader that I vsed not those wordes as mine owne but did set them downe in a distinct letter quoting Tertullian in the margent as the authour of them The whole passage of those words shall giue some light to the matter here in hand l Tertul. de Praescript Nobis nihil ex nostro arbitrio indulgere licet sed ne eligere quod aliquis de arbitrio suo induxerit Apostolos Domini habemuâ— authores qui nec ipsi quicquam ex suo arbitrio quod inducerent clegerunt sed acceptam à Christo disciplinam fidelitèr nationibus adsignauerunt We may not saith he giue our selues liberty of any thing at our owne discretion nor make choise of any thing which any other man hath brought in of his owne minde We haue the Apostles of the Lord for our leaders who did not of their owne will or discretion make choise of any thing to bring in but the doctrine which they receiued of Christ they faithfully deliuered to the nations Here then M. Bishop giueth Tertullian the lye and telleth him that it is false which he saith dissembling in the meane time the sight of Tertullians name and making shew as if he spake it to me only Thou art now at thy choise gentle Reader whâ—ther thou wilt rather beleeue Tertullian or M. Bishop If thou wilt rather beleeue Tertullian in a worke generally approued then thou must say as we say that the Apostles added nothing of their owne but taught only what they receiued of Christ according to the commission giuen vnto them m Mat. 28 20. Teaching them to obserue whatsoeuer things I haue commanded you But to shew that our Sauiour left many things to the disposition of the Apostles he alleageth those wordes of St. Paul n 1. Cor. 11. 34. Other things I will dispose or set in order when I come Where I would pray him to tell vs in good sadnesse whether the meaning of those wordes be I
will teach you when I come some new doctrine and points of faith which Christ hath not taught or commanded me to teach but I haue added of mine owne If he thinke so let him tell vs that we may wonder at him If he doe not thinke so to what end is it that he alleageth those wordes Surely he who a little before so religiously telleth them that o Vos 23. he receiued of the Lord that which he deliuered to them should not seeme likely presently after to say that he would hereafter teach them other matters of his owne which he had not receiued of the Lord. M. Bishop therefore should haue vsed his discretion to put a difference betwixt matter of order and matter of faith so to vnderstand that though the Apostles might as the Church alwaies may prescribe orders for decency and conueniency in the publike assemblies and gouernement of the Church yet that in doctrine and faith neither they then nor the Church now may adde any thing to that which Christ our Lord commanded and deliuered both to them and vs. Of the same kinde is his other proofe out of that which the Apostle faith for aduice to the vnmarried so still to abide concerning which he professeth to haue receiued p 1. Cor. 7. 12. 25. no commandement from the Lord for what is this to shew that the Apostle hereby added a new point of faith when as whether the married or the vnmarried whether they that follow his aduise or they that follow it not all are saued by the same faith Aduise is of things arbitrary to be done faith is of things necessary to be beleeued The Apostle therfore might giue wholsome aduise without coÌ„mandement of the Lord and yet cannot hereupon be said to teach a new article of faith I said further in my answere that the Apostles preached only q Rom. 1. 2. the Gospell promised before by the Prophets in the holy Scriptures M. Bishop telleth me that I belye the Apostle and corrupt the text by adding the word only But I set downe the word only in a letter distinct from the wordes of the text as appeareth in my booke though he would not obserue it but hudleth all together and therefore there was no cause for him to charge me with corrupting the text And what will he say notwithstanding that it was not meant that they preached only the Gospell promised in the Scriptures Surely the Apostle noteth his calling and seruice to haue bin to preach the Gospell of God This Gospell of God he saith God had promised before by his Prophets in the holy Scriptures Now if M. Bishop will say that though the Gospell were there promised yet the whole Gospell was not promised he wrongeth the Apostle by making his wordes partly true and partly false true in one part of the Gospell because one part was promised false in another part because that other part was not promised Which to auoide he must confesse that the whole Gospell was promised in the Scriptures of the Prophets and because the Apostles preached only the Gospel of God therefore they preached only the Gospell promised in the Scriptures And thus in the end of the same Epistle the Apostle speaketh againe to the same effect that r Rom. 16. 26. the myslerie of the Gospell was published amongst all nations by the Scriptures of the Prophets We doe not thinke he dallied in so saying as to meane the Gospell is published that is to say a part thereof but not the whole but the Gospell entirely and perfectly is preached by the Scriptures of the Prophets Therefore elsewhere he professeth that in preaching the Gospell f he said no other things but what the Prophets and Moses did Acts 26. 22. say should come But here M. Bishop saith I mangle the text and breake off in the midst of a sentence that it might seeme appliable to all points of the Apostles preachings which the Apostle applieth only to Christs death and resurrection and the preaching and carrying of light to the Gentiles But he himselfe rather doth wrong in so abridging the wordes of the Apostle contrary to the practise of the Apostle who though here he name only a briefe of some principall points as accuslomably is done yet vnder these as the chiefe comprehendeth the whole doctrine which he taught He vsed the wordes to take away the offence which was generally conceiued against his preaching and seeing he did not preach these only particulars which are here set downe neither were they offended only at these therefore he must be so vnderstood as that the wordes must be applyed to all the rest and that taken as put in steede of all whereat they were offended most of all And if we doe not so take them we make him subiect to calumniation because he could not affirme that he said no other things then the Prophets and Moses did say should come if in any other points he taught any thing that had not the testimony of Moses and the Prophets Yea when the same Apostle saith generally of t Rom. 3. 21. 22 the righteousnesse of God by the faith of Iesus Christ that it hath the witnesse of the law and the Prophets how can M. Bishop perswade vs that in the preaching of the righteousnesse of God by the faith of Iesus Christ he should teach any thing but whereof hee had witnesse and warrant of the law and Prophets especially when wee see him as in other of his Epistles so specially in the Epistle to the Romans instifying all points of faith accordingly And that this is a truth not to be contradicted we will take witnesse of Gregory Bishop of Rome who saith that u Gregor in Cant c. 5. Apo 〈…〉 a Pro 〈…〉 â—ruâ—n dâ—ctis vt 〈◊〉 persisterent fidem integram 〈…〉 the Aposiles receiued the whole faith from those things that were spoken by the Prophets And againe x Idem in Ezech hom 6. Qued praedicat lâ—x hoc â—iani Prophete quod dâ—nuilciant Prophatae â—o◠〈…〉 bâ—t 〈◊〉 quod exâ—â—ourt Euangelium hoc praediâ—aâ—erunt Apostoâ—â— per mundum Looke what the law preacheth the same also doe the Prophets and what the Prophets teach the same the Gospell hath exhibited and what the Gospell exhibited the Apostles preached through the world Thus the law and the Prophets and the Gospell and the preaching of the Apostles haue all deliuered only one and the same thing Therefore he saith that y Ibid. Vâ—raque Testamenta in nullo a se dâ—screpant c. Inâ—st testamento veteri testamentum noâ—um c. Prophetia testamenti noâ—i testamentum vetus est expositio testamenti veteris testamentum nouum the two Testaments differ not in any thing one from the other that the new Testament is contained in the old that the old Testament is a prophecio of the now and the new Testament the exposition of the old The same had St. Austin said before that
worthy to be noted how M. Bishop trippeth and crosseth himselfe who hauing first told vs that the whole value of our merits whereby we deserue eternall life proceedeth of the dignity of Gods grace in vs presently altereth the case and saith that we must concurre with grace to the effecting of good works and this our working with the grace of God deserues heauen Surely if the whole value of our merits doe proceede of the dignity of Gods grace then the desert of heauen ariseth not of our working with grace or if the desert of heauen doe arise of our working with grace then it doth not wholly arise from the dignity of grace But hereby wee may see that all the wordes which they vse as touching grace are but hypocrisie and deceipt and that their true resolution is that the desert of heauen issueth out of the free will of man vsing grace as a toole or instrument for the doing of workes whereby to deserue the same Thus of gift they make no gift and turne all wholly into merit and by the free will of man doe vtterly ouerthrow the grace of God carrying notwithstanding in the meane time a conscience of shame of that they teach and colouring all with good workes as Pelagius the Heretike and his followers in the same case were wont to doe But M. Bishop will proue all that he saith by another sentence of the same Epistle to the Romans r Rom. 2. 6. God will render to euery man according to his workes c. where he saith we may see in expresse termes eternall life to be rendered and repaid for good works Where wee rather see his pertinacy in errour who rather chooseth to make the Apostle to contradict himselfe then to yeeld to the truth plainly deliuered by the Apostle But nothing can be deuised more fit for answere to him or more effectuall to stoppe his mouth then that which Gregory Bishop of Rome hath purposely set downe for satisfaction to those wordes f Gregor in Psalm Poeâ—itent 7. Quòd si illa Sanctorâ— soelicitas miserecordia est nö meritis acquiritur vbi erit quod scriptum est Et tu reddes vnicuique secundum opera sua si secundum opera redditur quomodo miserecordia a stimabitur sed aliud est secundum opera reddere aliud propter ipsa opera reddere In co enim quod secundum opera dicitur ipsa operum qualitas intelligitur vt cuiâ—s apparuerint bona opera eius sit retribut o gloriosa Illi namque beatae vitae in qua cum Deo de Deo viuitur nullus potâ—st aquari labor nulla opera comparari praesertim cùm Apostolus dicat Non sunt condignae passiones c. If the felicity of the Saints bee mercy saith he and be not obtained by merits how shall it stand which is written Thou shalt render vnto euery man according to his workes If it be rendered according to workes how shall it be esteemed mercy But it is one thing saith he to render according to workes and another thing to render for the works themselues For in that it is said according to workes the very quality of the workes is vnderstood so as that whose good works shall appeare his reward shall be glorious For to that blessed life wherein we shall liue with God and of God no labour can be equalled no workes can be compared for that the Apostle telleth vs The sufferings of this time are not comparable in worth to the glory to come that shall be reueiled on vs. Where we see how he setteth it downe as a thing without question to be confessed that eternall life is mercy only and is not to be purchased or gained by merits and that the Scripture in saying that God rendereth to euery man according to his workes doth not import that God in giuing reward vnto good workes doth any thing for the workes sake as if he regarded the merit or value thereof but respecteth only the quality of our workes as vsing the same for a marke only wherby he will take knowledge of them to whom he intendeth to shew mercy At these wordes of Gregory me thinks I see how M. Bishop biteth the lippe and chafeth in his minde to heare him thus distinguishing like a Protestant and seriously approuing that which he with scorne hath reiected being spoken by M. Perkins t Of Merits sect 17. O sharpe and ouer-fine wit saith he doth God render according to the workes and doth he not render for the workes What M. Bishop will you mocke Gregory in the same sort and twite him with a sharpe and ouer-fine wit He hath taught vs to distinguish thus he telleth vs that it is one thing to render for workes another thing to render according to workes which sith you admit not why doe you dâ—ale so impudently in chalenging to your selues a full and perfect agreement with the ancient Church of Rome I might further enlarge this matter out of Gregory by sundry speeches tending to the disabling of all humane works but that it followeth more properly to speake thereof in the thirteenth Chapter CHAP. XI That concupiscence or lust is sinne euen in the very habit and first motions of it ANSWERE TO THE EPISTLE HE telleth vs againe and againe that concupiscence is sinne to lust is to sinne c. to S. Paul saith of the spirit of adoption c. W. BISHOP THe Apostle telleth vs againe and againe that our Sauiour Christ Iesus was made 2. Cor. 5. v. 21. sinne and yet no Christian is so simple as to take him to be properly sinne but the host or satisfaction for sinne so when the Rom. 8. vers 3. Apostle calleth concupiscence sinne wee vnderstand him with S. Augustine that it is not sinne properly yet so called not vnaptly both because it is the effect L. b. 1. cont duas Epist Pelag. cap. 10. Lib. 1. de Nupt Concupisc cap. 23. and remnant of originall sinne and doth also pricke vs forward to actuall sinne but if by helpe of the grace of God we represse it we are deliuered from the infection and guilt of it Which S. Paul in the very same Chapter declareth when he demandeth Who shall deliuer me Ibid. vers 25. from this body of death he answereth presently the grace of God by Iesus Christ our Lord. And againe that profound Doctor S. Augustine argueth very soundly out of the same sentence where concupiscence is called sinne but now not I worke it any more but the sinne that is in me that the Apostle could not meane sinne properly which cannot saith he be committed Lib. 6. cont Iulian. c. 23. without the consent of our minde but that had no consent of the minde to it because it was not the Apostle that did worke it Now how can that be the euill worke of a man if the man himselfe doe not worke it as the Apostle saith expresly not I doe
Clerklike he shall thereby saue his life and shall not a iust Iudge frame his sentence accordingly Will M. Bishop say that he is no iust Iudge in such a case that dismisseth him with life that hath iustly deserued death If he will not say so then let him be so wise here as to vnderstand that iust iudgment proceedeth not alwaies by deserts but it is the part of a iust Iudge to iudge by lawes Now we know that as with men so with God there are lawes of rigour and extremity and there are lawes also of fauour and mercy The law of workes is a law of rigour k Rom. 4 15. a law which causeth wrath because l Gal. 3. 22. it concludeth all vnder sinne by reason whereof m Vers 10. so many as are of the workes of the law are vnder the curse for it is written n Deut. 27. 26. Cursed is euery man that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law to doe them and there is no man that continueth to doe all because o Iam. 3. 2. in many things we offend all Therefore the ministery of this law is called p 2. Cor. 3. 7. 9. the ministery of death the ministery of condemnation and the iudgement which proceedeth according to this law is called by St. Austin q August in Ioan. tract 22. Judicium damnationis the iudgement of damnation because no man escapeth damnation that vndergoeth this iudgement Against this iudgement Dauid prayeth when he saith r Psal 143. 2. Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant O Lord c. that is as St. Austin expoundeth it Å¿ August de Temp. ser 49. Ne stâ—â— mecum in iudicio eâ—â—gendo à me omnia quae praecepisti omnia quae iussistâ— Nam me inuenies reum si in iudicium intraueâ—is mecum Opus est ergò mihi miâ—â—râ—câ—rdia tua potiùs quà m liquidissimo iâ—diciâ— tuo Stand not with me in iudgement to require of me all that thou hast willed and commanded for thou wilt finde me guilty if thou enter into iudgment with me I haue need therefore of thy mercy rather then of thy meere iudgment The Apostle St. Paul bearing the same minde and dreading the same iudgement desireth at that day t Phil. 3. 9. to be found in Christ not hauing saith he mine owne righteousnesse which is by the law but the righteousnesse which is by the faith of Christ euen the righteousnesse which is of God through faith And hereby he leadeth vs to the consideration of another law which hee calleth elsewhere u Rom. 3. 27. the law of faith the tenour whereof is expressed by the wordes of our Sauiour x Iohn 6. 40. This is the will of him that sent me that euery one which seeth the sonne and beleeueth in him should haue euerlasting life and I will raise him vp at the last day This is a law of mitigation and mercy whereby is administred grace and righteousnesse and life which could not be obtayned by the former law To this law are annexed and thereupon depend many fauours and gracious promises which God hath made vnto the faithfull grounded vpon Iesus Christ the Mediatour of the new Testament in y 2. Cor. 1. 20. whom they are all Yea and in him Amen first granted for his sake and for his sake faithfully performed Now these things being thus decreed and established by law God as a iust Iudge dispenseth these fauours and graces accordingly euen by iust iudgment consisting here not in examination of merits but in discerning the markes and qualities whereby God will haue them knowen to whom by law the couenant of this grace and mercy doth appertaine This iudgement St. Austin calleth z August in Ioan tract 22. Iudicium discriminationis a iudgement of distinction whereby God putteth a difference betwixt the good and the euill accordingly as the same St. Austin expoundeth those wordes of Dauid a Psal 43. Vulg. 42. 1. Iudge me O God c. b August in Psal 42. Distet intereum qui in te credâ—t eum qui non credit Par infirmitas sed dispar conscientia Par labor sed dispar desiderium Let there be difference betwixt him which beleeueth in thee and him which beleeueth not There is infirmity alike but the conscience is vnlike They are equall in trauell and labour but they differ in desire And by this iudgement God maintaineth the cause of the righteous against the wicked their cause being iust howsoeuer their merit be nothing and therefore yeeldeth that to the iustification of their cause which yet they cannot claime by desert of workes And thus the Apostle in respect of the faithfull calleth c 2. Thess 1. 5. it the iust iudgement of God whereby he vouchsafith them the Kingdome of God for it is iust with God saith he to recompence tribulation to them that trouble you and to you which are troubled rest with vs. It is iust with God and iust iudgement because it is so ordered and decreed in the law of faith that they shall be reckoned worthy of the Kingdome of God that doe suffer affliction for the testimony thereof And so the same Apostle being himselfe to receiue sentence of death as a malefactour at the hands of an vniust Iudge comforteth himselfe in the goodnesse of his cause and the testimony of his conscience that hauing fought a good fight and finished his course and kept the faith he should of a iust Iudge at that day receiue a crowne whereby against that vniust sentence his iustice and vprightnesse in that behalfe should be made apparant and manifest to the whole world This iudgement then proceeding by the law of faith is tempered and mingled with mercy as I haue d Of Merits sect 19. elsewhere shewed God accepting what wee haue done but not requiring what wee haue not done testifying our righteousnesse such as it is but neuer questioning our sinnes For e Aug. Epist 29. Cum Rex iustus sederit in thronâ— quis gloriabitur se castuÌ„ habere cor aut quis gloriabitur se esse immunem à peccato Quae igitur spes est nisi miserecordia superexultet iudicium when the iust King shall sit vpon his throne saith Austin who shall glory that he hath a cleane heart or that he is free from sinne and therefore what hope is there vnlesse mercy surmount iudgement And so in another place f Idem in psal 129. Apud te propitiatio est Nam si non esset apud te propitiatio si iudex soluÌ„ esse velles miserecors esse nolles obseruares omnes iniquitates nostâ—as quâ—reres â—as quis sustineret quis ante te staret dâ—ceret Innocens sum quis staret in iudicio tuo spes ergo vna est quoniam apud te propitiatio est There is mercy with thee for if there were not mercy with thee
rebelleth against the law of the minde and holdeth vs captiue to the law of sinne l Gal. 5. 17. it lusteth against the spirit and these are contrary one to another so that we cannot doe the things that we would and therefore cannot fulfill the law Why will M. Bishop goe about to dispute against so certaine so cleare and manifest truth Now then vnderstanding the iustification of the law as he doth of the righteousnesse commanded by the law it is true that the end of Gods sending his Sonne was that sinne might be condemned in the flesh that the power and life thereof in vs might be abolished and it vtterly destroyed that sinne being taken away the iustification or righteousnesse of the law may be entirely and perfectly fulfilled in vs for euer This we say that God hath intended to doe and hath already begunne to bring it to effect but he hath begunne only and noâ— perfected this worke nor will doe till this body of ours raised againe from death and out of the dust of the earth haue cast the slough of sinne and become clothed with immortality and incorruption In the meane time m August de ciuit Dei l. 19. c. 27. Ipsa iustitia nostra tanta â—st in hac vita vt potiùs remissione peccatorum constet quà m perfectione virtutum our righteousnesse in this life saith St. Austin consisteth rather in the forgiuenesse of sinnes then in the perfâ—ction of vertues and n Greg. Mor. l. 5. c. 9. Ipsa perfectio nostra culpa non caret nisi hanc seuerus iudex in subtili laÌ„ce examinis misericorditèr penset our very perfection saith Gregory is not free from blame vnlesse God in the precise ballâ—nce of his examination doe mercifully waigh the same And from Gregory did St. Bernard learne to say that o Bernard in fest omn. SaÌ„ct fer 1. Si districtè iudicetur iniusta inuenietur omnis iustitia nostra minus habens Sir Greg Mor. l. 9. c. 11. l. 21. cap. 15 all our iustice or righteousnesse if it be narrowly sifted will be found vâ—iust and defectiue because p August coÌ„t Iulian l. 2. Memores conscij illa ipsa corpora vitioruÌ„ omnium esse materiem pro qua polluti sordidi nihil in nobis munduÌ„ nihil innocens obtinem ex Plilario being polluted and filthy by reason of the corruptions of our sinnefull bodies as Austin alleageth out of Hilary we haue nothing in vs cleane nothing innocent q Hilar. in psal 118. Gimel Et nisi glorificatâ— in naturaÌ„ spiritus corpore vita vera in nobis non potest esse natura neither can there be in vs saith he the nature of the true life vntill the body be glorified into the nature of the spirit Now seeing the case of our righteousnesse in this life iâ—â—aâ—h certayne it is that the righteousnesse of the law is not so fulfilled in vs in this life as that thereby we can be iustified in the sight of God Yea r Leo in Anniuers suo ser 1. In isto seculo si iniquitates Dominus obseruaret nullus iudiciùm suum sustineret in this world saith Leo according to the words of the Psalme if the Lord would take knowledge of iniquities none should be able to beare his iudgement and therefore it remaineth which the same Leo elsewhere saith that Å¿ Leo Epist 81 In quo solo homo se inuenit innocentem in Christ only a man findeth himselfe innocent or iust t Greg. Moral lib. 3. cap. 11. Per hoc cuncta iustificat quod eum qui sine peccato est pro peccatoribus damnat God hereby iustifying vs as Gregory saith for that for vs sinners he condemneth him who is without sinne u Idem in Ezech hom 7. Justus aduocatus noster iustos nos defendet in iudicio quia nosmetipsos cognoscimus accusamus iniustos Our iust Aduocate therefore saith the same Gregory will in iudgement defend vs for iust if we know and accuse our selues to be vniust x Idem in EuaÌ„gel hom 25. Paratus est poenitentiam nostraÌ„ nobis ad innoceÌ„tiam deputare God being ready for his sake to repute vnto vs our penitency for innocency Here is then our iustification before God not in that the righteousnesse of the law is fulfilled in vs but in that vpon our true repentance God reputeth vs innocent for Christs sake and in Christ whom as a sinner he condemned to death and punishment for our sakes Now by that that hath beene said appeareth the answere to his next place y Rom. 13. 8. 10. Loue is the fulfilling of the law and he that loueth his neighbour fulfilleth the law For what is said of iustice or righteousnesse must be also vnderstood of loue because our righteousnesse inherent consisteth in loue and according to the measure of our loue so is the measure of our righteousnesse z August de Nat. Grat. c. 70. Charitas inchoata inchoata iustitia est charitas prouecta prouecta iustitia est charitas magna magna iustitia est charitas perfecta perfecta iustitia est Charity begunne saith Austin is righteousnesse begunne charity increased is righteousnesse increased great charity is great righteousnesse perfect charity is perfect righteousnesse Sith then our iustice or righteousnesse is very defectiue and vnperfect as hath been shewed the like must be conceiued of our loue and therefore though loue be the fulfilling of the law yet in vs it is not the fulfilling of the law because in vs it is vnperfect and farre short of that which the law requireth As we haue the beginnings of loue so we haue the beginnings of fulfilling the law but that is not sufficient to iustification by the law because the law requireth absolute a Gal. 3. 10. continuance in all that is written therein Therefore St. Austin very directly to our purpose saith b Aug. Epist 29. Plenissima charitas qua iam augeri non potest quamdiu hic homo viâ—it est in nemine Quamdiu autem augâ—â—â—i potest prosectò illad quod minus est quà m debet ex vitâ—o est Ex quo vitio non est iustus in terra qui facit bonum non peccat Ex quo vitio non iustificabitar in coâ— spects Dei omnis viuens The most perfect charity which can now no further be increased so long as a man liueth here is found in none and so long as it may be increased that that is lesse then it ought to be is by reason of some vice or corruption in vs by reason whereof there is not a man iust vpon earth that doth good and sinneth not by reason wherof no man liuing shall be iustified in the sight of God In a word loue is the fulfilling of the law when as there is loue according to the tenour of the law The law saith c Deut. 6. 5. Luke 10. 27. Thou shalt
sect 18. elsewhere and I should wonder but that it is his manner so to doe that the absurdity thereof being so displayed he would thus repeate it againe almost in the same wordes It shall be here sufficient thence briefly to answere him that the iustifying faith of a Christian man is not incident to the Diuell But the Diuell is capable of beleeuing all â—o bee true which God hath reueiled The Diuell could beleeue that God according to his promise would giue Abraham a sonne and make him the father of many nations Therefore iustifying faith is more then to beleeue all to be true vvhich God hath reueiled That more is plainly gathered of that which Cyprian saith d Cyprian de dupl martyrio Non credit in Deum qui non in â—o solo collocat totius foelicitatis suae fiduciam He beleeueth not in God that doth not place or repose in God only the confidence and trust of his whole felicity and happinesse Iustifying faith then is the reposing of trust and confidence in God only to obtaine of him eternall blisse and happinesse through the merits and mediation of Iesus Christ And this was Abrahams faith not a carnall beliefe only that God vvould giue him a sonne and a great posterity of many nations but a beleefe of a spirituall e Gen. 12. 2. Gal. 3. 8. 9. blessing in his seede according to the promise of God both to himselfe and to all the nations of the earth And this vve see in the place which M. Bishop citeth vvhere the Apostle alleaging that Abrahams faith was imputed to him for righteousnesse addeth f Rom. 4. 23. Now it is not written for him only but also for vs to whom it shall be imputed for righteousnesse What to beleeue that old and barren persons may haue children if God say the word as M. Bishop in the place before mentioned very rudely expresseth the faith of Abraham Nay but to beleeue in him that raised vp Iesus the Lord from the dead who was deliuered to death for our sinnes and rose againe for our iustification This was it which the faith of Abraham respected By beleefe of the promise of God g Iohn 8. 56. he saw the day of Christ He beleeued that of his seed should come a Sauiour both to himselfe and to vs who should be deliuered to death for our sinnes and rise againe for our iustification and by this faith he was iustified For the same faith saued Abraham that now saueth vs as hath beene before shewed But the faith that saueth vs is the faith of the Gospell the faith of Iesus Christ the faith of his Crosse the faith of his Bloud the faith of his Death and Resurrection Therefore this was also the faith that saued Abraham Thus M. Bishops heapes of testimonies proue for his part heapes of chaffe and not of corne they carry a shew of multitude but say nothing at all for him He is a â—aiâ—e man that goeth about by such allegations to impeach any peece of the Protestants iustification When he hath spent all his paper-shot the Protestants iustification vvill remaine still W. BISHOP §. 3. NOw I come to the other points named by M. Abbot There is nothing saith he in S. Paul for the merit of single life But he is greatly mistaken for the Apostle saith That the care of the single and vnmarried 1. Cor. 7. vers 32 33. 34. is to please God and their study to thinke vpon those things that appertaine vnto God and how they may be holy both in body and in spirit which must needes be more acceptable in Gods sight then to be carping for this world and caring how to please their yoke-mate To this wee adde Monkish vowes of which if hee were worthy to be a good Abbot he would speake more respectiuely somwhat S. Paul hath of the vow of chastiâ—y which is one of their principall vowes for he auoucheth certaine widdowes worthy of damnation because 1. Tim. 5. v. 12. they broke the same former vow of chastity And S. Paul himselfe shoare his head in Cenchris because Act. 18. vers 18. he had a vow which was the vow of a Nazarite not much vnlike for the time though much inferiour vnto the vow of religious persons see of that vow the sixt Chapter of the booke of Numbers There is nothing saith M. Abbot in S. Paul of prayer for the dead which is not true for he teacheth that some of the faithfull who haue built vpon the right foundation hay 1. Cor. 3. vers 13. stubble and such like trash shall notwithstanding at the day of our Lord bee saued yet so as through fire Which the ancient Doctors doe take to be the fire of SS Aug. in psal 37. Hieron lib. 2. cont Iouin 13. Ambros in hunc locum Gregor in psal 3. Poenitentialem Purgatory Now if many whiles the drosse of their workes be purged doe lie in fire it will easily follow thereof that euery good soule who hath any Christian compassion in him will pray for the release of their Christian brother out of those torments R. ABBOT THou maiest here see gentle Reader M. Bishops tergiuersation and manifest shifting I propounded out of Theodoret that the Epistle to the Romans containeth all manner doctrines of faith Vpon this ground I noted that the doctrine of Popery is to be condemned for that it containeth so many points as necessary articles of faith whereof there is nothing to be found in the Epistle to the Romans Herewith M. Bishop found himselfe greatly distressed On the one side he durst not openly reiect the testimony of Theodoret fearing least that haply might be some preiudice to him On the other side he saw he could not finde their religion in the Epistle to the Romans Now therefore silently he stealeth away and betaketh himselfe to the rest of Pauls Epistles not vpon any hope that he hath that he can thence make good his cause but for that hee findeth there some speeches deliuered vpon occasions whereby hee can better giue colour to some doctrines of theirs of which the Apostle neuer thought He telleth his Reader that I say there is nothing in St. Paul for the merit of single life But my saying was that in the Epistle to the Romans which Theodoret affirmeth to containe all kinde of doctrine there is nothing said for the merit of single life Well let him yet haue his way let vs giue him full liberty of the rest of St. Pauls Epistles and what hath he there for the proofe of it Forsooth he telleth vs that the Apostle saith that the care of the single and vnmarried is to please God and their study to thinke vpon those things that appertaine to God and how they may be holy both in body and in spirit which saith he must needes be more acceptable in Gods sight then to be carking for this world and caring how to please their yoke-mate But here he