vitam immortalitatem esse quaesitam Peter saith he suffered many things for the Church Many things also S. Paule and the rest of the Apostles suffered when they were scourged when they were stoned when they were imprisoned For by that bearing of wrongs and experience of dangers the Lords people was founded and the Church receiued increase for that other hastened to martyrdome when they saw that by those sufferings there was no impeaching of the Apostles vertues and moreouer that for this short life immortality was sought or gotten therby In the like sort doth he expound the words of the Apostle which here we speake of k Idem in Colos ca. 1. In tribulationibus quas patiebatur exultare se fatetur quia profectum suum videt in fide credentium Non est cuimâinants triâââatio quando cum pro quo patitur acquirit ad vitam He professeth himselfe to reioyce in the troubles which he endured because he seeth his successe in the faith of them that beleeue for his trouble is not in vain when he gaineth him to life for whom he suffered No other thing doth Cyprian gather out of those words l Cypria de dupl Mart. Quemadmodum ille mirabili testimonio clarifi auit Patrem in ho. mundo aâque etiam in coelisma testimonâum illius quodammodo coÌsummatur testimonio SanctoruÌ quasisit vna passio Domini seruorum Id nequis exiflimet parùm religiose dictum beatus Paulus nobis patrocinatur na scribens c. Quis enim nescit quam vberem prouentum effudit Ecclesiae seges Apostolorum caeterorum Martyrum sanguine irrigata Quò plus sanguinis effusum est hoc magis ac magis esstoruit muâtitis do fidelium hoc latiùs sparsit suas propag nes illa beata vitis à Christo stirpe surgens necupans orbem vniuersum c. Euen as Christ saith he by his admirable testimonie glorified the Father in this world and also in heaueÌ so his testimony is after a sort consummated or made perfect in the testimonie of the Saints as if the passion of the Lord and of the seruants were all one And that no man may thinke that irreligiously spoken S. Paule warranteth the same to vs thus writing to the Colossians I now ioy in my sufferings for you and fulfill those things which are yet wanting or behind of the sufferings of Christ in my flesh for his bodies sake which is the Church For who knoweth not how plentifull increase the corne field of the Church hath yeelded being watered with the bloud of the Apostles and other Martyrs The more bloud was shed so much more more the multitude of the faithfull flourished so much the wider that blessed vine spred her branches arising from Christ her stocke and possessing the whole world Afterwards going forward to shew that m Testificatus est se esse pastorem bonum quia animam suam posuit pro euibus nobis exemplum praebens vt qui pro nostra qualicunque portione vices illius gerimus parati simus ipsi pro grege dominico sanguinem fundere nisi malumus videri mercenarij quam pastores Domini verbis congruunt verba discipulâ Cùm enim dixisset se gaudere c. perpetiens ipse pro corpore Christi quod est Ecclesia qualia pasâus erat Dominus causam adiecit cur ea libenter pateretur Cuius inquit miâââier factus sum c. vt impeam verbuÌ Dei Sicut ergo mortibus Martyrum consummantur passiones Christi ita sanguine pastoruââââ firmantur prâm ssa Christâ NulâuÌ enim instrumentum in dubitabilius quam quod tot Martyrum sanguine signatum est Hoc ââmtrum si âmpâere vertum Dei hoc est replere Euangelium Christ testifying himselfe to be the good shepheard because he gaue his life for the sheepe hath therein giuen example to those that are the pastors in his stead to be ready to shed their bloud for the Lords stocke vnlesse they wil be taken for hirelings rather then for pastors he saith that thereto the words of the Apostle accord who saying that for the bodie of Christ which is the Church he suffered the like things as the Lord suffered he addeth The cause why he suffered those things willingly whereof saith he I am made a minister according to the dispensation of God which is giuen to me that I should fulfill the word of God For as by the deaths of the Martyrs the sufferings of Christ are perfected so by the bloud of the Pastors the promises of Christ are confirmed For there is no instrument more vndoubted then that which is sealed with the bloud of so many Martyrs This is indeed to fulfill the word of God this is to fulfill the Gospell In the like sort doth S. Austin make construction of the words of S. Iohn n 1. Ioh 3.16 He laid downe his life for vs therfore ought we also to lay downe our liues for the brethren namely o August in Ioan. tra 47. Sic nos debeââos ad aedificandam plebem ad fidem asserendam aminas pro fratribus ponere for the edifying of Gods people for the auouching of the faith Thus it was said that p Tertul. Apol. cap. 45. in fine Semen est sanguis Christianorum the bloud of Christians was like seed that q August in Psal 58. Sanguine seminata seges Ecclesiae fertilius pullulauit the field of the Church being sowed with bloud did more fruitfully spring and grow whilst r Idem Epist 50 Laudatur Dominus qui donare dignatus est vt serui eius passionibus suis lucrarentur fratres suos the Lord did grant that his seruants by their sefferings did win their brethren but that the bloud of Christian Martyrs was any satisfaction for the rest of the Church of Christ or any redemption of the punishments of their brethren it was neuer heard of in those times They knew nothing then of the Popes store-house of Supererogations and Satisfactions they knew nothing of that marting and chopping and changing of merits which these presumptuous Romish hypocrites now maintain in whom it is much more verified then it was in the Donatists which S. Austin saith Å¿ Idem Epist 51. Tantam sibi arrogant iustitiam vt cam iactent se non solúm habere sed etiam alijs hominibus dare They arrogate vnto themselues so great righteousnes as that they brag not only that they haue it theÌselues but also giue it vnto others But to conclude this point let M. Bishop know that both he and his fellowes are very impudent and shamelesse men thus to wrest the words of the Apostle to the defence of a doctrine which for aboue a thousand yeares was neuer heard of in the Church and which haue out of the auncient Church according to the Scriptures a very manifest and cleare exposition another way 5 W. BISHOP Now to M. Perkins second reason In
Church then let that little discretion that he hath serue him against another time to vnderstand that it is no preiudice to our religion that there is in some matters some diuersitie of opinions amongst vs or that some men be exorbitant from that which is commonly amongst vs approued for the truth There is an vniuersalitie of doctrine with them for which men are esteemed of their religion in the particulars whereof notwithstanding there are many differences for which they will not be thought to be one of one religion and another of another What infinite varietie of obseruation and discipline is there found amongst their Friers and Monkes and yet they take them to be all of one religion There was of old a great dissention betwixt Å¿ Euseb hist lib. 5. cap. 22.23 Polycrates the Metropolitan of the Asian Churches and Victor Bishop of Rome concerning the obseruation of the feast of Easter betwixt t Cyprian ad Pomptium cont epist Stephani et Concil Carthag apud Cyprian Cyprian and Stephanus Bishop of Rome with their Churches on each part about the rebaptizing of them that were baptized by heretikes betwixt u Socrat hist lib. 6. cap. 13. Chrysostome and Epiphanius first and after betwixt x Hieron aduer Ruffin Hierome and Ruffinus concerning the condemning of the works of Origen betwixt y Socrat. lib. 7 cap 19. Chrysostome and many other Bishops concerning the often restitution of penitents to the communion of the Church betwixt z August epist 18 Hierome and Austine concerning Peters dissimulation and yet were they neuer taken to be of diuers religions vntill this day And what are we then in worse case then all these that because there is some variance betwixt some of vs in some points of doctrine or betwixt some others in matters of ceremony and circumstance concerning the discipline of the Church therefore we must be sorted into so many Religions as M. Bishops idle head can deuise differences amongst vs This is to be contemned as a peeuish and impertinent cauil of contentious and wrangling Sophisters bewraying more malice then learning or wit making shew to the vnlearned of obiecting somewhat against vs when their obiection maketh more against themselues then it doth against vs. Now then if M. Perkins either concerning Christs descending into hell or some other like matters subiect to varietie of opinion were otherwise minded then standeth with truth or the common iudgement of our Church we do not therefore account him a man of other religion but a maintainer of our religion and we will say of him as Austine said of Cyprian a August Therefore did he not see somewhat that by him a greater matter might be seen namely that in difference of iudgement we are not to be contentious but labour with all our might to preserue the publike peace and vnitie of the Church and with modestie and loue to carie our selues towards them that in opinion dissent from vs. A notable example whereof we see in M. Caluine who when Luther vpon some matter of question behaued himselfe somewhat intemperately against him and some others alike minded as he was was wont to say b Caluin epi. 57. Though he should call me diuell yet will I do him his honour to acknowledge him an excellent seruant of God As for the imputations which here M. Bishop layeth vpon him and the rest whom he nameth we account them but as the barking of a curre dogge against a Lion they are stale and threedbare cauils and too well knowne to cause them that reproch that he desireth If Luther were licentious for marrying a wife what were their Popes and Cardinals their Bishops and Priests and Monks for keeping other mens wiues and retaining concubines and harlots of their owne If Zuinglius went armed into the field to giue encouragement to his countrymen for their iust and necessary defence is he thereupon to be taxed for a martial minister more then Iulius the second for a martial Pope who himselfe went in person against the French and going ouer the bridge of Tiber cast his crosse keyes into the riuer and tooke his sword in his hand saying c Bale in Iul. 23 Seeing Peters keyes will do no good we will try whether Pauls sword wil serue the turne or then Philip the French Bishop in the time king Richard the first for a martiall Bishop who bare armes against king Richard and was taken in battell in whose behalfe when the Pope wrote to the King requesting fauour for his sonne the King sent to him the Bishops armour with this message d Matth. Paris in Richard 1. Vide an tunica filij tui sit an non See whether this be thy sonnes coate or not Nay it is no rare matter to find examples of martiall Popes and martiall Cardinals and Bishops in the Church of Rome and therfore we need say no more to M. Bishop as touching this cauill but onely to bid him looke at home As for that which he saith of Caluins expelling of the lawfull magistrate out of Geneua it is a very malicious and false tale it being very euident that the Bishop of Geneua whom he meaneth with his cleargie perceiuing the people to be minded for the abolishing of Popish superstition and receiuing of the Gospell voluntarily fled from thence before Caluins comming to that place Last of all he calleth Beza a dissolute turne-coate but if a man should ask his wisedome why he doth so he cannot tell All the matter of this dissolutenes is that being vnder twentie yeares old or a litle aboue he wrote a booke of Epigrammes in which by imitation of Catullus and Ouid he expressed some things more licentiously and wantonly then was fit The writing thereof he afterwards when God had called him to the knowledge of his truth e Beza Confes Epist Dedicat. repented much and when he was requested that the same might be reprinted denied it vtterly and wished the remembrance thereof to be wholy buried In his conuersation otherwise he was neuer to be touched with any blemish of that lightnesse which in those poeticall exercises he made shew of And is not this a great matter that these men obiect so often to his disgrace Surely if the liues of sundry of the auncient Fathers were looked into with such eyes before they were come to Christ there would be found worse matters to vpbraid them with euen by their owne confession then this is S. Austine when the Donatists dealt with him as M. Bishop and his fellowes do with Beza gaue answer to them thus f August const lit Petil lib. 3. cap. 10. Quantum cunque ille accusât vinum meum tantum ego laude medicum meum Looke how much they blame my fault so much do I commend and prayse my Phisition To which effect I haue heard that Beza himselfe answered one as touching that columniation Hic homo inuidet mihi gratiam Christi This man enuieth
me the grace of Christ Surely that should haue bene no fault though it had bene much greater if he had continued one of them But what would they haue said if Beza had done as g Bale Act. Rom Pontif. in Iulio 3. Ioannes à Casa their Archbishop of Beneuentum did who wrote an Italian Poeme in commendation of Sodomie and printed it at Venice professing himself to be delighted with that horrible filthinsse and that he knew no venerie but that or as h Jbid. in Sixt. 4 ex Orat. Heur Agipp ad Loua Pope Sixtus the fourth who built a Stewes at Rome for the exercise of that vnnaturall and monstrous lust How many such filthy dogges are there found amongst the Romaine Sages who yet with them must go for sacred and holy Fathers whilest Beza for a few verses written when he was yet but a boy must be subiect to their reprochfull malice all his life yea and after his death also But the thing that troubleth M. Bishop indeed is that Beza became a turncoate for that he cast off the liuerie of Antichrist the badge cognisance of the man of sinne and betooke himselfe to the profession and seruice of Iesus Christ Well and happie were it for him if he had turned his coate in the like sort if he had put on the garment of Christ crucified which though it might seeme base in the eyes of the proud harlot of Rome yet should make him glorious in the eyes of God and yeeld him acceptation before him Now the Articles of our religion set downe by M. Perkins he calleth the hotchpotch of all those new religions because he well knoweth that we on all sides agree in the maintenance of these Articles and therfore are indeed but one religion Whereby the Reader may easily conceiue how idle his obiection is of diuisions and subdiuisions But of this hotchpotch he hath tasted and by this time it hath made his stomach very sicke and I beleeue will cast him into a disease from which he will neuer be able to recouer againe Of the religion in these articles expressed he confesseth that it can admit no reconcilement with the Church of Rome but he liketh not the reason which M. Perkins alledgeth of the impossibilitie of this vnion His reason is because they of the Romaine Church haue razed the foundation and though in words they honour Christ yet indeed do turne him into a PseudoChrist and an Idol of their own braine Against this reason M. Bishop alledgeth the explication that M. Perkins maketh of his Reformed Catholike to be any one that holds the same necessarie heads of Religion with the Romane Church wherto is added by M. Perkins which M. Bishop omitteth Yet so as he pares off and reiects all errors in doctrine whereby the same religion is corrupted Hereupon M. Bishop asketh Can there be a more necessarie head of religion then to haue a right faith in Christ which is very clerkely and well applied and sheweth him to be a man of deepe insight into dark points Surely to haue a right faith in Christ would not be vnderstood for a head of religion but for the whole effect in a manner and substance of it M. Perkins by necessary heads of religion vnderstandeth those generalities and principles whereof there is no question betwixt the Church of Rome and vs which for the points that he handleth he hath set downe vnder the name of our consents in the beginning of euery question These he will haue his Reformed Catholike still to hold with them but to detest the absurdities and errors which they teach in the deduction and application of these generalities Therefore he doth not say as touching those principles that they raze the foundation but the razing of the foundation consisteth in the indirect vse and applying thereof There is a generalitie doctrine to which Heretikes accord and vnder the cloud whereof many times they couer their heresies euen as the Pelagian Heretikes hid the poison of their heresie vnder the acknowledgement of the grace and helpe of God but be wrayed the same notably when they were vrged to specifie what they meant by the same grace So doth the Church of Rome acknowledge the incarnation of Christ his passion death and resurrection his ascension and intercession at the right hand of God but in assigning the vse and effect of all these things and the rest they make Christ in a manner no Christ at all M. Bishop therefore might easily haue seene but that he was willing to shew either his ignorance in not vnderstanding or his learning in cauilling that M. Perkins might well say without any contradiction that the Church of Rome had razed the foundation and yet wish his Reformed Catholike still to hold those necessarie heads of religion which still remaine in the acknowledgement and profession of the Church of Rome Now M. Perkins g ueth foure instances of their iustling of Christ out of his place The first standeth in the Popes vsurping of the spirituall kingdome of Christ by changing his commandements and adding to them by taking vpon him to open and shut heauen to whom he will by binding mens consciences with his decrees But M. Bishop telleth vs that Christs giuing of these faculties to the Pope doth most highly recommend his singular bountie towards his followers and is no derogation to himselfe Which he telleth vs vpon his owne word but as for me I haue read ouer the new Testament diuers times and yet could I neuer light vpon any place where Christ hath made any mention of the Pope or of any faculties that he would bestow vpon him We reade of Antichrist the man of sinne that i 2. Thess 2.4 he should sit in the temple of God and take vpon him to commaund as God but we find not that Christ did euer appoint any man to execute any such place Out of doubt Christ would somewhere or other haue spoken of it if he had intended any such course But M. Bishop taketh it to be a great glorie to Christ to haue a Vicar here vpon earth with a triple Crowne clothed like Diues in purple and fine linnen and faring deliciously euery day bespangled with gold and besparkled with Iewels and caried about like an Idoll vpon the shoulders of men hauing Emperours and Kings and Princes to attend him to hold his stirrop to powre him water to kisse his foot and all at his deuotion either to set them vp or to pull them downe yea hauing power ouer heauen and earth and Purgatorie the onely spite is that he hath no power to keepe himselfe from hell and that he should make lawes and giue dispensations against Gods lawes and like a Lord of misrule turne all things vpside downe O what a goodly matter had it bene that Christ should haue made all his seruants like Popes here in the world and all other people vassals and tributaries vnto them what a golden world would that haue bene
but he considereth her respectiuely onely vnder the title of the mother of Christ Therefore more plainely S. Austin deliuereth Christs answer h Aug â ãâ¦ã My mother whom ye call blessed is therfore blessed because she keepeth the word of God not because the word became flesh in her Epiphanius further obserueth that when Christ another time saith vnto his mother Woman what haue I to do with thee mine houre is not yet come He therefore i Eâ ãâ¦ã Virgiâââ ãâ¦ã appellaâââ veâuâ prophetaââ quae futura essâ ãâ¦ã sectarum ac haeresâââ gratia vt ne aliqud ãâ¦ã sanctaââ in hanc haeresâ ãâ¦ã called her woman that none might thinke too highly of the holy Virgin as prophecying what should come to passe in the earth by Sects and heresies that none admiring her saith he should fall into this heresie and the dotages thereof speaking there as touching the heresie of the Collyridians who set vp the image of the Virgin Mary and thereto offered Collyridem a cake in the honour of her and thereof they had their name As touching all this blind deuotion which the Papists haue renewed to the full he telleth vs that k Ibid Est ââdibrâum tota râs amcularum fabula it is a toy and an old wiues fable and asketh as we do l Quae Scripturae ae hoc naââauitâ What Scripture hath told vs any thing hereof And that we may vnderstand how leudly M. Bishop belyeth antiquitie in saying that Antiquitie tearmed the Virgin Marie Our Ladie and Queene exalted aboue all quiers of Angels he reasoneth thus against that heresie m Quis Prophetarum praecepââ hominem adorari nedum multâârem Which of the Prophets hath taught that any man is to be worshipped much lesse a woman And againe n St Angelos adorari nonâuliâ quantò magis eam quae genitae est ab Anna. If God will not haue the Angels to be worshipped how much more will he not haue the daughter of Anna to be worshipped And againe o Mariam nemâ adoret non dico mulurem imò neque vtrum Deo debetur hoc mysterium neque Angelicapiunt talem glorificationem Let no man worship Mary I say not a woman no not a man this mysterie belongeth vnto God the Angels receiue not any such glorie And againe as touching the name of the Queene of heauen he addeth p Ne turbent orbem terrarum ne dicant honoramus reginam coeli Let not these women trouble the world let them not say We do honour to the Queene of heauen We see how farre Epiphanius was from the conceipt of those supersticious fooleries which M. Bishop here so solemnely discourseth vnto vs. We see how the Church of Rome walketh iust in the path and steppes of these heretikes which were of old condemned by the Church They argued as M. Bishop here full simply doth from the vnright rule of crooked reason she was his best beloued mother he tooke flesh of her he sucked her breasts surely he would bestow vpon her his speciall fauours he would without doubt do more for her then for strangers to whom he was not at all beholding he would replenish her with such grace as should make her fit for that place which he neuer gaue her These are fantasticall presumptious of silly doting women and blind ignorant dottrels they haue no sauour at all of the spirit of God They might vpon these grounds argue for the brethren and cosins of Christ and conceiue as the mother of Iames and Iohn did that being his kinsmen they should be more respected then others and as they were nearer him in bloud so should be preferred in dignitie place and therefore should q Mat. 20 2â sit one on his right hand and the other on his left hand in his kingdome But the kingdome of Christ is not administred by such fancies neither do carnal titles serue to giue preferment there And as touching the blessed Virgin Epiphanius further against such conceipts obserueth that Christ r Ibid. Non peââ siâ ipsidare baptisma non benedicere discipulis ãâã ât terra âmperaâââussit sed solaâ ipsaâ saâctificationem esse dignam factam esse regnâ ipsius permitted her not to baptize gaue her not power to blesse his disciples did not appoint her to raigne or rule in the earth but her only sanctification was to be made worthy of his kingdome It was therefore an hereticall deuice to make her Queene of heauen and it hath bene since one of the forgeries of Antichrist to attribute vnto her a power and authoritie to command the Sonne of God But M. Bishop telleth vs that this is no doctrine of the Romane Church nor found in all her seruice yet knoweth well enough that this was the doctrine of the Romane Church and commonly found in all her seruice Harlots that haue little shame yet blush at some things and the harlot of Rome though of an iron forehead yet saw some things to be so grossely blasphemous and inexcusable as that she could not for shame but remoue them out of the Church when question began to be made of them Such was that prayer concerning Thomas Becket which before I mentioned in the answer to the Epistle Tu per Thomae sanguinem quem pro te impendit Fac nos Christe scandere quò Thomas ascendit That is By the bloud of Thomas which for thee he did spend Make vs O Christ to clime whither Thomas did ascend Which prayer was found in all their Portesses though now it be taken out So they were wont also very solemnely to sing throughout the whole Church of Rome Iube filio foelix puerpera Iure matris impera Redemptori c. Bid thy Sonne O blessed Mother By mothers right command our Redeemer This Duraeus the Iesuite acknowledgeth Å¿ Duraeus contr Whitaker lib. 9. Ad libros Rituales confugââ ex quibus obsoleta quaedam corradis ex libris Ritualibus out of their bookes of rites and ceremonies by which their Church-seruice was directed Yea M. Bishop himselfe very well knoweth that the words are not to be denied and therefore as Duraeus doth so doth he also make a fauourable construction thereof that the Author of that prayer deemed the Virgins prayers to her Sonne to be as forcible in kindnesse as if they were commandements and in that sence called theÌ commandements Thus as M. Harding vnder a colour of t Harding Confut of the Apologââ part 2. spirituall sporting and dalliance so these men vnder opinion of kindnesse do labour to hide open blasphemie and spirituall idolatrie They sticke not to speake apparantly to the derogation of the Sonne of God and then turne it to matter of iest like him of whom Solomon speaketh who u Pro. 26.18.19 faining himselfe mad casteth firebrands arrowes and deadly tooles and then saith Am not I in sport But how ill their sporting construction fitteth with the humour of those times let
it appeare by another hymne of theirs which will not be so answered x Histor secundum chorum Augustensâde commemor Virginis Mariae Gaude matrona coelica exultando magnifica Deum tuum salutarem qui te fecit singularem Tu ancillam Iesu Christi te vocare voluisti Sed vt docet lex diuina tu ipsius es Domina Nam ius habet ratio matrem prae esse filio Ergo ora supplicitèr praecipe sublimiter Vt nos in mundi vespera ad regna ducat suprema That is to say Be glad O matron heauenly and with reioycing magnifie Thy God thy Sauior who thee hath singled out in dignity The handmaiden of Iesus Christ thy selfe to call thou wast content But thou his Ladie mistresse art as teacheth Gods commandement For right and reason doth require the mother be aboue the Sonne Pray therefore as a suppliant and command as a higher one That in the end of this worlds dayes He bring vs to his heauenly ioyes Here is then right and reason and Gods Commandement to approue and iustifie that the Virgin Mary as the Mother should haue power ouer her sonne and authoritie to commaund him And to no other purpose soundeth that which M. Bishop acknowledgeth as being yet in their vse y In hymn Ecclesiastic Monstrate esse matrem Shew thy selfe to be a mother He saith it is not added by commanding thy sonne but he should haue told vs how otherwise it should be meant because we know not nor can conceiue in what meaning they should request her to shew her selfe to be his mother but onely vpon opinion of some motherly superioritie and authoritie to commaund him For as for that which he saith followeth in that place Sumat per te preces qui pro nobis natus tulit esse tuus Let him by thee receiue our prayers who for vs yeelded to be thy sonne it giueth vs no light at all to the contrary but that she should shew her motherly commaund by causing him to accept the prayers that are made vnto him which he seeing translateth the words falsly Present our prayers vnto him c. And thus the common people were perswaded by them and specially women that they had better hope and readier accesse to God and more assured safetie by our Lady then they had by the Sonne of God And no maruell when they lifted her vp into the seate of Christ and inuested her in their publike seruice with all the titles of mercy and grace that are proper vnto him Now therefore M. Bishop there is cause sufficient for vs to forbeare to be reconciled to the Church of Rome which vnder pretence of magnifying Christ hath put the Pope and the Virgin Marie and the rest of the Saints in the place of Christ and coloureth her Antichristian presumptions and vsurpations vnder the feigned title of the gifts of Christ You deuise what you lift and fill the Church with your abhominations and vse the name of Christ as a cloake to couer your filthinesse and shame If they came naked in their owne likenesse all men would detest them and detest you for perswading them therefore it is the policie of the whore of Babylon to offer the z Apoc. 17.4 filthinesse of her fornications in the golden cup of the name of Christ that the glory of the cup may bewitch them not to suspect any poyson to bee contained therein As for vs we esteeme of the power merits and satisfaction of Christ as he himselfe hath taught vs to esteeme we assume no part or parcell therof to our selues because by the letters patents of his Gospell we haue no warrant so to do Because then we vnfeignedly seeke the true honour of Iesus Christ and cannot brooke the dishonour that is done vnto him in the Church of Rome vnder the counterfeit termes of his diuine gifts we make choise to hearken to the voyce of God a Apoc. â8 4 Come out of her my people and be not partakers of her sinnes lest ye be partakers of her plagues M. BISHOPS ANSWER TO M. PERKINS Preface to the Reader VPon your preface to the Reader I will not stand because it toucheth no point of controuersie let it be declared in your next what you meane when you desire your reformed Catholike to hold the same necessarie heads of Religion with the Roman Church for if the Roman Church doth erre in the matter of faith and iustification in the number and vertue of the Sacraments in the bookes and interpretation of the word of God if she raze the foundation and make Christ a Pseudochrist and an Idol to omit twentie other errors in substantiall points of faith as in this your small discourse you would perswade there will remaine verie few necessarie heads of Religion for them to agree in And be you well assured that you are so wide from winning Catholikes by this your worke to a better liking of your Religion that you haue taken the high way to leade them to a farre greater dislike of it by teaching that in so many materiall points it differeth so farre from theirs For all Catholikes hold for most assured that which the most ancient learned and holy Doctor Athanasius in his Creed deliuereth in the 2. verse Which Catholike faith vnlesse euerie man obserue wholy and inuiolably not omitting or sh inking from any one article of it without doubt he shall perish euerlastingly If S. Basil that reuerend and blessed Father of the Church doth hold it the duty of euerie good Christian rather to loose hiâ life then to condescend to the alteration of any one syllable in matter of faith Theod. 4. his cap. 17. you may be sure that we Catholikes cannot but cary a very base conceipt of your doctrine who go about vnder the ouerworne and threedbare cloake of reformation to deface and corrupt the purer and greater part of Christian Religion specially when they shall perceiuâ the most points of your pretended reformation to be nothing else but ld âotten condemned heresies new scoured vp and furbushed and so ââshew made more saleable vnto the vnskilfull as in this treatise shall be proued in euerie Chapter R. ABBOT YOur demaund M. Bishop is alreadie satisfied before M. Perkins by those necessarie heads of Religion vnderstandeth such generall grounds as stand vnquestioned betwixt vs and the Romish Church which for the matters handled hee commonly setteth downe by the name of our consents in the entring of euery question There are some maine points of doctrine to which the Church of Rome subscribeth as well as we The Reformed Catholike is still to hold those though hee depart from the corruptions and abhominations to the maintenance whereof the same Church of Rome doth wickedly misapply them As for his winning of Catholikes to the liking of our Religion I assure my selfe that you M. Bishop your selfe and your friend of good intelligence and iudgement were iealous and doubtfull thereof His plaine debating
the Church and Pope of Rome He hath alledged S. Bernard before and he is answered before Further he bringeth Irenaeus saying b Iren. lib. 3. ca. 3 Ad hanc Ecclesiam propter poteâtiââem principalitatem necesse est omnem conuenire Ecclesiam hoc est eos qui sunt vndique fideles ân qui semper ab ãâã qui suât vnd que conseruata est ea quae est ab Apostolis traditio To this Church by reason of the more mightie principalitie it is necessarie that euery Church that is the faithfull on all sides do agree in which the tradition which is from the Apostles hath bene alwaies preserued of theÌ that are about her Which words he alledgeth but drawes no direct coÌclusion from them nor indeed can do but by begging that which is in question betwixt vs. It was necessarie in the time of Irenaeus that euery Church should accord to the Church of Rome because therein the tradition and true doctrine of the Apostles had bene faithfully preserued but will M. Bishop hereof simply conclude that it is now also necessarie for euery Church to accord with the Church of Rome It is a question now whether she retaine the doctrine and tradition of the Apostles nay it is out of question that she doth not so and therefore her former commendation is no argument that we should approue her now Ierusalem was c 2. Chron. 6.6 the city which the Lord did chuse to place his name there She was a faithfull citie so long necessarie it was that all other cities shold conforme themselues to her But d Esa 1.21 of a faithfull citie she became a harlot and departed so farre from her former steps as that she crucified the Sonne of God and killed his Saints and in the end it was said of her by a voyce from God as Iosephus recordeth e Ioseph de bello Iudaicoââ 7. c. 12 Migremus hinc Let vs depart from hence So the Church of Rome was a Virgin the chast and faithfull spouse of Christ continuing stedfastly in the doctrine by which she first became the Church of Rome and so long as she so coÌtinued it was necessarie for al Churches to accord with her as for her to accord with all other Churches that had done the like But she is since become an vncleane filth prostituted to all manner of fornications embrued drunken with the bloud that she hath sprit so that now the voyce of God calleth to vs in like sort concerning her Go out of her my people Neither hath M. Bishop any better helpe by that that he will further alledge that Irenaeus mentioneth a potent principalitie of that Church For that potent principalitie was not intended by Irenaeus for any supremacie of the Church of Rome but imported onely an honour yeelded vnto it in respect of the imperiall state of the citie of Rome which we know men of inferior townes are wont to yeeld to them that are of high and honorable cities only for the preheminence of the place But if the Church of Rome had had any such potent principalitie as M. Bishop intendeth in respect whereof all other Churches shold yeeld subiection and obedience vnto her then would not f Jren. apud Euseb hist eccles lib. 5. cap 23. Polycarpus the Bishop of Smyrna haue refused to yeeld to Anicetus the Bishop of Rome in matters of difference betwixt them as Irenaeus sheweth he did before his time neither would g Ibid. cap. 22. Hieron in Catal. Script Eccles in Polycrate Polycrates the Bishop of Ephesus and Metropolitan of the Asian Churches haue resisted Victor in the time of Irenaeus neither would h Cypr ad Pompeium contra Epist Stephane Cyprian haue contradicted Stephanus neither would Aurelius and Austin and the rest of the Fathers in the Councell of Carthage haue i Concil Carth. 6 Aphrican cap 101. c. withstood the claime of the Bishop of Rome for authoritie to receiue appeals made from them to him neither would those sixe hundred and thirtie Bishops in the Chalcedon Councel haue yeelded to the Patriarch of Constantinople according to a former decree of a councell of k Conc Constantinop 1. cap. 2. Constantinople an equalitie of priuiledge and prerogatiue with the Bishop of Rome The matter is very plaine l Conc l. Chaâcedon Act. 15. ca. 28. Antiquae Romae throno quòd vrbi ilâa imperaret iure Patres priuâlegiae tribuere Et eadeÌ consideratione moti 150 Dei amantissimi Episcopi sanctissimo nouae Romae throno aequalia priuilegia tribuere rectè iudicantes vrbem quae imperio Senatu honerata sit aequalibus cum antiquissimo Roma priuilegijs fruatur etiam in rebus ecclesiasticis non secus ac illaÌ extolli magnificari secundaÌ post illam existentem The Fathers say they haue yeelded priuiledges to the sea of old Rome because that was the Imperiall citie And the hundred and fiftie Bishops of the Councell of Constantinople being moued with the same consideration haue yeelded equall priuiledges to the sacred sea of new Rome that is Constantinople rightly iudging that the citie which is honoured with the Empire and Senate and enioyeth equall priuiledges with old Rome should also in ecclesiasticall matters be no lesse extolled and magnified then it is being the next vnto it Thus they acknowledge the principalitie of the Church of Rome to be nothing else but in respect that that citie was the seate of the Empire and therfore Constantinople being become the seate of the Empire and in respect thereof being called New Rome they gaue to the Church of Constantinople equall dignitie and principalitie with the Church of Rome leauing to the Bishop of Rome onely precedence of name and place The Legates of the Bishop of Rome would faine haue had it otherwise but the whole Councell approued the decree Now by that that hath bene said to Irenaeus the answer is plaine to that that M. Bishop further citeth out of Hierome The true faith and doctrine of the Godhead of Christ was then maintained by the Church of Rome against the remainder of the infection and poyson of the Arian heresie Hereupon Hierome writeth to Damasus Bishop of Rome to be aduertised of the vse of some words that concerned that point He commendeth the Church of Rome m Hieron ad Damasum Apud vos solos incorrupta Patrum seruatur haereditae for that the inheritance of the Fathers that is the true faith was preserued vncorrupt with them onely For this cause doth he bind himselfe to the communion and fellowship of Damasus Vpon the rocke of that faith which the Church of Rome stil held he knew the Church to be built In respect of this faith he that went out of that house that is left the communion of that Church because thereby he renounced the truth he became prophane In the same respect he that gathered not with Damasus being
a maintainer of the true faith be must needes be a scatterer He could not be of Christ that refused them that tooke part with Christ and therefore must be of Antichrist In this respect he renounced Vitalis Milesius and Paulinus because n Erasm schol ibid. they were all either knowne or suspected to be partakers of the heresie of Arius and therefore very deceitfully doth M. Bishop alledge that he would not set vp his rest with his owne Bishop Paulinus who was no meane man but the Patriarch of Antioch as hereby to adde a superioritie to the Bishop of Rome when as there was otherwise so apparant cause why he should refuse so to do In all this therefore Hierome saith no more of the Bishop and Church of Rome then he might haue said of any other Bishop and Church professing true faith and doctrine as the Church of Rome then did but very farre was he from teaching or intending any perpetuall necessitie that all Churches for euer should conforme themselues to the Church of Rome And that he neuer had any such meaning let it appeare by himselfe when being vrged with the example of the Church of Rome he answereth o Hieron Epist. ad Euagr. Quid mihi profers vntus vrbis consuetudinem quid paucitatem de qua ortum est supercilium in leges Ecclesiae vindicas What dost thou bring to me the custome of one citie why dost thou maintaine a paucitie or fewnesse whence hath growne proud vsurping vpon the lawes of the Church He had said a little before p Ibid. Si autoritas quaeritur orbis maior est vrbe Vbicunque fuerit Episcopus siue Romae siue Eugubij siue CoÌstantinopoli siue Rhegij siue Alexandriae siue Tanis eiusdem meriti est eiusdeÌ sacerdotij Potentia diuitiaruÌ pauperiatis humilitas sâl linuorem vel inferiorem EpiscopuÌ non facit caeterùm omnes Apostolorum successores sunt If we demaund authority the world is greater then the citie Wheresoeuer a Bishop be whether of Rome or of Eugubium whether at Constantinople or at Rhegium whether at Alexandria or at Tanes he is of the same worth and of the same office of Bishopricke Power of wealth or basenesse of pouertie maketh a Bishop neither higher nor lower but they are all successors of the Apostles Thus he spake purposely in derogation of the Church of Rome charging the same with proud domineering ouer the lawes of the Church affirming the authoritie of the Churches through the world to be greater then the authority of the Church of Rome attributing to euery Bishop of whatsoeuer place equalitie in office with the Bishop of Rome because all are alike successors of the Apostles Yea and to shew that the Church of Rome receiued no more by Peter then other Churches did by the rest of the Apostles he saith in another place that q Idem adu Iouin lib. 1. At dicis super PetruÌ fit datur Ecclesia liceta idipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat cuncti claues regni coelerum accipiant ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidatur the Church is built vpon all the Apostles and they all receiue the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and the strength of the Church is equally grounded vpon them Whereby it plainely appeareth that Hierome neuer meant to make the Church of Rome any such perpetuall Mistris and ruler of other Churches as M. Bishop dreameth her to be Yea but S. Ambrose further saith I desire in all things to follow the Church of Rome But why did M. Bishop giue ouer there not adde also that that followeth r Ambros de Sacram lib. 3. cap. â In omnibus cupio sequi Romanâm Ecclesiam sed tamen nos homines sensum habentus ideo quod alibi rectiùs seruatur nos rectè custodimus I desire saith he in all things to follow the Church of Rome but yet we are also men that haue vnderstanding and therefore what is more rightly obserued otherwhere we also iustly obserue the same S. Ambrose being Bishop of Millaine not farre from Rome sheweth that he yeelded a reuerend respect vnto the Church of Rome but yet professeth that things might be better in other places then they were at Rome and that his Church of Millaine had vnderstanding to iudge what was fit aswell as the Church of Rome and therefore that they held not themselues tyed by any necessarie dutie to the example thereof but would do what they thought more rightly performed in any other Church Now then what shall we thinke of M. Bishop who thus shamefully seeketh to blind his reader by alledging one part of a sentence for his purpose when the other part thereof expresly crosseth that for which he alledgeth it And thus much concerning M. Bishops answer to M. Perkins Prologue For the rest I will God willing follow him in like sort steppe by steppe according to his owne words in more honest and faithfull manner then he hath dealt with M. Perkins and that in such sort I hope as that the meaner learned shall vnderstand that the learning which he would teach them is naught and the more iudicious shall be able to iudge that it is a very bad cause to which the marrow and pith of many large volumes can yeeld no better defence then he hath brought CHAPTER 1. OF FREE WILL. 1. W. BISHOP THat I be not thought captious but willing to admit any thing that M. Perkins hath sayd agreeable to the truth I will let his whole text in places indifferent passe paring off onely superfluous words with adding some annotations where it shall be needfull and rest onely vpon the points in controuersie First then concerning Free will wherewith he beginneth thus he saith Free will both by them and vs is taken for a mixt power in the mind and will of man whereby discerning what is good and what is euill he doth accordingly chuse or refuse the same Annot. If we would speake formally it is not a mixt power in the mind and will but is a free facultie of the mind and will onely whereby we chuse or refuse supposing in the vnderstanding a knowledge of the same before But let this definition passe as more popular M. Perkins 1. Conclusion Man must be considered in a fourefold estate as he was created as he was corrupted as he is renued as he shall be glorified In the first state we ascribe vnto mans will libertie of nature in which he could will or will either good or euill note that this libertie proceeded not from his owne nature but of originall Iustice in which he was created In the third libertie of grace in the last libertie of glorie Annot. Cary this in mind that here he granteth man in the state of grace to haue Free will R. ABBOT MAister Bishop here dealeth as iuglers are wont to do who make shew of faire play when they vse nothing but
cap. 9. Nunquid liberum arbitrium negat hominibus quia Deo totum tribuit quòd rectè viuimus doth a man denie Free will saith he because he attributeth it wholy to God that we liue well q Retract lib. 1â cap 9. Tale est vt sine illo rectè viuere nequeamus without freedome of will we cannot liue well for how should a man do well without his will but yet this Free wil to liue wel is r Cont 2. epist Pelag. lib. 3 cap. 7. Hominis non libera sed Dei gratia liberata voluntas a will not free meerly of it selfe but made free by the grace of God For then is Å¿ De ciuit Dei lib. 14. cap. 11. Arbitrium voluntatu tunc est vere liberum cùm vetijs peccatisque non seruit Tale datum est a Deo quod amissum proprio vitio nisi à quo dari potuit reddi non potest the will of man free indeed when it is free from sinne and such a free will God gaue to man in the beginning but he lost it by his owne default and being lost it cannot be restored but by him that was able first to giue it In Christ therefore it is restored vnto vs who by his t Esai 51.12 free spirit giueth u Esa â1 1. libertie to the captiues and openeth the prison to them that are bound and x Col. 1.13 deliuereth vs from the power of darknesse and maketh vs y 1 Cor. 7.22 free-men vnto him But yet so as that hauing receiued but a Rom. 8.23 the first fruits of the spirit by whom this freedome is wrought according to the words of the Apostle b 2. Cor. 3.17 Where the spirit of the Lord is there is libertie the same is yet but begun in vs so that c August in Ioan. tract 41. Ex parte libertas ex parte seruitus nondum tota nondum pura nondum plena liberias there is partly freedome and partly bondage not yet whole and pure and perfect freedome For no further is the will freed then it is renewed and it is renewed as yet but in part continuing still d De peccat mer. rem lib. 2. cap. 7. Animus qui est homo interior nondum totus est renouatus in quantuÌ nondum est renouatus intantum adhuc in vetustate est in part in the old estate Therefore it is so made free as that in some part we haue cause still to complaine with the Apostle e Rom. 7.14 I am carnall sold vnder sinne and to pray with the Prophet Dauid f Psal 142.7 Bring my soule out of prison that I may giue thankes vnto thy name Hence is that heauinesse and dulnesse that waywardnesse and vntowardnesse that retention and holding backe that still we find in vs in the applying of our selues to spirituall and heauenly things And as touching that wherein we are renewed and made free it is not sufficient to vphold vs and keepe vs in the right way but we haue still neede of the grace of God to be assistant and helpefull vnto vs. g Hieron ad Ctesiphont Non sufficit mihi quòd semel donauit nisi semper donauerit Peto vt accipiam eum accepero rursus peto It is not enough that God hath once giuen sayth Hierome except he still giue I pray to receiue and when I haue receiued I pray againe Therefore the ancient church required of Pelagius to confesse that h August epist 106. Fateatur gratiam Dei adâutorium etiam ad singulos actus dari the grace of God is giuen vs to euerie act that we do i Enchirid cap. 32. Nolenâem praeuenit vt velit volentem subsequitur ne frustra velit He preuenteth vs to make vs willing followeth vs when we are willing that we do not wil in vaine And if his hand do not hold vs and vphold vs it commeth to passe by the burden of corruptible flesh that we are still relapsing to our selues and still readie with the k Exod. 14.11.12 Israelits to yeeld our selues to become bond againe l Bernard in Cant. ser 84. Non est aliud anima nostra quà m spirites valiens non rediensââ ita fuerit derelicta Our soule saith Bernard is no other but as a wind that passeth and returneth not againe if it be left vnto it selfe Now M. Bishop do you carry this in mind thus expressed by the phrases and speeches of the ancient Church and leaue to calumniate our doctrine who affirme Free will as farre as they affirmed it and deny it no otherwise but as they denied it against the Pelagian heretikes But you will hardly leaue your wont because you see well enough that if you take our doctrine as we deliuer it you can deuise nothing plausibly or colourably to speake against it 2. W. BISHOP M. Per. 2. Conclusion The matters whereabout Free will is occupied are principally the actions of men which be of three sorts Naturall Humane Spirituall Naturall actions are such as are common to men and beasts as to eate sleepe c. In all which we ioyne with the Papists and hold that man hath free will euen since the fall of Adam M. Per. 3. Conclusion Humane actions are such as are common to all men good and bad as to speake to practise any kind of art to performe any kind of ciuill dutie to preach to administer Sacraments c. And hither we may referre the outward actions of ciuill vertues as namely Iustice Temperance Gentlenesse and Liberalitie and in these also we ioyne with the Church of Rome and say as experience teacheth that men haue a naturall freedome of will to put them or not to put them in execution S. Paul saith The Gentiles that haue not the law Rom. 2.14 do the things of the law by nature that is by naturall strength And he saith of himselfe Phil 3 6. Mat 6 5. Ezech. 29.19 that before his conuersion touching the righteousnesse of the law he was vnblameable And for the externall obedience naturall men receiue reward in temporall things And yet here some caueats must be remembred First that in humane actions he should say morall mans will is weake and his vnderstanding dimme thereupon he often failes in them This caueat is no caueat of the Protestants but taken out of S. Thomas of Aquines Summe 12 â 109. art 4. 8. And in all such actions with S. Augustine you might haue quoted the place I vnderstand the will of man to be onely wounded or halfe dead 2. That the will of man is vnder the will of God and therefore to be ordered by it Who knowes not this R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop giueth vs some more of his learned notes and telleth vs that M. Perkins for humane should haue said morall wheras the name of morall actions doth not so properly comprehend all those which he
Christians may suffice to batter the brazen forehead of them that affirme the doctrine of merits to be a Satanicall inuention and to settle all them that haue care of their saluation in the most pure doctrine of the Catholike Church R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop will giue vs to vnderstand that not onely S. Austin but all antiquitie teacheth the doctrine of merites so that M. Perkins might blush to call it the inuention of Satan But M. Perkins had no cause to blush in that respect He knew well that antiquitie is more vanted by Papists then followed He knew well that in this doctrine of merits they wickedly bely antiquitie and the Fathers And indeede neuer any Father spake of merits as they haue done Iustly therfore did he call it as it is the inuentioÌ of Satan seruing only to delude men to put them in vaine hope to lift them vp in pride with opinioÌ of gaining heauen that they may by their pride be cast downe to hell But for the cleering of this point it is to be vnderstood that the name of merits is indeed very vsuall amongst the fathers of the Latin Church but with no such meaning as the church of Rome hath fancied therof For they only intended therby briefly and in one word to signifie good workes workes that please God that are accepted in Gods sight that find fauor with God obtain reward at his hands They dreamed not that in good workes there shold be a iust desert of heaueÌ that they shold deserue it worthily that they shold be fully worthy of euerlasting life that good works shold as wel be the cause of saluatioÌ as euil works are the cause of damnatioÌ that good works are so far meritorious so far I say meritorious as that God should be vniust if he rendered not heauen for them as in the beginning hath bin shewed that now is the language of the church of Rome These speeches or the like were neuer heard of amongst the Fathers They vsed the word merite according to the signification wherein commonly they vsed the verbe mereri which with them imported to obtaine to find fauour for any thing to be giuen or done so as that wicked men are said sometimes mereri not surely to deserue but to receiue or to find the fauour of benefits at Gods hands yea and good men are said mereri not to deserue but to receiue or to finde euill vsage at the hands of the wicked But by examples the matter will be plainer then by words S. Austine saith a August de ciu Dei lib. 5. cap. 24 Huius vitae solatia quidam etiam cultores daemonum accipere meruerunt Some who haue bin worshippers of diuels haue merited that is haue found the fauour to receiue the comforts of this life Againe b Idem in Psal 35. Apostolià suis ciuibus occidi meruerunt The Apostles merited that is found such vsage as to be killed of their owne people c Cont. lit Petil. lib. 3. cap. 6. Pro actione gratiarum flammas meruimus odiorum In steed of thankes we haue merited that is we found at their hands the fire of hatred d De anima eius orig lib. 2. cap. 12. Caueat homo ne ab illo miserecordiam mereatur homo contra eius sententiam à quo factus est homo Let man take heed that man do not merite that is obtaine mercie of him against the sentence of him by whom man was made So doth Ambrose vse the same word e Ambr. de Cain Abel lib. 2. cap. 10. Iniquus Cain longaeuam duxit aetatem duxit vxorem hoc meruit promissione diuina Wicked Cain liued long and maried a wife and this he merited that is obtained or receiued by the permission of God f Idem ser 53. Non debemus mirari quòd Ioannes tantam gratiam nascendo meruerit We are not to wonder that Iohn in his birth merited that is obtained so great grace So Hilary speaketh g Hilar. epist apud Aug. tom 7. Libros quaeso habere mereamur I pray you let vs merit that is find the fauour to haue those bookes So Hierom h Hieron praefat in Abdiam Veniam mereri debeo I am to merite that is to obtaine pardon So Gregorie Bishop of Rome i Gregor Moral lib. 9. cap. 17. Paulus cum redemptoris nomen in terra conaretur extinguere eius verba de coelo meruit audire Paul when he went about to extinguish the name of Christ vpon earth merited that is found the mercy fauor to heare his words from heauen In another place O foelix culpa quae talem ac tantuÌ meruit habere Redemptorem O happy sin of Adam that merited that is found the mercy to haue such and so great a Redeemer S. Austin applieth the word also to beasts and cattell k August in Psal 35. Homines habent aliquid apud Deum exceptum quod iumenta non merentur Men haue somewhat excepted with God which beasts merit not that is obtaine not Thus the word hath grown also into translations where in the originals there hath bin no occasion of it Where Cain saith Mine iniquitie is greater then can be pardoned the vulgar Latin translateth l Genes 4.13 Maior est iniquitas mea quam vt veniam mereà r Mine iniquitie is greater then that I can merit that is obtaine pardon Where S. Paul saith m 1. Tim. 1.13 I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly c. S. Austine out of some translation readeth n Aug. de Bapt. con Donat. lib. 4. cap. 5. Misericordiam merut I merited mercy but importing nothing but the obtaining thereof In an Epistle of Ignatius we haue it commonly translated o Ignat. epist ad Romanos I am in loue with none of the things that are seene vt Iesum Christum merear adipisci that I may merit to obtain Christ wheras in the Greek it is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã that is as Hierom translateth it p Hieron in Cat. Eccles Script vt Iesum ChristuÌ inuentam that I may find Iesus Christ Againe in the next period the Greeke is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã where the same translator readeth as before the words being translated by Hierome q Jbid. tantum vt Christo fruar onely that I may enioy Christ. And thus in infinite places haue they made the Greeke Fathers to speake of merit where they neuer meant any such thing But to make it plainly to appear that by merit they meant not any such worthines or desert as M. Bishop speaketh of let one sentence of Ambrose fully suffice r Amb. epist. 22. Omnia quae patimur minora sunt indigna pro quorum laboribus tanta rependatur futurorum merces bonorum quae reuelabitur in nobis cùm ad Dei imaginem reformati gloriam eius facie ad faciem aspicere meruerimus All the things that we suffer are
to speake how much more securely would the Fathers vse such phrases when yet there was no feare of those misconstructions of heresie and Apostacie which haue since preuailed in the Church of Rome We haue seene Bellarmine before acknowledging out of their principles that the Fathers in these phrases imported only merit of fauour and grace not merit of woorth and purchase and therefore setting aside the name of merit let vs not doubt but that they meant in all their speeches to vphold the grace and fauour of God by the mediation of Iesus Christ They taught men amidst all their deuotions to aske pardon of Gods mercie and therefore could not be thought to teach them that by the same deuotions they did deserue it In a word I conclude this point with a speech or two of Chrysostomes which I wish thee gentle Reader to compare with the doctrine which M. Bishop here hath brought vs from Rome e Chrysost de beato Philogonio Ego testificor ac fide iubeo quod si quisquaÌ nostrum qui peccatis obnoxij sumus ex animo vereque promittat Deo se posteà nuÌquam ad illa rediturum nihil aliud Deus requirat ad satisfactionem viteriorem I testifie saith he and giue thee warrant that if any of vs who are subiect to sinne or guiltie of sinne do heartily and truly promise vnto God neuer to returne to the same againe God doth require no further satisfaction Againe vpon the words of the Apostle f 1. Cor. 11.31 If we would iudge our selues we should not be iudged of the Lord he saith thus g Jdem in 1. Cor. hom 28. Non dixit si puniemus si suppliciuÌ de nobis sumemus sed si dijudicaremus hoc est si nostra tantùm voluerimus peccata cognoscere si condemnare nâsipsos liberaremur vtique ab huius à futuri seculi supplicijs The Apostle saith not If we would punish our selues if we would take reuenge of our selues but If we would iudge our selues that is if we would onely acknowledge our sinnes if we would condemne our selues we should be deliuered both from the punishments of this world and of the world to come Here we see that after true repentance there is no further satisfaction that after true acknowledgement and confession of our sinnes there is no reseruation of punishment but by the mercie of God we are set free both from the punishments of this world and of the world to come whereby all that M. Bishop here hath built is vtterly ouerthrowne 19 W. BISHOP And if you please in few words to heare the Protestants workes of penance and satisfaction in stead of our fasting and other corporall correction they fall to eating and that of the best flesh they can get and take in the Lord all such bodily pleasure as the company of a woman will affoord In lieu of giuing almes vnto the poore they pill them by fines and vnreasonable rents and by vsurie and craftie bargaines are not ashamed to cosen their nearest kinne Finally in place of prayer and washing away their owne sinnes by many bitter teares they sing merrily a Geneua Psalme and raile or heare a railing at our imagined sinnes or pretended errours And so leaue and lay all paine and sorrow vpon Christs shoulders thinking themselues belike to be borne to pleasure and pastime and to make merry in this world R. ABBOT A shrewd wench hearing her mother at angry words with her neighbour and well knowing her mothers desert gaue her this counsell Call her whore first mother for feare lest she call you whore M. Bishop knew very well that there is sufficient cause for vs to call his mother whore and to vpbraid the Church of Rome with the poisoned and abhominable fruites which their doctrine of satisfactions bringeth foorth Therefore he thought it good policie in her behalfe to follow the counsell of the vnhappy girle and to call whore first that by laying some slanderous imputations of euil behauiour vpon vs he might breake and abate the odiousnesse of those vncleane and filthie corruptions which he knew were iustly to be obiected against them He knew well that if we should paint them out from top to toe we should make the Church of Rome to appeare a monster most vgly deformed such as that all men may thereby take iust occasion to detest her To giue him some taste of their good fruites let him remember that of the Court of Rome it was said long since a Math. Paris in Henrico 3. Eius auaritiae totus non sufficit orbis Eius luxuriae meretrix non sufficit omnis The world too litle is their couetise to satisfie No harlots are enough to serue their filthy lecherie b Ibi. Manifestè comperium est EcclesiaÌ RomanaÌ Dei indignationem incurrisse Ipsius enim magistratus rectores non populi deuotionem sed marsupia plena quarunt denariorum non animas Deo lucrifacere sed reditus capere pecunias congregare religiosos opprimere poena vsura simonia alijs diuersis argumentis alienae vsurpare Non curatur de iustitiae honestate c. Adeo inualuit Romanae Ecclesiae in satiabilis cupiditas confundens fasque nefasque quòd deposito rubore veluti meretrix vulgaris effrons omnibus venalis exposita vsuram pro paruo siâoniam pro nullo inconuenienti reputauit ita vt alias prouincias sua contagione macularit c. Foetor Curia Papaliâ vsque ad nubes fumum teterrimum exhalauit It is manifestly found saith Matth. of Paris that the Church of Rome hath incurred the indignation of God The gouernours and rulers therof do not seeke the deuotion of the people but the filling of their owne purses not to gaine soules to God but to take rents and to gather mony to oppresse them that are religious by penaltie vsurie symonie and diuers other deuices to get other mens goods into their hand there is no care of iust and honest dealing The insatiable couetousnes of the Church of Rome is growne to that passe confounding right and wrong as that being past blushing like a common and shamelesse harlot setting her selfe to sale and being exposed to all men she accounteth vsurie for a small inconuenience and simonie for none so as that with her contagion she hath defiled other countries The stinch of the Popes Court hath breathed out a most noysome fume euen to the very clouds Of those times Abbas Vrspergensis speaketh in this sort c Abbas Vâspergensis in Chr. Tunc coeperunt multiplicars maâa interris Ortae siquidem sunt in hominibus simultates doli perfidiae traditâones vt se inuicem tradânt in mortem interituÌ Rapinae depraedationes depopulationes terraruÌ vastationes inteÌ diae seditiones bella rapinae siue in stratis siue in latrocinijs iustificatae sunt vt omnis homo iaâa sit periurus praedictis faciâârâbus
gold and siluer practised to rob the poore people of God of their substance Now therefore M. Bishop gaineth no credit to his doctrine of satisfactions by charging these enormities vpon vs inasmuch as they are found much more intolerably in the Pope himselfe and therefore much more in them who are the members of so bad a head Whosoeuer amongst vs do sinne in these kindes and cause the people of God to grieue and his enemies to blaspheme his truth we teach them and they shall finde that e 1. Thess 4.6 God is the auenger of such things and his iudgement shall in due time finde out their sinne Of the ridiculous absurditie of their satisfactorie praiers I haue spoken before His words of bitter teares are but formall Catholike eies are too tender to be made red with bitter teares and the forme of their praiers fitteth not thereto Our singing of Geneua Psalmes as he calleth them indeede Dauids Psalmes though many of them haply turned into English meeter at Geneua is a deuotion prescribed by the holy Ghost saying by the Apostle f Col. 3.16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you plenteously in all wisedome teaching and admonishing your owne selues in Psalmes and Hymnes and spirituall Songs singing with a grace in your hearts to the Lord. If being merry in good sort we thus sing Psalmes we therein follow the rule of S. Iames g Iames 5.13 Is any man merry let him sing Yea and we hold it for a notable token of the apostasie of the Church of Rome that it hath so abandoned this point of Christian exercise and deuotion from all both publike and priuate vse We do not raile but performe the office of carefull pastours and teachers in noting their sinnes and errours not imagined onely but verie sensible nor onely pretended but proued by the testimonie of him who is truth and cannot erre As for that which he saith of laying all paine and sorow vpon Christes shoulders it is true that we do so indeede as touching satisfaction for sinne but otherwise God wanteth not meanes to lay paines and sorowes vpon those that are his to make them know that they are not borne to pleasure and pastime but to h Act. 13.36 serue the counsell of God to glorifie his name The Church of Rome swarmeth as before hath bene noted with Atheists and Epicures that cary the shew of that perswasion but amongst the true professors of the Gospell there are no such found CHAPTER 7. OF TRADITIONS 1 W. BISHOP MAister Perkins Traditions are doctrines deliuered from hand to hand either by word of mouth or writing besides the written word of God His first conclusion as touching our consent Concl. 1. We hold that the verie word of God was deliuered by Tradition from Adam to Moses who was the first Pen-man of holy Scripture Item that the Historie of the new Testament as some for eight not eightie or as other think for twenty yeares went froÌ hand to hand by Tradition till penned by the Apostles or being penned by others was approued by them Hitherto we agree but not in this which he enterlaceth that in the state of nature euery man was instructed of God immediatly in both matters of faith and religion for that God theÌ as euer since vsed the ministerie as well of good fathers as godly maisters as Enoch Noe Abraham and such like to teach their children and seruants the true worship of God and true faith in him otherwise how should the word of God passe by Tradition from Adam to Moses as M. Perkins affirmeth if no child learned any such thing of his father but was taught immediatly from God but M. Perkins seemeth to regard little such pettie contradictions R. ABBOT M. Perkins meaning is plaine enough without any contradiction God in the beginning reuealed his will vnto our father Adam not by writing but familiarly by word of mouth He left it not thenceforth meerely to passe from man to man but as he first gaue this light by immediate reuelation from himselfe so afterwards he continued renewed and confirmed the same raising vp some in all times to be neere vnto him to whom a Heb. 1.1 in diuers manners by speech by visions by dreames by sundry illuminations and inspirations he imparted the knowledge of himselfe and endued them with eminencie of gifts and authority to be b 2. Pet. 2.5 preachers of righteousnesse both to their owne families and to other whom the Lord would call It is not true then which M. Bishop would so gladly fasten on that the doctrine of faith passed by tradition in such sort as the question of traditions standeth betwixt them and vs. They pretend that Christ taught his Apostles diuers and sundry doctrines which he would haue wholy left without writing to the custody of the Church and to be reported successiuely from man to man to the worlds end But God did not in those first ages leaue his word in any such sort wholy to the memory and report of men as trusting to their fidelity for the successiue deliuering of that which at first had bene receiued but he himselfe tooke vpon himselfe the custody of his owne tradition and continued still to report what he had first taught knowing the chanel of humane conceipt to be more corrupt theÌ that the streame of diuine truth can long runne pure cleare therein And this may sufficiently perswade vs that our Sauiour Christ would not leaue any part of his religion to so vncertaine and doubtfull course so subiect to the corruptions of humane deuices If God would euer haue had his truth to passe altogether from hand to hand vndoubtedly he would haue taken that course in the beginning when men liuing so long might be likely to confirme and settle in their posteritie what they should beleeue But he saw there would be no safety vnlesse he himselfe still continued to be an instructour vnto them He knew how subiect men are to alteration and change how easily one man mistaketh that which is rightly deliuered by another how readily men sometimes come short sometimes go too farre how one mans fancy conceiueth one way another mans another way and that we can neuer keepe any straight and euen path so long as instruction is no otherwise had but from man to man Therefore where God himselfe attended not to keepe the fire burning which he had kindled it soone went out where men were left onely to tradition they soone degenerated from that seruice of God wherein they had bene brought vp vnder iust and righteous parents There is no likelihood therefore that God finding so little safety in tradition in the beginning would leaue his Church now to be guided by tradition in the end Nay when he thought good somwhat to withdraw himselfe from that familiar conference dealing with men he would otherwise supply the want thereof prouide for the safety of his people by appointing a
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 vpoÌ 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 coÌtrary 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 froÌ 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 theÌ 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 theÌ into the Church dazeling the eies of meÌ 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 coÌplained in his time that d August epist 119. Tam multis praesumptionibus sic plena sunt omnia c. IpsaÌ religionem quaÌ pancissimu manifestissimis celebrationuÌ sacramentis miserecordia Dei esse liberam voluit scruilibus oneribus premunt vt tolerabilior sit coÌditio IudaeoruÌ qui etiamsi tempus libertatis non agnouerint tameÌ legalibus sarcinu non humanis praesumptionibus subijciuntiâ 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 theÌ it who though they knew not the time of liberty yet were subiect to the burdens of Gods lawes not to mens presumptions This cautioÌ 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 coÌceiue the waight and importance of theÌ 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 coÌstitutions of the Church The decree then of the Apostles was no tradition in that meaning wherin we questioÌ traditions because it was no matter of doctrine but only of coÌuersation 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
be content also to let it go leauing the messe of pap to them whose the reason is and let vs follow him to examine the authorities which he bringeth for proofe of their traditions The first is from the words of Christ a Iohn 16.12 at the point of his passion saying that he had many things to say vnto his Apostles but they could not as then beare them Which words being of old a speciall refuge b Tertul. de veland virgin of Montanus the heretike an ancient Papist we cannot wonder to be vsed now by the Papists for the shrowding of that trash and the like as they haue borowed of him But of these words so much hath bin said c Sect. 7. before as that I need not here to stand vpon them any further His second authoritie is that in the Acts concerning our Sauiours appearing to his Disciples d Act. 1.3 by the space of fortie dayes and speaking of the things which appertaine to the kingdome of God Of these things saith M. Bishop little is written in any of the Euangelists And we desire to know what he hath learned of those things by tradition and if he will name to vs these or these things we desire to know how he can proue that those were the things whereof Christ spake if he cannot proue it we reiect his foolish presumption and can much better denie then he affirme What those things were by tradition we know nothing but by Scripture we do know The effect of all his speeches is set down by S. Luke in his last chapter There he maketh his Apostles e Luke 24.48 witnesses of those things which he spake What they witnessed appeareth in their sermons euery where in the Acts of the Apostles and in their Epistles and writings all consonant and agreeable to that briefe summe there expressed by S. Luke Now then to argue as we haue done before we are sure as touching the things that are written that they are of those things wherof Christ spake but how doth M. Bishop proue that he spake any thing more then that that is written It is expressed by S. Luke that the things whereof Christ spake were things appertaining to the kingdome of God But S. Paul f Acts 28.23 testified the kingdome of God out of the law of Moses and out of the Prophets The things therefore which Christ spake as is also imported in the g Luk 24.27.44 46. last of S. Lukes Gospell were no other but according to the scriptures of Moses and the Prophets and therefore M. Bishops conceit of matters vnwritten must needs be an idle dreame Thirdly he alledgeth the Apostles words commending the Corinthians for that h 1. Cor. 11.2 they kept the traditions euen as he had deliuered the same vnto them Where we find the name of traditions which we denie not but traditions of doctrine that should remaine vnwritten we find not By traditions we vnderstand here out of the circumstance of the words following rites and ceremonies prescribed by the Apostle for order and decencie in the publicke assembly of their Church which kinde of traditions M. Perkins hath acknowledged in the beginning of this question If M. Bishop will alledge that this is but a shift and will needs enforce that it must be vnderstood of matters of doctrine we wil gratifie him so farre but still we require him to proue that those matters of doctrine were any other then were afterwards put in writing There was but litle of the new Testament written at the writing of this Epistle Those things which were afterwards written must needs be vnderstood in these traditions whereof the Apostle speaketh if we vnderstand them of doctrine because we know that by his preaching he had deliuered those things vnto them And if the Apostles words be necessarily to be vnderstood of those things that are written we desire to know how they can enforce any necessitie of vnderstanding any other things thereby One of these traditions he mentioneth afterwards i Ver. 23. the institution of the Lords Supper It is written by himselfe it is written by the Euangelists Here is then a tradition but no tradition vnwritten The sacrament of Baptisme was another of his traditions but that is written also Another tradition he himselfe expresseth to haue bene k 1. Cor. 15.3 the death and resurrection of Christ but that tradition is also plentifully contained in the Scriptures So elsewhere he signifieth it to haue bene his l 2. Thess 3.6 tradition that he which would not labour should not eate and that tradition he hath also m Ver 1 there set downe in writing Now sith these were of the number of his traditions and yet are written what should hinder but that the rest are written as well as these M. Bishop alledgeth the place and so leaueth it without head or taile there is the name of traditions and that is enough for him whereas if he should draw an argument from thence for their traditions he knoweth that his folly would too plainly appeare His next citation is out of S. Paul to Timothy n 1. Tim. 6.20 O Timothy keepe the depositum saith he Where we see that one ape will be like another his masters of Rhemes would affect a foolish kind of singularitie in translating and he wil shew himselfe as wise as they Why could they not as well haue giuen vs English and said keepe that that is committed vnto thee to keepe seeing that is the signification of the word depositum Yet in the other place he is content to leaue them o 2. Tim. 2.14 Hold fast by the holy Ghost the good things coÌmitted vnto thee to keep where they reade keep the good depositum But what is that that was thus committed to Timothy to keepe He telleth vs that it was the true doctrine of Christ the true sence of holy Scriptures the right administration of the Sacraments and the gouernment of the Church But what of all this We expected vnwritten traditions and in all these things we see no necessitie to vnderstand any thing but that that is contained in the Scriptures In the Scriptures we learne the true doctrine of Christ and whatsoeuer is contained in the true sence of Scripture is contained in the Scripture There we learne whatsoeuer necessarily belongeth to the administration of Sacraments and gouernment of the Church But our question is here of necessary doctrines which are neither contained in the word nor sence of holy Scripture and M. Bishop doth amisse in the citing of these places vnlesse he can make it good that such were committed to Timothy by S. Paul Albeit those particulars are neither set downe by Chrysostome nor Theophylact onely Theophylact generally expoundeth the words thus p Theop. in t Tim. cap. 6. Quaecunque scilicet tibi sunt per me demandata tanquam Domini praecepta seruata nec horuÌ quicquam imminues p 2. Tim.
Mariage indeed is honorable but it did not belong to vs. For suppose that Popes and Popish Priests be fornicators as their Canon law telleth vs that k Dist. 81. Maximianes in glos CoÌmuniter dicum quòd Clericus pro simplici fornicatione deponi non debet quia pauci sine illo vitio inueniuntur few of them are found without that fault how shall they be depriued here of the excuse of their filthinesse if they may say We held marriage to be honorable but it was not lawful for vs to marry But the words do serue to take away from all adulterers and fornicators all excuse of such vncleannes They must therefore be taken to affirme indeed that which they seeme to do that mariage is honorable in all men And so doth Theophylact apparently expound it l Theoph. in Heb. 13. Non quia nuptiae aetate prouectioribus minùs conueniant adolescentulos verâ admocuÌ deccant sed cunctis art honori sunt He saith not that mariage is vnfitting for the elder and fit onely for yong men but honorable for all though withall he expound those words in all as importing n Vel in omnibus hoc est quibusuit modis quouis tempore euery way and at all times But M. Bishop bringeth vs to the Grammar and telleth vs that the adiectiue being put without a substantiue must in true construction haue this word things ioyned with it Full wisely I warrant you and with great skill as though where the Apostle saith n 1. Cor. 8.7 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã we are not to translate there is not knowledge in all men or all men haue not knowledge but rather there is not knowledge in all things because the adiectiue is there put without a substantiue and where the Apostle saith o 2. Thess 3.2 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã we should not say all men but all things haue not saith and where he saith p 1. Tim. 2.9 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã we should not translate who gaue himselfe a redemption for all men but for all things because in these places the adiectiue is put without the substantiue as in infinite other places it is where notwithstanding it must necessarily be vnderstood not of all things but of all men It is not passion then as he obiecteth to vs but plaine frenzie as it seemeth that maketh him to vse these blind and ignorant cauillations and the places of Scripture which M. Perkins hath alledged against their vow of continencie stand still firme and sure for ought that he hath bene able to say against them 10. W. BISHOP The Scripture being so barren for him he shall belike recompence it with the abundant testimonie of antiquitie in fauour of his cause but oh vnhappie chance he hath cleane forgotten in this question the record of the auncient Church what was there not one Father who with some one broken fragment of a sentence or other would releeue you in this your combat against the Vow of Chastitie I will helpe you to one but I feare me you will scarce thanke me for my paines it is such a one as is neither holy nor father but the auncient Christian Epicure Iouinian who as S. Augustine hath recorded * Haeres 82. ad Qued vult and S. Ierome * Lib. 1. contra Iouin did hold that virginitie of professed persons men and women was no better then the continencie of the married So that many professed virgins beleeuing him did marry yet himselfe did not marry as Frier Luther did not because he thought chastitie should be rewarded in the life to come with a greater crowne of glory but because it was fit for the present necessitie to auoyd the troubles of marriage see iust the very opinion of M. Perkins and our Protestants But this heresy saith S. Augustin in the same place was quickly suppressed and extinguished it was not able to deceiue any one of the Priests And in another place thus * Lib. 2. reârec 22 he speaketh of Iouinian Holy Church most faithfully and valiantly resisted this monster So that no maruell if that M. Perkins could find small releefe in antiquitie for this his assertion which the best of them esteemed no better then a monstrous sacrilegious heresie R. ABBOT How simply M. Bishop hath dealt in the answering of the Scriptures alledged against him we haue very well seene already and it hath bene made appeare to him that we want not testimony of antiquitie for the applying thereof in such sort as we do Albeit we freely say to him that our faith resteth entirely vpon the word of God and where God hath spoken plainly to vs we wil not suspend our assent vpon question whether men thinke the same that God hath told vs. If men haue giuen testimony thereof we take their witnesse and vse it if not we say as in another case Cyprian doth a Cypr. lib. 2. ep 5. Non sunt expectaÌda testiâonia humana cùm praecedunt diuina suffragia We are not to looke for the testimonies of men where we haue warrant already from God himselfe and with the Apostle Saint Paul b Rom. 3.4 Let God be true and euery man a liar In the meane time we do but suffer M. Bishop here to c Prou. 7.22 go like a foole to the stockes for correction not imagining whither he goeth and like the poore fish to dally play with the baite wherein he receiueth his owne bane He sporteth himselfe with Iouinian and in the cause of Iouinian we bring not a broken fragment of a sentence of some father but in a manner a whole Church and no meane Church but euen the Church of Rome defending and maintaining that virginitie of professed persons is no better with God then the continencie of the married The old Church of Rome condemned the doctrine of Montanus which was the same in effect as before I haue said that the Church of Rome now maintaineth The old Church of Rome vpheld the doctrine of Iouinian which was the same that we now defend against the Church of Rome This matter gentle Reader hath bene declared before at large d Sect 8. in the answer to M. Bishops Epistle and thither I refer thee for the full vnderstanding of it Here I will onely briefly remember thee that the doctrine of Hierome against Iouinian found generall opposition in the Romane Church and how scandalously and offensiuely it was taken his owne words may giue vs to vnderstand when in his apologie he saith e Hieron apolog pro lib. aduer Iouin Grande piaculuÌ euersae sum ecclesiae orbis audire non potest si virginitatem diximus esse muÌdiorem quà m nuptias A great offence the Churches are ouerthrowne the world cannot abide to heare it that I haue said that virginitie is more pure or holy then marriage It was no small matter that made him thus to speake to hold that virginitie is more holy then
his owne Rhemish translation and tell vs which way he can make good that which he saith a Acts. 4.34 As many as were owners of lands or houses sold and brought the prices of those things which they sold and laid it before the feete of the Apostles The text saith they sold and brought the price of that they sold it saith not that they sold all and brought the price of all Philip was one of them and yet Philip had his b Cap. 21.8 house still and I hope M. Bishop will not thinke but that he had something in his house also wherewith hee gaue entertainment to Saint Paul and those that were with him And who doubteth but that the rest kept their dwelling houses furnished for their owne vse and for the vse of other godly and faithfull brethren as occasion should serue So it is said of Barnabas that c Cap. 4 37. whereas he had a field or a peece of land he sold it but it is not said that he sold all So Ananias and Saphira d Cap. 5.1 sold a possession or a peece of land but they are not said to haue sold all that they possessed And whereas Maister Bishop saith that the same Ananias and his wife made a vow because it is said that e Ver. 4. they lied vnto God he talketh idlely They lied vnto God because they pretended to bring the whole price of that which they sold when they brought but a part thereof But those other faithfull Christians did that which the common state and necessitie of the Church did then require Many poore doubtlesse were then conuerted to the faith of Christ who being now ioined to the Church could expect no reliefe but from the Church They therefore who had wherewith to relieue the necessity of such were to testifie their faith and loue by communicating imparting to them of that they had Here was no matter of Monkery it was an example of the common fruit that should be of true Christianity and piety whensoeuer like occasion should require He sheweth not himselfe a liuely and feeling member of the body of Christ who in the publike want of the Church cannot find in his heart to dispossesse himselfe of somewhat for the succour and comfort of other members Letting these things briefely passe as M. Bishop doth let vs see what argument he collecteth of these examples That which was commended by our Sauiours own both example and doctrine and was practised by the Apostles and most holy Christians may be vowed very laudably But to sell all and giue it to the poore is such We denie his second proposition because it pronounceth that absolutely and simply which in the other proposition is vnderstood respectiuely onely and with exception f Hieron adâ Iouin lib. 2. Antisthenes venditis quae habebat publicè distributis nihil sibi quà m palliolum reseruauit Antisthenes the Philosopher who was maister to Diogenes sold all that he had as Hierome mentioneth and made publike distribution thereof So doth the same Hierome mention a sect of Philosophers called g Idem in Math. cap. 10. Bactroperitae contempâores seculi omnia pro nihilo duceÌtes cellariuÌ secum vehebant Bactroperitae who were contemners of the world and set all things at nought onely carying a bagge or wallet with them and yet these did not that which Christ commended or the Apostles practised Christ hath commended it and the Apostles and faithfull Christians by their practise haue taught it when it concerneth vs necessarily for the following of Christ when the commandement of Christ and his cause and Gospell doth require it But to do it voluntarily and of our owne heads when no such cause requireth it it is not a matter of commendation with Christ but of our owne superstitious and fond presumption The former way we may lawfully and laudably vow it yea and we do all vow it in our baptisme to forsake all rather then to forsake Christ to keepe nothing the keeping whereof should keepe vs away from Christ But when the hauing of our wealth hindereth not but that in mind and affection we may follow Christ and keepe our selues faithfull vnto him then to vow the relinquishing thereof is a superfluous and rash vow no seruice of God but a pleasing of our owne fancie and no where commended by Iesus Christ 24. W. BISHOP Now one word of obedience before we end this question This vow saith M. Perkins is against Christian liberty whereby we haue granted vs a free vse of all things indifferent and therefore to be bound to certaine meates and apparell is intollerable but this reason hath bene reproued already * Gal. 5.10 he addeth Stand fast in the liberty wherein Christ hath made you free Doth your breath or heart faile you Sir that you stop thus in the middest of a sentence the rest belike discouereth the fraud of it And wrap not your selues againe in the yoke of bondage to wit bind not your selues to the obseruation of Moses law as yee shall do if ye be circumcised All this is good but doth it follow hereof that in the law of grace we should not obey our superiours nor obserue such good orders as holy Church hath approued nothing lesse but happy is that necessitie as Saint Augustine witnesseth which holdeth vs close to those things which be better to do than to leaue vndone otherwise our weaknesse would quickly shrinke backe And againe if Christes sufferings without his obedience as M. Perkins himselfe testifieth Pag. 61. had not bene auaileable for our iustification no doubt but those workes which are garnished with the vertue of obedience are more acceptable in Gods sight Finally M. Perkins saith that wee magnifie these three vowes of chastitie pouertie and obedience And good reason haue we so to do as hath bene shewed but saith he for the vow of Baptisme we haue made no such account of it as they do which is not so We hold indeede that the couenant which we make in Baptisme is no vow but a full and assured promise to beleeue in God to renounce the diuell and all his workes and to keepe all Gods commandements which we keepe or do our best indeuour to keepe at least wee teach not as the Protestants do that they are impossible to be kept for that is enough to discourage any man from endeuouring to keepe them And as touching the vow which he saith we made in our creation wee remember nothing of it nor neuer heard speake of it by any good author not that we make or meane we any vowes when we receiue the B. Sacrament These be but nouelties of words and the rauing of some decayed wits R. ABBOT Christian liberty hath not onely set vs free from the rigour and curse of the law but also from the yoke of externall obseruations that is from placing religion and holinesse the worship and seruice of God and from reputing cleannesse or
vncleannesse towards God in any externall or outward things Concerning this liberty against the Monkish vow of obedience M. Perkins alledgeth the Apostles words a Gal. 5.1 Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made you free Here Maister Bishop being somewhat pleasurable asketh Doth your breath or heart faile you Sir that you stop thus in the midst of a sentence Why I pray what is the rest of the sentence And wrap not your selues againe in the yoke of bondage And what meaneth that Marry binde not your selues to the obseruation of Moses law as ye shall doe if ye be circumcised And was it then the meaning of the Apostle that they should not wrap themselues in the yoke and bondage of Moses law which was giuen of God but they might wrap themselues in the yoke and bondage of the lawes of men Did God ease vs of his yoke to giue men libertie to yoke vs againe with their deuises What an idle exception is this of his and why doth he not remember that the Apostle maketh this instruction generall against all yokes of humane imposition where he saith b 1. Cor. 7.23 Ye are bought with a price be ye not made the seruants of men S. Austine lamenteth it as touching the condition of his time that c Aug epâst 119. Ipsam religioneÌ quaÌ paucissimis manifestissimu celebrationuÌ Sacramentis misericordia Dei esse liberaÌ voluit seruilibâs oneribus premunt vt tolerabilior sit conditio IudaecâuÌ qui etiamsi teÌpus libertatis noÌ agnouerint legalibus tamen sarcinis non humanis praesumptionibus subijciuntur whereas the mercy of God would haue religion to be free hauing very few and those very manifest Sacraments or mysteries of obseruations men did so oppresse it with seruile burdens as that the state of the Iewes was more tolerable who albeit they knew not the time of liberty yet were subiect to the burdens of the law of God and not to humane presumptions It is plaine then by S. Austines iudgment which therein is very true that the liberty of Christian faith and religion is not onely from the burdens and yokes of Moses law but also from all burdens of humane presumptions and therefore M. Bishops answer is very vnsufficient to our obiection The vnsufficiencie whereof will the better appeare in considering the other place alledged by M. Perkins and omitted by M. Bishop d Col. 2.16.20 Let no man iudge you in meate and drinke why are ye led with traditions or decrees Touch not tast not handle not which all perish in the vsing being after the doctrines and commandements of men By which words he plainly sheweth that by the liberty of Christ no rules may be set downe whereby men should be iudged in conscience about meates and drinkes about touching tasting handling or any thing decreed by the doctrines and precepts of men And what doth he then but thereby condemne all Monkish institutions whereby the consciences of men are burdened and intangled with so many obseruations about meates drinkes apparell and other matters reckoned as a purchase of the forgiuenesse of sinnes and the merit of eternall life This cannot be auoided but that since the doctrines and coÌmandemens of men as touching meats drinks and such other things be condemned therefore Friar Frauncis his fellow Dominicke with the rest of them were superstitious hypocrites to prescribe rules and to require obedience to be performed vnto them in such things Yea and let M. Bishop be reckoned with them who setteth such before vs vnder the name of superiours to be obeied and calleth those good orders which the Apostle reiecteth because they are but mens traditions and nameth that a holy Church which contrary to the Apostles doctrine approueth such orders As for that which S. Austine saith e Aug. epist 45. Foelix est necessitas quae in meliora compellit Happy is the necessity that compelleth to the better it is true where the thing is good whereto we are compelled but vnhappy is the necessity whereby wee tye our selues to those things which are superstitious and offensiue vnto God Where he saith that if Christs sufferings without his obedience had not bene auaileable for our iustification no doubt but the works which are garnished with the vertue of obedience are more acceptable in Gods sight he notably plaieth the hypocrite to make Christes obedience to his father a cloke for their Friarly obedience to superstitious and absurd men It is true indeede which S. Austine saith that f Aug in Psal 70. Nihil tam expedit animae quà m obedire there is nothing so expedient for the soule as to obey but it is then true when we obey them who according to God are to be obeied g Origen in CaÌtic hom 2. Ornamentum monile ceruicis ecclesiae obedientiae Christi est The obedience of Christ saith Origen is the ornament and iewell of the Churches necke and therefore in Christes behalfe we are to obey none but onely them in whom we obey Christ We are to obey them who h Math. 28.20 teach the things which he hath commanded not those things which they themselues haue deuised i Tertul. de praescript Nec ipsi Apostoli quicquam ex suo arbitrio quod inducerent elegerunt The Apostles saith Tertullian gaue themselues no liberty to bring in any thing of their owne will and we are to follow none but such as haue followed the Apostles to deliuer faithfully Christes words not presumed rules and orders of their owne inuention k Ibid. Sed ne eligere quod aliquis de suo arbitrio induxerit We are not saith he to chuse or follow any thing which any man of his owne discretion hath brought in Mathew of Paris telleth a story of l Math. Parisan Henr. 3 anno 1227. Friar Frauncis that when he deliuered his rule to the Pope to be viewed and confirmed the Pope considering the same and beholding the deformed condition of the man bid him get him to the swine wallow with theÌ and bestow his paines to preach to them The Friar presently went where swine were and tumbled himself amongst theÌ and froÌ top to toe beraied himself all ouer with mire and dirt In this habite he goeth to the Pope againe saying My Lord I haue done as thou commandedst I pray thee now to hearken to my request The Pope admired the man and being sorie for that he had said to him granted him the confirming of his rule Were not here two fooles well met and may we not make it a question whether was the greater foole whether the Friar for so doing or the Pope for approuing that which he did Yet this brain-sick and drunken trick of a dirty beast goeth with M. Bishop for a vertue of obedience and was one of those worthy acts for which of a Friar he became a Saint Such is the rest of the obedience that their vow
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 pontâsi 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 Papaâdispe 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
workes in the state of corruption and all good workes in the state of grace for in his first conclusion distinguishing foure estates of man he affirmeth that in the third of man renewed or as we speake iustified there is libertie of grace that is grace enableth mans will to do if it please such spirituall workes as God requireth at his hands Yet lest he be taken to yeeld in any thing Pag. â0 he doth in shew of words contradict both these points in another place For in setting downe the difference of our opinions he saith that mans will in his conuersion is not actiue but passiue which is flat opposite vnto that which himselfe said a little before in his first conclusion that in the conuersion of a sinner mans will concurreth not passiuely but is co-worker with Gods grace R. ABBOT M. Bishop vnderstandeth not the principall point in controuersie and therefore thinketh that M. Perkins yeeldeth to the principall point in controuersie when he doth nothing lesse It was neuer any point of controuersie whether man in the state of corruption haue freedome of will in ciuill or morall workes for none of vs euer hath denyed it Neither was it euer any point of controuersie whether man in the state of grace haue freedome of will to good workes for there is not one of vs but alwaies hath affirmed it so that M. Bishop knoweth not indeed what he disputeth of As for that libertie of grace he expoundeth it also out of his owne blind fancie and not out of our doctrine For we do not meane thereby that grace enableth mans will to do if it please such spirituall works as God requireth at his hands but that grace worketh in the will of man to please to do such spirituall workes as God requireth at his hands For he doth not hang his worke vpon the suspended if of our will but a Phil. 2.13 worketh in vs to will and b Ezech 36.27 August de Praedest sanct cap. 10 Ipse facit vti illi faciant quae praecepit Et cap. 11. Promissit facturum se vt faciaÌâ quae âulci vt fiant causeth vs to do the things that he commaundeth vs to do But M. Bishop here imagineth that M. Perkins contradicteth in one leafe that which he yeeldeth in another He saith one where that mans will in his conuersion is not actiue but passiue But let M. Bishop learne of S. Austine that c August quaest veâ Test 14. Qui verba suppronit quaestionis aut imperituâ est aut tergiuersator qui calumniae magis studeat quam doctrinae he that concealeth the words of the point in question is either an vnlearned ideot or a wrangling crauen that studieth more to cauill then either to teach or learne The words of M. Perkins are these The Papists say Will hath a naturall cooperation we deny it and say it hath cooperation onely by grace being in it selfe not actiue but passiue willing well onely as it is moued by grace whereby it must first be acted and moued before it can act or will Where he very plainely affirmeth the cooperation of mans will in his conuersion but saith truly that it is of grace it selfe that it doth cooperate with grace He saith that in it selfe it is not actiue but passiue but though in it selfe it be onely passiue yet he acknowledgeth that it becommeth actiue also by being acted or moued by grace Now how is this contrarie to that which he saith in the fift conclusion that mans Free will concurres with Gods grace as a fellow or co-worker in some sort and is not passiue in all and euery respect In some sort saith he it is a co-worker with grace and is not passiue in all and euery respect How is that Mans will must first of all be acted and moued by grace and then it also acteth willeth and moueth it selfe How can M. Bishop deuise to haue a man speake more agreably to himselfe But he playeth the lewd cousiner and whereas the whole point of the controuersie lieth in these words by it selfe or in it selfe he guilefully omitteth the same and maketh M. Perkins absolutely to say that mans will in his conuersion is not actiue but passiue when he saith that in it selfe it is not actiue but passiue declaring that by grace it is made actiue So in the other place where it is said that mans will is a co-worker in some sort and is not passiue in all and euery respect he leaueth out those termes of restraint as if M. Perkins had made the will simply and of it selfe a co worker with grace and not passiue in any respect The contradiction therefore was not in M. Perkins his words but in M. Bishops head or rather in his malicious and wicked heart which blind-foldeth him to make him seeme not to see that which he seeth well enough 5. W. BISHOP The like contradiction may be obserued in the other part of libertie in morall actions for in his third conclusion he deliuereth plainely man to haue a naturall freedome euen since the fall of Adam to do or not to do the acts of wisedome Iustice Temperance c. and proues out of S. Paul that the Gentiles so did yet in his first reason Pag. 19. he affirmeth as peremptorily out of the eight of Genesis that the whole frame of mans hart is corrupted and all that he thinketh deuiseth or imagineth is wholy euill leauing him no natural strength to performe any part of morall dutie See how vncertaine the steps be of men that walke in darknesse or that would seeme to communicate with the workes of darknesse For if I mistake him not he agreeth fully in this matter of Free will with the Doctrine of the Catholike Church for he putting down the point of difference saith that it standeth in the cause of the freedome of mans will in spirituall matters allowing then freedome of will with vs in the state of grace whereof he there treateth for he seemeth to dissent from vs onely in the cause of that freedome And as he differeth from Luther and Caluin with other sectaries in granting this libertie of will so in the very cause also he accordeth with Catholikes as appeareth by his owne words For saith he Papists say mans will concurreth with Gods grace by it selfe and by it owne naturall power we say that mans will worketh with grace yet not of it selfe but by grace either he vnderstandeth not what Catholikes say or else accuseth them wrongfully for we say that mans will then onely concurreth with Gods grace when it is stirred and holpen first by Gods grace So that mans will by his owne naturall action doth concurre in euery good worke otherwise it were no action of man but we farther say that this actioÌ proceedeth principally of grace wherby the wil was made able to produce such actions for of it selfe it was vtterly vnable to bring foorth such spirituall fruite And this I
of man dead as touching Free will to righteousnesse he answereth of naturall Free will only fortified and lifted vp to a higher degree of perfection What fortifying is there of a dead man and how should he be lifted vp to a higher degree of perfection except he first recouer life Why doth he by babling and trifling bobbe his Reader and make shew to say something when indeed to the purpose he saith nothing at all The argument still standeth impregnable Man is not onely weake and vnperfect but dead not halfe dead but wholy dead in sinne and therefore by S. Austine likened to the b Aug. contra duas Epist Pela lib. 4 cap. 5. de verbis Apost Ser. 11. Shunamites sonne being dead whom the Prophet Elizeus raised from the dead He must be made c Rom. 6.13 aliue from the dead before he can concurre with grace Which if M. Bishop confesse or because he cannot deny therefore he must confesse also that as the dead man hath nothing whereby to helpe himselfe to receiue life againe so man spiritually dead d August de verb. Dom. Ser. 18. Mortuos eos vocat Vbi nisi intus in anima inwardly in soule dead hath nothing in him no facultie or power of the soule whereby he can any way further the recouerie of his owne life But to fill vp the measure of his folly he will set foorth this matter vnto vs by a comparison A Crab-tree flocke forsooth hath no abilitie of it selfe to bring foorth apples and therefore may be tearmed dead in that kind of good fruite yet let a siance of apples be grafted into it and it will beare apples euen so saith he albeit our sowre corrupt nature of it self be vnable to fructifie to life euerlasting yet hauing receiued into it the heauenly graft of Gods grace it is enabled to bring foorth the sweet fruite of good workes Similes habent labra lactucas as his doctrine is so must his similitudes needes be crabbed and crosse Is the Crab-tree stocke dead to the bringing foorth of apples which by it owne naturall life without alteration continueth life and giueth nouriture and increase to the siances and graffes of apples that are engraffed and implanted vpon it which receiueth nothing at all of the graffes or siances but ministreth vnto them that whereby they bring foorth fruite Is this the condition of the grace of God in vs that we giue it sappe and strength in vs to bring foorth good fruite vnto God And yet the Crab-tree stocke in the receiuing of the new graffes is meerely and wholy passiue and not actiue in any sort The engraffing thereof is altogether the worke of the gardiner or husbandman Yea and that they bring foorth such or such fruite they haue it not of the stocke but altogether and onely of their owne kind Therefore we must likewise say that the nature of man in the receiuing of the graft of grace is altogether passiue and doth nothing thereto and when e Iam. 1.21 the superfluitie of maliciousnesse being cast away and cut off the same grace vseth our naturall powers to the bringing foorth of the fruite of good workes the commendation of the fruite ariseth onely froÌ the graffe from grace it selfe and the power thereof not by the stocke but by it selfe digesting and turning all to the nature and qualitie of it selfe So that his owne comparison doth most effectually serue to strengthen our part and to ouerthrow his owne But as he vseth it it sauoureth very rankly of the Pelagian heresie For Pelagius made of the power of nature f August contrae Pelag. Celest lib. 1 ca. 18. Habemus possibilitatem vtriusque partis à Deo insitam velut quandam vt ita dicam radicem fructiferaÌ atque foecundam quae ex voluntate hominis diuersa gignat paeriat quae possit ad proprij cultoris arbitrium vel nitere flore virtutum vel sentibus horrere vieiorum Vbi non intuens quid loquatur vnam eandemque radiceÌ constituit bonoruÌ malorum concrae Euangelicam veritaetem c. a fertile and fruitfull roote which out of the will of man did bring foorth diuersly and might as the dresser thereof list either be garnished with the flowers of vertue or else grow wild with the thornes of vice Whereby as S. Austine noteth he made one and the same roote both of good and euill workes euen as M. Bishop doth by his Crab-tree stocke contrarie to the truth of the Gospell and the doctrine of the Apostle For in the Gospel we reade of g Mat 7.17.18 a good tree and an euill tree and that the good tree cannot bring foorth euill fruite nor the euill tree good fruite h Quid est bonus homo nisi voluntaus bonae hoc est arber raedicis bonae Et quid est homo malus nisi voluÌtatis malae hoc est arbor radicis âale The good tree is a tree of a good root and the euill tree a tree of an euill root not both of the same roote The tree of a good root is the man of a good wil the tree of an euill root is the man of euil will not growing both vpon the Crab-tree stocke of M. Bishops Free will Whereby we are giuen to vnderstand that for the bringing foorth of good fruite it sufficeth not to haue any thing ingraffed in vs but we our selues must become graffes to be implanted into a new stocke and to grow vpon a new root We must be engraffed into the i Ioh. 15.1 true vine Iesus Christ by him to be purged from the corruption that we haue drawne from our old root and to liue wholy by his spirit that we may bring foorth fruit not according to our owne nature and kind as other graffes do but according to a new life and nature that we receiue by being ioyned vnto him M. Bishop is of another mind he will haue Christ to be ingraffed vpon the Crab-tree stocke of our Free will he seeth no necessitie to leaue his old roote to be engraffed into Christ As for the place of S. Iames k Iam. 1 21. Receiue the engraffed word c. it auaileth him nothing at al for it doth not import in any wise that the word of God ingraffed in our naturall Free will doth bring foorth fruite vnto God but onely telleth vs in what sort the word of God is to be receiued of vs that it may saue our soules namely that it must be inwardly wrought in our hearts that it may become to vs l 1. Pet. 1.23 the immortall seed whereby through saith we are m Iam. 1.18 begotten and borne againe and n Ephes 2 10 created anew in Iesus Christ which is not done o Ioh. 1.13 by the will of man that is by Free will but God p Iam. 1.18 of his owne will hath begotten vs and that so as that though q 1. Cor. 3. â
Paule plant and Apollo water yet God onely giueth the increase and neither he that planteth is any thing nor he that watereth which is in vaine spoken if he that is planted or watered be any thing by his owne Free will but God onely that giueth the increase Another comparison he vseth of the earth What more dead saith he then the earth and yet it being tilled and sowne doth bring foorth and beare goodly corne Whereof he maketh application thus Now the word and grace of God is compared by our Sauiour to seed and our hearts to the earth that receiue it What maruell then if we otherwise dead yet reuiued by this liuely seed do yeeld plentie of pleasing fruite Where we see how loth he is that the Pelagians in any absurditie should go beyond him As before he made one roote so here he maketh one ground of Free will common and indifferent to good and euill and which is strange maketh it as naturall to this ground or earth to bring foorth fruite of the seed of Gods word as it is to the tilled ground to yeeld corne of the seed that is sowne vpon it Moreouer of grace he maketh no other matter but the seed which is the word of God r August contr Pelag. Celest lib 1. cap. 7. Epist 107. Gratiam Dei poâââ in lege atque doctrina the law and doctrine and exhortation euen as Pelagius did and that by this seed of Gods word Free will is reuiued to bring forth plentie of pleasing fruite But our Sauiour Christ in the Gospell maketh foure sorts of ground and thereof one onely good ground which is not good of it selfe but made good hauing nothing in it whereof to bring foorth fruite of the seed or Gods word Å¿ Esa 32.15 vntill the spirit be powred vpon it from aboue that of a wildernesse it may become a fruitfull field So that the grace of God consisteth not in the seed of the word but importeth a spiritual and heauenly influence of the blessing of God altering and changing the nature of the soyle of mans heart that it may be fit to receiue the seed and to fructifie thereby For otherwise the Scripture teacheth vs that mans heart is a t Prech 36 26. stonie heart that his u Esa 48.4 forehead is brasse and his necke an iron sinew and that to bestow labour vpon him by the word of God is but as to wash x Ierem. 13.23 an Aethiopian or a Leopard to take away the blacknes and spots of them or to y Amos 6.12 plow vpon the rocke where there is no entrance neither for plow nor seed Therefore howsoeuer the seed be sowne it auaileth nothing neither can the will of man fructifie thereby vntill it do z Ioh. 6.45 heare and learne of the Father to come to Christ a August de Praedest sanct cap. 8 Nihil est aliud quà m donum accipere à Patre quo credat in Christum that is vntill it receiue a gift of the Father whereby to beleeue in Christ b Idem de peccat nun remis li. 2. cap. 17. Sciat quam verè non de terra ista sed spiritualiter dictum sit Dominus Dabit c. it being meant not of the very earth saith Austin but spiritually which is said The Lord will yeeld his sweetnesse and our land or earth shall giue increase as to note that not by any power of our Free will but onely by his sweet and heauenly dew c Ose 10.12 the raine of righteousnesse d Ezech. 34.26 the raine of blessing which he raineth vpon vs we bring foorth the seed of the word of God 10. W. BISHOP Hauing hitherto explicated the state of the question and solued such obiectioÌs as may be gathered out of M. Perkins against it before I come to his solution of our arguments I will set downe some principall places both out of the Scriptures and auncient Fathers in defence of our doctrine because he proposeth but few for vs and misapplyeth them too Genes 4. First then God saith to Caine If thou do well shalt thou not receiue a reward But if thou do euill thy sinne will presently be at the gates but the appetite of it shall be vnder thee and thou shalt beare dominion ouer it Here is plaine mention made of the power which that euill disposed man Cain had not to sinne if he had listed which was no doubt by the assistance of Gods grace and on the other side that grace did not infallibly draw him to good but left it to his free choice whether he would follow it or no. And because they who secke out all manner of starting holes wrest these words of ruling and bearing sway as spoken of his brother Abel and not of sinne first to see their iniquitie marke the text where is no mention of Abel neither in that verse nor in the next before but expresse mention is made of sinne in the next words before therefore those Pronounes that are to be referred to the words next before must needes in true construction be referred to sinne and not to his brother Besides this plaine construction of the text S. Augustine followeth saying as it were to Cain Lib. 15. de ciuit Dei cap. 7. Hold thy selfe content for the conuersion of it shall be to thee and thou shalt rule ouer it What saith he ouer his brother God forbid that so wicked a man should rule ouer so good Ouer what then but he shall rule ouer sinne See how manifestly that worthy Doctor hath preuented their cauill And if it were need I might ioyne with him that most skilfull Father in the Hebrew text S. Hierome * In quaest Hebraicè who in the person of God expoundeth it thus Because thou hast Free will I admonish and warne thee that thou suffer not sinne to ouercome thee but do thou ouercome sinne R. ABBOT M. Perkins he saith proposed but few places for them and misapplied them to and therefore he will himselfe set downe some principall places both out of the Scriptures and fathers in defence of their doctrine But what ill hap had he at first to light vpon an example whereby as Austin noteth it is so manifest a August de ciuit Dei lib. 15. ca. 16 Spiritus sanctus operatur intrinsecus vt valeat aliquid medicina quc adhibetur extriâfecus Aâequm etiamsi Deus ipse vtens creatura sibi sub ect vinaeâqua specie humanâ sensus alloquatur humanos c. nec interiore gratia mentem regat atque agat nihil prodest homini omnâs praedicatio veritatis Facit hoc Deus à vasis misericordiae irae vasa discernens c. Et cap. 7. Hoc ipsum cùm Deus locutus esset ad Cain quid ei prosuit c. that howsoeuer God himselfe do speake to the sense of man either to his outward or inward senses yet if he
to the house of Israel he said it not to the Philistims he said it not to the Babylonians the Ammonits the Moabits c. It was not for their sakes that he sware but p Heb. 6.17 willing to shew to the heires of promise the stablenesse of his counsell he bound himselfe by an oath Therefore to those peoples he gaue not the meanes of conuersion q Psal 147.19 he gaue his word vnto Iacob his statutes and ordinances vnto Israel he dealt not so with any other nation How then doth M. Bishop say that God affordeth to all sinners grace sufficient for their conuersion Will he say that the beholding of heauen and earth and such other naturall motiues were sufficient to bring men to repentance He may dally with vs that in themselues they were such as might sufficiently auaile to moue men but what is that to the purpose so long as to the state and condition of man they were not sufficient The light of the Sunne is a sufficient light and yet it is not sufficient to make a blind man see What were al those motiues and occasions whatsoeuer they were but euen as a good lesson to a dead man And what will he terme those meanes of conuersion by the name of grace Away away with this Pelagian conceipt and let vs acknowledge the truth as S. Austin doth r August de verb. Apost Ser. 11. Communis est omnibus natura non gratia Nature is common to all but grace is not so It is but Å¿ Videre acumeÌ sed vitreum Quâsi lucet vanitate sed frangitur veritate a glassie tricke of wit as he saith to deuise a grace that is common to all it maketh a faire shew but it is soone crackt Now M. Perkins alledging that because it is by mans owne default that he cannot chuse but sinne therefore he is notwithstanding iustly punished bringeth for declaration thereof the example of a bankrupt who is not therfore freed from his debts because he is not able to pay them but the bils against him stand in force because the debt comes through his owne default But M. Bishop saith that this example is not to the purpose because the bankrupt cannot when he wil satisfie his creditors who content not themselues with his repentance without repay of their money as God doth How many miles to London a poke-full of plummes What is this to the purpose that God is content to remit his debtors without satisfaction for so creditors also deale sometimes with bankrupts when they haue nought to pay but is this any thing against that which M. Perkins saith that by the example of a bankrupt it appeareth that a man may iustly be punished for that which now he cannot helpe because by his owne default he is runne into it The creditor may remit all if he will but otherwise the bils of debt are iustly liable against him who by default and negligence is come to that passe that he hath nothing to pay And yet in his exception there are two absurdities implied For it is absurd that he saith that God doth remit and pardon his debtors without satisfaction There is no man reconciled to God but by tendring a full and perfect satisfaction which because he hath not to do of his owne therefore by faith he pleadeth the payment of his suretie Iesus Christ t 1. Pet. 2.24 who bare our sinnes in his body vpon the tree that in u Eph. 1.7 him we might haue redemption through his bloud euen the forgiuenesse of our sinnes Now x 2. Thess 3.2 all men haue not faith and therefore all men cannot pleade this satisfaction for themselues and yet without this faith there is no repentance that can auaile to bring vs vnto God And seeing both y Ephe. 2.8 faith and z Act. 5.31 11 18. repentance are the gifts of God which a Aug. de praedest sanct cap. 6 de bono perseuer ca. 14. Alijs praeparatur alijs non praeparatur voluntas à Domino Illis qui veritatis exhortationem obedienter audiunt ipsum donum Dei datum est hoc est obedientèr audire illis autem qui non sic audiunt non est datum he giueth to some and to other some doth not giue it is another point of absurdity to subiect the gift of God to the arbitrarie will and power of man as if man haue in him to beleeue and repent whensoeuer himselfe will But against this M. Bishop for conclusion bringeth a place of Austin against the Manichees that b August de duabus animab cont Manich. ca. 11. Nemo vituââratione suppliciovè dignus est qui id non faciat quod facere non potest Nonnè ista cantant in montibus pastores in theatris poetae c. shepheards and poets and learned and vnlearned and schoolemaisters and prelats and all mankind confesse that no man is worthie of dispraise or punishment which doth not that which he cannot do Nay to helpe the man somewhat I will adde more out of the next chapter to that which he citeth c Ibid. cap. 12. Peccati reum teneri quenquam quia non fecit quod facere non potuit summae iniquitatis est infantae That a man should be holden guiltie for not doing that which he could not do it is a point of iniquitie and madnesse to affirme Now what a strange matter is this that shepheards and poets and all sorts of men should see reason to affirme this and yet M. Bishop perforce should be driuen to deny it For let vs aske him in his owne profession and doctrine what he thinketh of children dying vnbaptized He will giue vs a peremptorie answer that questionlesse they are damned But what haue poore infants done why they should be damned or how could they auoid that for which they are damned Tell vs M. Bishop how could they chuse to be other then they be and if they cannot chuse but be that they are how can it stand with your rule that they should be condemned for being that which they cannot chuse but be Perforce he must take a fall in his owne trippe neither can he giue an answer as touching this point which doth not yeeld vs a full answer against himselfe But S. Austin himselfe cleereth this point for vs who vsing the words cited by M. Bishop to iustifie a definition of sinne which he had set downe against the Manichees that d Ibid. cap 11. Peccatum est voluntas retineÌ di vel consequeÌdi quod iustitiae vetat est vnde liberum est abstinere sinne is a desire of retaining or obtaining that which iustice forbiddeth and whence it is in a mans libertie to abstaine telleth his Reader in the perusing of that place in his Retractations that he spake there of that e Retract lib 1. cap. 15. Id definitum est quod taÌtummodo pecca tum est non
ãâã ãâã ãâã the redemption of possession as it is rightly called to the praise of his glorie How is it that hauing alreadie receiued adoption we yet looke for the adoption that being alreadie redeemed we yet looke for a redemption that being regenerate in Christ we yet expect a regeneratioÌ but because the fruit effect substance of our adoption redemption regeneration the adoption redemption regeneration of possession remaineth yet vnperformed vnto vs We receiue now k Rom. 8.23 a first fruits and some small beginnings as for a tast so for a pledge assurance of the rest but l Aug. de Tempore Ser. 49. In comparatione resurrectionis stercus est tota vitae quam gerimus in comparison of that that shall be at the resurrection the life that now is is but euen doung as S. Austin saith Therefore M. Bishop stretcheth the present effect of Baptisme too farre when he saith that in the man newly baptized there is no more sinne left then was in Adam in the state of innocencie This is no Catholike doctrine it is meere heresie it is but the dreame of the Pelagians So they sayd that m Cont. duas epist Pelag. lib 4. cap. 7. Dicunt Baptismo perfectè homines innouari men in Baptisme are perfectly renewed and n Epist 106. Filios Dei non pesse vocari nisi omninò absque peccato fuerint effecti that they cannot be called the sonnes of God vnlesse they be made altogether without sinne And this by M. Bishops doctrine is not onely gained by the Sacrament of Baptisme but also renewed euery while by their Sacrament of penance M. Bishops absolution if we beleeue him will set a man for the present as free from sinne as Adam was in the state of innocency Fie vpon these lewd paradoxes why do they delude simple soules with these hereticall positions which they themselues in their own consciences must necessarily condemne We haue heard before how Basil condemneth this assertion of perfect puritie attained in Baptisme In the like sort doth Hilary teach that o Hilar. in Psa 118 Gimel Siquis existimet sibi in Sacramenta Baptismi perfectam illam innocentiam coelestis vitae dignam redditam puritatem Ioannem Baptistam dixisse recolat Ego quidem c. Est ergò quantum licet existimare perfectae illius emundatio puritatis est vt pâst Baptismi aquac reposita quae nos per mortis tâuriam à labe morticinae societate purgabit c. we may not thinke that there is restored in the Sacrament of Baptisme that perfect innocencie and puritie that is worthie of heauenly life but that there is remaining after the water of Baptisme the cleansing of perfect puritie which by the grieuance of death shall purge vs from the blot and societie of that carion wherewith we are now blended Thus Epiphanius alledgeth out of Methodius against Proclus that p Epiph. haer 64. Alioqui pest illuminationem non contingeret nos iniusta facere vt pote peccato penitus synceritèr à nobis ablato c. Quare constat contrahi quidem ac sopiri per fidem nunc peccatum vt ne fructus noxio producat non autem radicitus tolls sinne by enlightning grace is not taken quite away for then men should not sinne after Baptisme it is therfore holden in and quieted in the Baptized by faith but is not yet pulled vp by the rootes But most notably of all other doth S. Austin determine this point against the Pelagian heretikes affirming still that in Baptisme there is nothing perfectly yeelded vnto vs but only the forgiuenesse of sinnes q August de peccataner rem lib. 1. cap. 7. Renouatio incipit à remissione omnium peâcatorum ât inquântum quisque spiritu iâta sapit qui tam sapit intantum renouatur caetera verò in spe facta sunt donec etiam in refiant c. In Baptismo quamitis tota plena fiat remissio peccatorum tamen si in ipso aeninto qui est homo interior perfecta in Baptismo nouitas fieret non diceret Apostolus Etsi exterior c Profectò enim qui de dic in dieÌ renouatur nonduÌ totus est renouatus in quantum nondum est renouatus intantum adhuc in vetustate est c. Et hoc vt faciant iam baptizatos fidelesque adhortatur quod adhuc monendi non essent si hoc in Baptismo iam perfectè factum esset Our renewing saith he beginneth at the remission of sinnes and so farre as a man mindeth the things of the spirit so far he is renewed but the rest is done in hope for the time till it may be done indeed And albeit there be in Baptisme a totall and full forgiuenesse of sinnes yet if in the mind it selfe which is the inner man there were in Baptisme a perfect newnesse the Apostle would not say Though our outward man be corrupted yet our inward man is renewed from day to day For he that is renewed from day to day is not yet wholy renewed and so farre as he is not yet renewed so farre is he yet in his old estate Therefore the Apostle exhorteth the faithfull baptized to put off the olde man c. which they should not be warned to do if in Baptisme it were perfectly done alreadie Againe he saith that r Ibid. cap. 10. Homo totus in sptiam tamin re ex parte in regeneratione spirituali renouatus a man by spirituall regeneration is wholy in hope but in deed is yet but in part renewed and proposeth it for a thing Å¿ Jbid. cap. 27. Illud praecipuè titendere ac meminisse debemus taentummodo peccatorum omnium plenam perfectamque remissionem Baptismo fieri hominis vtrò ipsius quad tatem non totam contriuo mutaâ sed spirituales primitias in benè proficientibus de die in diem noutate crescente commutare in se quod carnaliter vetus est donec totum renouetur specially to be regarded and remembred that onely forgiuenesse of sinnes is full and perfect in Baptisme and that the qualitie of man is not forthwith wholy chaunged but that the spirituall first fruits in them that go well forward by newnesse encreasing from day to day do turne or chaunge to the same that which is old according to the flesh vntill there be renewing of the whole Now how doth this stand with that which M. Bishop affirmeth that not onely the guilt of sinne is taken away by forgiuenesse but also the whole blot and deformitie thereof is quite abolished in Baptisme and full and perfect righteousnesse atchiued therein If onely forgiuenesse of sinnes be full and perfect in Baptisme then there cannot be sayd to be a full and perfect abolishing of sinne it selfe It is false therefore which he saith that in the man newly baptized there is left no sinne no more sinne then was in Adam in the state of innocencie
we will any thing by how much the more certainly we know how good it is and more earnestly are delighted therein Therefore ignorance and infirmitie the one in the vnderstanding and the other in the will it selfe being the p De nataet grat cap. 67. Paenalia omni animae ignorantia difficultas two penalties of euery soule of man are defaults or corruptions hindering the will both in the doing of that that is good and eschewing of that that is euill So long then as these defaults of ignorance and infirmity do remaine so long there cannot be a perfect rectifying of the will But ignorance and infirmity are not taken away in baptisme Therefore baptisme doth not wholly take away the deordination of the will Of the former of these it is manifest which S. Ambrose saith q Ambros in Psal 118. ser 3. Omnes sanctem vmbra sunt quamdus sunt in corpore non perfectè videns sed ex parte cognoscunt All the Saints are in a shadow so long as they are in the body they do not see perfectly but know in part onely He learned it of the Apostle saying r 1. Cor. 13.9 We know in part we prophecy in part we see through a glasse darkly And if it might be so said of the Apostles how much more is it to be vnderstood of the common condition and state of men We cannot but acknowledge much blindnesse much errour much imperfection of knowledge and therefore resolue that the vnderstanding cannot giue due information to the will And so long as we are thus weake in knowledge all other things must needs be vnperfect in vs because we cannot loue beyond that we know nor delight beyond our loue Therefore our loue is vnperfect our desire is vnperfect our delight is vnperfect and yet not onely because our knowledge is vnperfect but also because we haue yet receiued not the perfection but Å¿ Rom. 8.23 the first fruites onely of the spirit by whom all these things are effected in vs. For this cause S. Austine euery where acknowledgeth that this default of infirmity continueth still in the regenerate and that there is not perfect newnesse in the mind and inner man as we haue seene before by reason whereof the will is distracted and diuided in it selfe and by one motion of it selfe fighteth against another whilest t August in Ioan. tract 81. supra sect 1. we will one way because we be in Christ and will another way because as yet we are in this world Now sith there is not by baptisme perfection of knowledge to direct the will and the will it selfe by corruption yet remaining is infirme and weake to the loue and delight of the law of God it cannot be but absurdly said which M. Bishop saith that the will in baptisme is fully rectified and set in order againe towards the law of God Or if the meaning be that it is rectified and set in order but yet not fully and perfectly then he saith as we say that the deordination of the will continueth yet still in part and because sinne consisteth in the deordination of the will therefore sinne by baptisme is not altogether and wholly done away Thus we see him very hardly bested that making choise himselfe yet he cannot find one corner where he can in safetie shrowd himselfe 13. W. BISHOP 4. Obiect Lastly saith M. Perkins for our disgrace they alledge that we in our Doctrine teach that Originall sinne after baptisme is onely clipped or pared like the haire of a mans head whose roots remaine in the flesh growing and encreasing after they be cut as before His answer is that they teach in the very first instant of the conuersion of a sinner sinne to receiue his deadly wound in the root neuer after to be recouered Conferre this last answer with his former Doctrine good Reader and thou maist learne what credit is to be giuen to such Masters no more constant then the wind Here sinne is deadly wounded in the root there it remaineth still with all the guiltinesse of it although not imputed there it still maketh the man to sinne intangleth him in the punishment of sinne and maketh him miserable All this be comprehended before in this first reason and yet blusheth not here to conclude that he holdeth it at the first Neither clipped nor pared but pulled vp by the roots In deed they do him a fauour who say that he holdeth sinne to be clipped and as it were razed for albeit haire razed grow out againe yet is there none for a season but this Originall sinne of his is alwaies in his regenerate in vigour to corrupt all his works and to make them deadly sinnes But let this suffice for this matter R. ABBOT This obiection they haue borowed of the Pelagian heretikes who altogether denying Originall sinne and acknowledging onely sinnes actuall by voluntary imitation and custome defended that those being pardoned and forgiuen in baptisme a man was made fully and perfectly without sinne When therefore the Catholike Bishops and Pastours of the Church did teach that after baptisme there was concupiscence still remaining whence did grow euill motions and lusts tempting and entising to sinne and wickednesse they hereupon fell to cauilling in this sort that a August cont duas epist Pelag lib. 1. cap. 13. supra sect 9. sinnes then were not wholly remitted and that baptisme did not take away sinnes but onely pare them and shaue them so as that the rootes did still stick whence other sinnes should grow againe in like sort to be cut off Now this Saint Austine denieth and teacheth that baptisme giueth to the regenerate b Dicimus baptisma dare omnium indulgentiam peccatorum auferre crimina non radere vt omnium peccatorum raâices in mala carne teneantur remission and release of all sinnes and doth not pare of faults crimina faults of behauiour and conuersation but doth wholly take them away because of actuall sinnes which onely and no other they acknowledged there remaineth nothing when the same are forgiuen and pardoned c Sed de ista carnis coâupiscentiae falli eos credo vel fallere cum qui necesse est vt etiam baptizatus et hic si diligentissimè proficit et spiritu dei agitur pea mente confligat But as touching concupiscence saith he I hold that they are deceiued and do deceiue others with which the regenerate hath still to fight albeit he haue well profited and be guided by the spirit of God Yet this he saith is no sinne to him that is it is not imputed for sinne because the guilt thereof drawen by generation is remitted and forgiuen by regeneration Now this concupiscence as S. Ambrose saith is d Ambros Apolog Dauid cap. 13. mala radix an euill root e August de verb. Dom. serm 12. radix omnium malorum the root of all euils saith Austine euen as charity is the root of all
goodnesse f Idem de verb. Apâst seâ ãâã lloâ peccati nomine appelat vnde oriuntur cuncta peccata id est ex carnali concupiscentia from which root of concupiscence he saith againe that all sinnes do spring and grow Thus S. Austine confesseth that albeit there be remission of sinnes in baptisme and nothing remaining of any actuall sinnes yet the root of Originall sinne continueth still which being the same that it was before must needs be sinne as it was before albeit in respect that the guilt thereof is released he forbeareth to call it by the name of sinne But of this root M. Perkins further saith and that rightly that though it be in substance the same that it was before yet in extent and power and strength it is not the same It holdeth not the whole man captiue as before the yoke thereof is broken the kingdome of it is dissolued it is as an enemie conquered and disarmed not hauing the g Rom. 6.13 members at commandement to be the weapons of vnrighteousnesse vnto sinne as before it had In the first instant of the conuersion of a sinner saith he sinne receiueth his deadly wound in the root neuer afterward to be recouered Now here M. Bishop though he knew not well what to say yet to shew both his wit and his honesty would not forbeare to say somewhat He wisheth the Reader to conferre this last answer of M. Perkins with his former doctrine bearing him in hand that he shall find him no more constant then the wind And why so Forsooth he saith here that sinne is deadly wounded is the root and had ãâã before that sinne remaineth still with all the guiltinesse of it ãâã âmouted But what contradiction it there betwixt these ãâ¦ã deadly wounded and yet remaineth stiâ What hinââ ãâ¦ã his deadly wounded ãâ¦ã may truly be said to ãâ¦ã to had ãâã the guiltâ wherewith it held vs and vntill it be healed by perfect buriall it still rebelleth being dead Yea but M. Perkins saith it remaineth sâill with all the guiltinesse of it although not imputed But I answer him that he abuseth M. Perkins who for this matter stopped this wranglers mouth in the answer last before and he dissembleth it as though he saw it not The guilt of sin he saith remaineth potentially not actually that is it remaineth such as that in it owne nature it is sufficient to make a man guilty but yet it doth not so became the guilt thereof is remitted and pardoned which S. Austine manifestly proueth as I haue said before He doth not say then that it remaineth with all the guiltinesse of it though not imputed because it cannot be said to remaine with all the guiltinesse of it but it must also be said to be imputed Therefore in this whole disputation he confesseth with S. Austine as touching actuall guilt that Originall sinne is wholly and fully dead to the regenerate but yet remaineth still to rebell though it be dead And yet as touching rebellion it hath also receiued a deadly wound because it hath not now the same power to rebell as it had before to raigne and if sometimes it do gather power againe yet doth it neuer totally or finally recouer the kingdome that it had or preuaile vtterly to separate the faithfull from the loue of Christ as naturally it doth but by the first stroke and wound that it receiued by the grace of Christ becommeth in the end euery way and altogether dead and is vtterly abolished neuer to be againe He further alledgeth that M. Perkins first saith that concupiscence maketh a man to sinne intangleth him in the punishment of sinne and maketh him miserable and yet here blusheth not to conclude that he holdeth it at the first neither clipped nor pared but pulled vp by the roots But where doth he find this conclusion in M. Perkins words Surely the paper whereon he wrote this would haue blushed if it had had a forehead for very shame to carie the report of so manifest a lie But let the paper do what it will M. Bishop blusheth not for if he had bene a man of a blushing face he had wanted the name of being the writer of this booke What M. Bishop is it all one to be deadly wounded in the root and to be pulled vp by the roots M. Perkins saith not any where that concupiscence or sinne is pulled vp by the roots but as a man hauing receiued a deadly wound yet liueth afterwards for the time and stirreth and moueth euen so concupiscence though it receiue a deadly wound whereof in the end it dieth yet liueth and strugleth and rebelleth for the time stirring vp many noisome and euill motions and lusts from the consent whereof no man can say that he is altogether free and therein maketh a man to sinne and entangleth him in the punishment of sinne and maketh him miserable in such sort as before hath bene declared I may here turne M. Bishops words vpon himselfe Learne here gentle Reader what credit is to be giuen to such maisters as he is to such Maisters did I say nay to such remorselesse beasts who make no scruple or conscience to lie to falsifie to depraue those things against which otherwise they can haue nothing to except As for that which he glaunceth at in the end that concupiscence defileth all the works of the regenerate so that though they be in themselues good works yet they are stained with that which though it be not imputed yet is in it selfe mortall and deadly sinne it hath bene in part already declared and proued in the i Sect. 19. answer to his epistle dedicatorie and shall be more fully handled in his due place in the question of iustification where he professedly disputeth of that matter CHAPTER 3. OF THE CERTAINTIE OF SALVATION 1. W. BISHOP M. PERKINS FIRST CONCLVSION VVE hold and beleeue that a man in this life Pag. 37. may be certaine of saluation and the same doth the Church of Rome teach M. P. 2. Conclu We hold that a man is to put certaine affiance in Gods mercy in Christ for the saluation of his soule and the same holdeth the aforesaid Romane Church M. P. 3. Conclu We hold that with assurance of saluation in our hearts is ioyned doubting and there is no man so assured of his saluation but he at sometime doubteth thereof especially in the time of temptation and in this the Papists agree with vs. Not so Sir M. P. 4. Conclu They goe further and say that a man may be Certaine of the Saluation of men and of the Church by Catholike faith and so say we M. P. 5. Conclu They hold that a man by faith may be assured of his owne saluation through extraordinarie reuelation In this sence onely the first conclusion is true M. P. 6. Conclu The sixt and second be all one that we may be assured of our Saluation in regard of God that promiseth it
we are to be iustified is the obedience of Christ for n Rom. 5.15 by the obedience of one saith the Apostle shall many be made righteous and what is the obedience of Christ but the righteousnesse of Christ The righteousnes of Christ then is the thing to be apprehended and receiued for our iustification And how should we be o 2. Cor. 5.21 made the righteousnesse of God in him but by apprehending and receiuing a righteousnesse which is in him He is called the p Ierem. 23.6 Lord our righteousnes not who maketh vs righteous only but who himselfe is our righteousnes and how should he be our righteousnes but by his righteousnesse Therefore in apprehending and receiuing Christ by faith we apprehend receiue the righteousnes of Christ to be our iustification before God But I need not stand vpon this for seeing through this whole Chapter we shall proue that we receiue no gift of inherent righteousnesse whereby we can be iustified in the sight of God it followeth as is also proued that the righteousnesse which we receiue by faith for iustification is the merite and obedience of Christ imputed vnto vs. Now M. Bishop telleth vs that he can gather a disproofe of all this out of M. Perkins owne explication For saith he if faith created in our hearts be the onely sufficient supernaturall instrument to apprehend the couenant of grace then there needes no Sacraments for that purpose But such disproofes will make men thinke that he is runne not out of his learning onely but also out of his wits If he will apply that answer to M. Perkins it must be thus If faith be the onely instrument whereby we apprehend Christ what neede we anie Sacraments to offer him vnto vs And why did he not as well say what neede there anie word of God to that purpose for his disproofe standeth as good in the one as in the other But M. Perkins setteth both downe as meanes on Gods part to offer Christ vnto vs not as instruments or meanes on our part to apprehend and lay hold of Christ and notably obserueth how the giuing of bread and wine to the seuerall communicants in the Lords Supper is a pledge and signe of Gods particular giuing of Christs bodie and bloud with all his merites to euery of them by faith in him Yea saith M. Bishop but how then are infants iustified who cannot haue any such act of faith I answer him that infants dying are iustified and saued meerely by vertue of the couenant and promise of God to which they are entitled by the calling and faith of their parents and in right whereof they are baptized and entred into the bodie of the Church God hauing sayd q Gen. 17.7 I will be thy God and the God of thy seed For where the offer of the couenant hath no place there the meanes of acceptance cannot be required but by meere and absolute gift righteousnesse and life are giuen and in the Sacrament sealed vnto them who according to the purpose of the grace of God are by inward regeneration made the seed of the faithfull according to the intendment and meaning of the couenant Yet nothing hindereth but that we may conceiue that God calling infants froÌ hence doth in their passage by the power of his Spirit giue them light of vnderstanding and knowledge and faith of Christ as an entrance to that light and life which after by Christ and with him they enioy for euer Who when he will maketh babes and sucklings to praise him and euen in young children sometimes in our sight sheweth the admirable fruit of his grace in their death far beyond that their yeares are capable of As for infants baptized and continuing to elder yeares they are not alwayes iustified in being baptized but God calleth them some sooner some later some at one houre some at another according to his good will and pleasure and then the medicine long before applied beginneth to worke the effect that doth appertaine vnto it 20. W. BISHOP But to returne vnto the sound doctrine of our Catholike faith M. Perkins finds fault with it one that we teach faith to go before iustification whereas by the word of God saith he at the very instant when any man beleeueth first he is then both iustified and sanctified What word of God so teacheth Ioh. 6.54 Marrie this He that beleeueth eateth and drinketh the bodie and bloud of Christ and is alreadie passed from death to life I answer that our Sauiour in that text speaketh not of beleeuing but of eating his bodie in the blessed Sacrament which who so receiueth worthily obtaineth thereby life euerlasting as Christ saith expresly in that place And so this proofe is vaine Now will I proue out of the holy Scriptures that faith goeth before iustification Rom. 10. first by that of S. Paul Whosoeuer calleth on the name of our Lord shall be saued but how shall they call vpon him in whom they do not beleeue how shall they beleeue without a preacher c. Where there is this order set downe to arriue vnto iustification First to heare the preacher then to beleeue afterward to call vpon God for mercie and finally mercie is graunted and giuen in iustification so that prayer goeth betweene faith and iustification This Saint Augustine obserued De praedest sanc cap. 7. De spirit lit cap. 30. when he said Faith is giuen first by which we obtaine the rest And againe By the Law is knowledge of sinne by faith we obtaine grace and by grace our soule is cured If we list to see the practise of this recorded in holy writ reade the second of the Acts and there you shall find how that the people hauing heard S. Peters Sermon were striken to the hearts and beleeued yet were they not straight way iustified but asked of the Apostles what they must do who willed them to do penance and to be baptized in the name of Iesus in remission of their sinnes and then lo they were iustified so that penance and baptisme went betweene their faith and their iustification In like maner Queene Candaces Eunuch hauing heard S. Philip announcing vnto him Christ beleeued that IESVS CHRIST was the Sonne of God no talke in those dayes of applying vnto himselfe Christs righteousnesse yet was he not iustified Act. 8. before descending out of his chariot he was baptized And three dayes passed betwene S. Pauls conuersion and his iustification Act. 9. as doth euidently appeare by the historie of his conuersion The second fault he findeth with our faith is that we take it to be nothing else but an illumination of the mind stirring vp the will which being so moued and helped by grace causeth in the heart many good spirituall motions But this saies M. Perkins is as much to say that dead men onely helped can prepare themselues to their resurrection Not so good Sir but that men spiritually dead being quickned
he will yet this must alwayes stand good that faith in the first instant of the being of it gaspeth vnto God by prayer as the thirstie land and together therewith receiueth blessing of God God tieth not himselfe to M. Bishops order but where he giueth faith in the gift thereof he beginneth with it the whole effect and fruit of faith As there is no flame without light but in the beginning of the flame there is ioyntly a beginning of light and yet in nature the flame is before the light so is there no faith without iustification and sanctification and in the first act of faith ioyntly we are iustified and sanctified albeit in order of nature faith is precedent to them both Thus are the speeches vnderstood that he alledgeth out of Austin and thus they are true and make nothing at all to serue for the purpose to which he alledgeth them No more do those other examples that he bringeth of the baptisme of the people conuerted by Peters sermon of the Eunuch and the Apostle Paul He proueth thereby that there was some time betwixt their beleeuing and their being baptized but proueth not that there was any time betwixt their beleeuing and their being iustified For he must vnderstand that we do not tye the iustification of a man to the act or instant of his baptisme and of all these do affirme that they receiued the sacrament of baptisme as Abraham did the sacrament of circumcision After iustification q Rom. 5.11 he receiued the signe of circumcision as the seale of the righteousnesse of faith which he had when he was vncircumcised Euen so did these receiue the signe of baptisme as the seale of forgiuenesse of sinnes and of the righteousnesse of faith which they had embraced and receiued before they were baptized We reade of Cornelius and his companie that r Act. 10.44.47 the holy Ghost came on them they receiued the holy Ghost when they were yet vnbaptized and doth M. Bishop doubt but that they were iustified Constantine the Emperour was not baptized Å¿ Euseb de vita Constant lib. 4. till neere his death and shall we say that till then he was neuer iustified Valentinian was t Ambros de âbitu Valentia not baptized at all and yet Ambrose doubted not of his iustification Verie idlely therefore and impertinently doth M. Bishop bring these examples and gaineth nothing thereby to his cause I omit his penance in steed of repentance only as a toy that he is in loue withall It is the plaine doctrine of their schooles u Tho. Aqu. p. 3. q. 68. ar 3. in corp Et qui baptizatur pro quibuscunque peccatis noÌ est aliqua satisfactio iniungenda hoc enim esset iniuriam facere passioni morti Christi quasi ipsa non esset suffiâiens ad plenariam satisfactionem pro peccatis baptizatorum that no penance is to be inioyned vnto men in baptisme or that are to be baptized for any sinnes whatsoeuer because that should be a wrong to the passion and death of Christ as if it were not sufficient for full satisfaction for the sinnes of the baptized Seeing therefore S. Peter in the place alledged expresly directeth his speech to them that were to be baptized M. Bishop and his fellowes would forbeare there to translate doing of penance but that poore men they are afraid they shall be all vndone vnlesse they make the Scripture say somewhat by right or by wrong for doing of penance Whether in those dayes there were talke of applying Christs righteousnesse appeareth I hope sufficiently in this discourse The other fault which M. Perkins here findeth with the Romish doctrine is that they make faith nothing else but an illumination of the mind stirring vp the will which being so moued and helped by grace causeth in the heart manie good spirituall motions M. Bishop putteth in by grace onely to delude the Reader because he vnderstandeth hereby no other grace but the same that Pelagius did as before hath bene said But hereof M. Perkins rightly said that it is as much as if they should say that a dead man onely helped can prepare himselfe to his resurrection Not so good Sir saith M. Bishop but that men spiritually dead being quickened by Gods spirit may haue many good motions I answer you say true good Sir when a man is quickened by Gods spirit but can a man be quickened before he be quickned We suppose that the iustifying of a man is the quickening of him and not we onely but you also in the fiue and twentieth section following do hold that our iustification is the translating of vs from death to life Before iustification then we are not quickened nor receiue any infused or inhabitant grace of the spirit of life wherein spirituall life consisteth Therefore to auouch many good spirituall motions before iustification is to auouch grace without grace life without life the spirit without the spirit and a quickening of vs before we are quickened Which because it cannot be it is true that M. Perkins saith that by your doctrine you make a dead man prepare himselfe to his resurrection What you haue said in the question of Free will I hope hath his answer sufficiently in that place 21 W. BISHOP The third difference saith M. Perkins concerning faith is this Page 84. The Papists say that man is iustified by faith yet not by faith alone but also by other vertues as the feare of God hope loue c. The reasons which are brought to maintaine their opinion are of no moment Well let vs heare some of them that the indifdifferent Reader may iudge whether they be of any moment or no. FIRST REASON MAny sinnes are forgiuen her because she hath loued much Luke 7 47. whence they gather that the womaÌ there spokeÌ of had pardoÌ of her sinnes was iustified by loue Answer In this text loue is not made an impulsiue cause to moue God to pardon her sinnes but onely a signe to shew that God had already pardoned them Reply Obserue first that Catholikes do not teach that she was pardoned for loue alone for they vse not as Protestants do when they find one cause of iustification to exclude all or any of the rest But considering that in sundry places of holy writ iustification is ascribed vnto manie seuerall vertues affirme that not faith alone but diuers other diuine qualities concurre vnto iustification and as mention here made of loue excludeth not faith hope repentance and such like so in other places where faith is onely spoken of there hope charity and the rest must not also be excluded This sinner had assured beliefe in Christes power to remit sinnes and great hope in his mercy that he would forgiue them great sorrow and detestation of her sinne also she had that in such an assembly did so humbly prostrate her selfe at Christes feete to wash them with her teares and to wipe them with the haires
of her head And as she had true repentance of her former life so no doubt but she had also a firme purpose to leade a new life So that in her conuersion all those vertues met together which we hold to concurre to iustification and among the rest the preheminence worthily is giuen to loue as to the principall disposition She loued our Sauiour as the fountaine of all mercies and goodnesse and therefore accounted her precious ointments best bestowed on him yea and the humblest seruice and most affectionate she could offer him to be all too little and nothing answerable to the inward burning charity which she bare him Which noble affection of hers towards her diuine Redeemer no question was most acceptable vnto him as by his owne word is most manifest for he said That many sinnes were forgiuen her because she loued much But M. Perkins saith that her loue was no cause that moued Christ to pardon her but onely a signe of pardon giuen before which is so contrary to the text that a man not past all shame would blush once to affirme it First Christ saith expresly that it was the cause of the pardon Because she had loued much Secondly that her loue went before is as plainly declared both by mention of the time past Because she hath loued and by the euidence of her fact of washing wiping and anointing his feete for the which saith our Sauiour then already performed Many sinnes are forgiuen her So that here can be no impediment of beleeuing the Catholike Doctrine so clearlie deliuered by the holy Ghost vnlesse one will be so blindly led by our new Maisters that he will beleeue no words of Christ be they neuer so plaine otherwise then it please the Ministers to expound them And this much of the first of those reasons which M. Perkins said were of no moment R. ABBOT I wished thee gentle Reader before to obserue that which here plainly thou seest that by the Romish doctrine there is one faith hope charity before iustification which must prepare a man in iustification to receiue and is the cause for which in iustification he doth receiue another a faith which is the cause why God endueth him with faith a hope which is the cause for which God endueth him with hope a charity which is the cause for which God bestoweth vpon him the gift of charity A strange doctrine and the same for which Pelagius was of old condemned a August epist 46. that vpon our merits the grace of God is bestowed vpon vs. M. Bishop will say that they make no merits of these yet he himselfe knoweth that their schooles do make them merits ex congruo though not ex condigno merits which are of force to moue God and which it is conuenient that God should respect though they do not fully deserue grace And this merit b Bellarm. de iustif lib. 1. cap. 17. Fides suo quodaÌ modo meretur remissionem peccatorum iustificat per moduÌ dispositionis ac meriti Bellarmine himselfe affirmeth as before was said But let vs know why they account them not properly merits The reason indeede is because they say they are not the effects of any infused grace for they make them intrinsecally the acts onely of mans free will though adioyning the shew of a counterfeit grace which doth as it were put a hand vnder the arme to helpe lift it vp for the acting thereof Yet M. Bishop at randon not knowing what he saith calleth them diuine qualities contrary to the doctrine of his owne schooles For if faith hope and charity before iustification be diuine qualities and essentially the works of grace there can nothing hinder but that they should be as properly meritorious as those infused graces wherein they affirme iustification to consist But now he must vnderstand that the Fathers did not take merit so strictly as that they giue him way to shift off from himselfe the assertion of Pelagius They vnderstood it so largely as that c August epist 105. Si excusatio iusta est quisquis ea vtitur non gratia sed merito liberatur if a man can but plead a iust excuse for his deliuerance he that vseth it is not deliuered by grace but by merit if there be but d Cont. 2. epist Pelag. lib 1. cap. 19. Pro meritis videlicet voluntatis bonae ac sic gratia nö sit gratia sed sit illud c. gratiam Dei secundum merita nostra dari a good will before grace then grace is not grace but is giuen vpon merit And if he will say that they affirme not any good will before grace let him remember that Pelagius affirmed such a preuenting grace as they do but S. Austine professeth to know no grace but iustifying grace as hath bene shewed e Cha. 1. sect 5. before so that if before iustifying grace there be any good will or good worke then the grace of God is not freely giuen but by merit according to the doctrine of Pelagius Yea Bellarmine himselfe confesseth that the f Bellarm. de grat li. arbit lib. 6. cap. 5. Gratiam secundum merita nostra dari intelligum patres cùm aliquid sit proprijs viribus etiamsi nân sit meritum de condigno ratione cuius datur gratia Fathers do vnderstand the grace of God to be giuen by merits when any thing is done by our owne strength in respect whereof grace is giuen though the same be not any merit de condigno of condignity or worth Such are the faith hope and charity that they teach before iustification which therefore as I haue said are denied to be merits de condigno because they proceede from our owne strength Yea say they but not without the helpe of God But so Pelagius also said as we haue shewed in the place before quoted in the question of Free wil and therefore in that they say nothing to free themselues from saying that which the Fathers condemned in Pelagius that according to our merits the grace of God is bestowed vpon vs. And this M. Bishop will proue by the example of the woman who in the Pharisees house washed the feete of Christ of whom our Sauiour saith g Luk. 7.47 Manie sinnes are forgiuen her because she hath loued much She was iustified therefore saith he because of her loue M. Perkins answereth that that because importeth not any impulsiue cause of the forgiuenesse of her sinnes but onely a signe thereof as if Christ had said It is a token that much hath bene forgiuen her because she loueth much But M. Bishop like to bad disposed persons who face the matter most boldly where their cause is woorst saith that this is so contrary to the text that a man not past all shame would blush once to affirme it The text of it owne accord yeeldeth this construction and no other The creditour forgiueth to one fiue hundred talents to the other fifty whether of
as it were the soule of faith Now no man is ignorant but it is the soule that vseth the body as an instrument euen so then it is charity that vseth faith as her instrument and inferiour and not contrariwise which S. Paul confirmeth at large in a whole chapter prouing charity to be a more excellent gift then faith or any other concluding with these words 1. Cor. 13. Now there remaineth faith hope and charity these three but the greater of these is charity Whereupon S. Augustine resolueth thus Nothing but charity maketh faith it selfe auailable Li. de Trinit cap. 18. for faith saith he may be without charity but it cannot be auailable without it So that first you see that charity is the mouer and commaunder and faith as her instrument and handmayd Now that in the worke of iustification it hath the chiefe place may be thus proued I demaund whether that worke of iustification by faith be done for the loue of God and to his honour or no If not as it is void of charity so it is a wicked and sinfull act no iustification but infection our owne interest being the principall end of it now if it comprehend and conclude Gods glory and seruice in it that is if they apply Christs righteousnesse to them to glorifie God thereby then hath charity the principall part therein for the directing of all to the honour and glory of God is the proper office and action of charity All this reason that charity both concurreth to iustification and that as principall S. Augustine confirmeth in these words The house of God that is a righteous and godly soule Serm. 22. de vârbis Apostol hath for his foundation faith hope is the walles of it but charity is the roofe and perfection of it R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop was loth to trouble himselfe too much with M. Perkins answer who truly obserueth the difference betwixt faith charity that the proper act of faith is to take receiue to vs the proper act of loue to giue our selues forth to others Seeing theÌ that iustificatioÌ is a thing to be receiued the same must needs be performed properly by faith but not by charity because charity is no instrumeÌt to receiue But yet faith receiuing all of God vseth charity as the meanes to make returne of it selfe to God againe and by charity as a working hand performeth all the duties commaunded of God to the honour and glory of God This therefore the Apostle intendeth in the place alledged that faith hauing alone iustified vs by receiuing the gift of righteousnesse which is by the merit of Iesus Christ doth not stay there but goeth forth by charity to serue God to serue one another and to shew our selues thankfull vnto God And wonder it were that the Apostle hauing before professedly disputed the matter of iustification and referring the same wholy to faith should here crosse all that he hath before said and tell vs that not onely faith but loue also must concurre to make vp our iustification before God Marke it well gentle Reader that where the Apostle purposely speaketh of the meanes of iustification M. Bishop can finde nothing to proue that we are iustified by loue nothing pleaded but onely faith but here where the Apostle describeth only the condition of the faith by which we are iustified here he will finde somewhat whereby to plead against the Apostles former doctrine yea and will proue that loue hath not onely a part but the chiefest part in our iustification and that faith is rather the instrument or handmaid of charity How much is he beholding to his Maister Bellarmine that hath taught him such a trick and furnished him with a deuice which neuer any Father Greeke or Latine neuer any translatour could light vpon till his admirable wit had found it out We may well thinke that such a head could not but deserue a Cardinals hat Forsooth the text proueth that life and motion is giuen to faith by charity But how so a Bellarm. de iustific lib. 2. cap. 4. Marry the Greeke word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã being passiue doth plainly shew that faith is moued led and guided by charity But what must we M. Bishop vpon Bellarmines word and yours take this without any further authority or warrant so to do Indeede it is true that the Greeke word sometimes is taken passiuely but by the Apostle is more often vsed in the actiue signification and in this place was neuer before by any Father Greeke or Latine taken otherwise Yea the spite is that the vulgar Latine interpreter to whom they are tied by the Councell of Trent crosseth this deuice for he readeth as we do Fides quae per charitatem operatur faith which worketh by loue But there is a tricke to salue that to for saith Bellarmine b Jllud operatur passiuè accipiendum est non aââiuè the word operatur must be taken passiuely not actiuely Now what blockheads were the Diuines of Rhemes that could not see so much or would omit so materiall a proofe against the heretikes for they haue translated as we do faith which worketh by loue But they were bashfull they thought Bellarmine could carie out the matter with his name and countenance but it would be condemned for a great fault in them Better it is for some man to steale a horse then for another to looke ouer the hedge They knew well that euerie child would crie out vpon them for lewd men if they had translated operatur passiuely in as much as neither their owne interpreter in any other place nor any other Latine author hath euer vsed it in that sort Againe they saw that a very grosse and palpable absurdity would thereupon haue ensued which on their owne part cannot be denied For if they had translated faith which is wrought by loue then it would haue followed that loue by which faith is wrought must needes be before faith whereas they all acknowledge that faith hath the first being according to that which M. Bishop a little c Sect. 20. Ex August de praedest sanct ca. 7. before alledged out of Austine faith is giuen first by which we obtaine the rest Which being a principle in diuinitie and accorded on both sides they could not tell how to make good if they should haue said that faith is wrought by loue Now M. Bishop though for the rest he would aduenture vpon his Maisters credit yet durst not follow him so farre as to translate operatur passiuely but onely beateth about the bush and telleth vs that the Greeke sheweth that faith is moued led and guided by charity Wherein he doth wrong to the Rhemists his country-men to whom for countries sake he should haue done that honour to stand to their translation Yea and he abuseth his Reader in that he doth not directly translate the place which if he had done he durst not translate it to giue that meaning that
darknesse and despaire As for vs we hold it a verie mad conclusion to say Except ye repent ye shall perish therefore we are iustified by repentance We rather see by repentance that we haue nothing in our selues whereby to be iustified and therefore learne to relye wholly vpon Christ that we may be iustified by faith in him The next place that he alledgeth is a most notable falsification We are translated saith he from death to life because we loue the brethren whereas the words of S. Iohn are k 1. Ioh. 3.14 We know that we are translated from death to life because we loue the brethren making our loue of the brethren a signe whereby we know that we are translated from death to life not the cause for which we are translated froÌ death to life And in this sort doth S. Austin expouÌd it l Aug. in epist 1 Ioan. tract 5. Nos scimus Quid nos scimus Quia traÌsiuimus de moâte ad vitam Vnde scimus Quiae dâligimus fratres We know What do we know That we haue passed from death to life Whereby do we know it Because we loue the brethren Which is verie plaine also by comparing the teÌses in which the Apostle expresseth the one the other For he nameth our translating from death to life in the m ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. preterperfect tense as a thing before done but our loue towardes the brethren in the n ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã present tense as a thing which now we do We know that we haue passed or God hath translated vs from death to life because we loue the brethren But our louing the brethren now cannot be the cause of that that God hath done before It is therfore a token onely whereby we are to know what God hath done and to take it as M. Bishop doth is the doctrine of Pelagius that the grace of God is giuen vnto vs according to our merits as before is shewed The next place is of Baptisme as he saith o Ioh. 3.5 Except a man be borne againe of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdome of God But we can hardly yeeld that this place is precisely to be vnderstood of baptisme because it is not true that except a man be baptized he shall not enter into the kingdome of God but it is infallibly true which Christ saith that except a man be borne againe of water and of the holy Ghost he shal not enter into the kingdom of God Verie wel is it obserued by Bernard that our Sauiour saith p Bernard epist 77. Vide ne fortè ob hoc saluator cùm diceret Qui crediâerit baptizâtus fuerit saluâs erit cautè vigââantèr noÌ repetâerit Qui verò baptizâtus non fuerit sed tantum qui verò inquit non crediderit cândemnabitur He that beleeueth and is baptized shall be saued but doth not say he that is not baptized but onely he that beleeueth not shall be damned The thiefe was not baptized vpon the crosse but yet Christ saith q Luk. 23.43 This day shalt thou be with me in paradise Valentinian the Emperour was not baptized and yet Ambrose saith r Ambr. de âbit Valentin Certè quia poposâit accepit because he desired it he receiued it S. Austin acknowledgeth as touching them that are of elder yeares and do beleeue Å¿ Aug. de bapt cont Donat. lib 4 cap. 22. Tunc impletur inuisibilitèr cùm mysteriuÌ baptismi non contemptus religionis sed articuluâ necessitatis excludit that baptisme is inuisibly fulfilled in them when not any contempt of religion but a point of necessitie excludeth the mysterie of it Which dispensation we cannot coÌceiue what warrant he had to giue to elder yeares that should not make the same good to infants also when the faith of the parents by which they are interested to baptisme craueth the same for them and only by preuention inuincible they are depriued of their desire it being deemed a thing t Bernard epist. 77. Dignum est et ad Dei spectat benignitatem vt quibus fideÌ aeâas denegat propriaÌ gratia prodesse concedat alienaÌ belonging to the mercifulnes of God that grace should yeeld that the faith of others should be auailable for them to whom years yet do not yeeld to beleeue themselues But hereby it appeareth that that speech of Christ is not simply to be vnderstood of baptisme because then baptisme should be simply necessarie to saluation both in old and yong Yet admitting it to be meant of baptisme we say his argument is verie vaine and to say baptisme is necessarie to saluation therefore we are not iustified by faith alone is all one as if he should say It is necessarie to saluation to be iustified by faith alone therefore we are not iustified by faith alone For baptisme as I said before is u Rom. 4 11. the seale of the righteousnesse of faith wherein God setteth before vs and by which he giueth and sealeth and assureth vnto vs the washing away of our sinnes and the accepting of vs for iust and righteous by the merit and bloudshedding of Iesus Christ onely by faith in him It is not then x 1. Pet. 3.21 the washing away of the filth of the flesh that is the outward ceremonie for which baptisme is necessarie to saluation but the spirituall grace which is iustification by faith alone This God offereth in baptisme and we by faith receiue the same but we shall do amisse to put baptisme it selfe in place of that that is offered thereby We eate the meate out of the dishes and vessels wherein it is set before vs but it is absurd thereupon to say that we are fed by the dishes also and not onely by the meate It is Christ onely who in the word and Sacraments is set forth vnto vs to be our righteousnesse and by faith only we therein receiue him to be our righteousnesse and euerlasting life but absurd it is hereupon to say that the Sacraments theÌselues are things wherein our righteousnesse doth consist Now therefore except a man in baptisme be borne againe becoming a member of Christ and the child of God through forgiuenesse of sinnes onely by faith in him by vertue therof receiuing the spirit of adoption and being thereby quickened to newnesse of life to walke therein he cannot as Christ saith enter into the kingdome of God And hereby it appeareth that his other place as touching walking in newnesse of life is impertinently alledged the words importing no more then what we teach that newnesse of life is alwayes and necessarily a consequent fruite of iustification though neuer any precedent cause thereof But the place of greatest moment for their part was that that M. Perkins propounded for his obiectioÌ We are saued by hope As touching this place M. Bishop saith that M. Perkins saith neither yea nor nay but
but what we also teach as hath bene declared there 31. W. BISHOP The third Difference of Iustification is howe farre foorth good workes are required thereto Pag. 91. Master Perkins saith That after the doctrine of the Church of Rome there be two kinds of Iustification the first when of a sinner one is made iust the which is of the meere mercie of God through Christ without any merit of man onely some certaine good deuotions of the soule as the acts of Faith Feare Hope Charitie Repentance go before to prepare as it were the way and to make it more fit to receiue that high grace of Iustification The second Iustification is when a iust man by the exercise of vertues is made more iust as a child new borne doth by nouriture grow day by day bigger of this increase of grace Catholikes hold good workes to be the meritorious cause M. Perkins first granteth that good workes do please God and haue a temporall reward 2. That they are necessarie to saluation not as the cause therof but either as markes in a way to direct vs towards saluation or as fruites and signes of righteousnes to declare one to be iust before men all which he shuffleth in rather to delude our arguments then for that they esteem much of good workes which they hold to be no better then deadly sinnes The maine difference then betweene vs consisteth in this whether good workes be the true cause indeed of the increase of our righteousnes which we call the second iustification or whether they be onely fruites signes or markes of it R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop it seemeth did not well like that M. Perkins should do the Church of Rome that wrong to make her better then indeed she is for whereas he had said that they exclude all workes from the first iustification and confesse it to be wholly of grace M. Bishop reformeth his error by adding that certaine good deuotions of the soule as the acts of faith feare hope charitie repentance go before to prepare the way to iustification all which it hath bene his drift hitherto to proue to be properly and truly the causes thereof Now as touching the point in hand M. Perkins obserueth three things accorded vnto by vs in the recitall whereof M. Bishop vseth his wonted guise of deceit and fraud First we graunt that good workes do please God and are approued of him and therefore haue reward which we intend both temporall and eternall but he mentioneth it as if we affirmed no other but only temporall reward Secondly we say that they are necessarie to saluation not as causes either conseruant adiuuant or procreant but either as consequent fruites of that faith which is necessarie to saluation or as markes in a way or rather the way it selfe leading to saluation Thirdly we say that the righteous man is in some sort iustified by workes as S. Iames saith that Abraham was iustified by workes that is declared and made manifest to be iust And this he acknowledgeth to be in some sort also before God for that it pleaseth God by our workes to take the sight and knowledge of our faith albeit we forbeare so to speake both for auoiding confusion in this disputation of iustification properly vnderstood in the sight of God and also for that the same phrase in the Apostles writing of that point sounds another way This last M. Bishop here coÌcealeth fearing lest it should preuent him of some of his cauils but that which he doth alledge he saith is shuffled in rather to delude their arguments then that we esteeme much of good workes which he saith we hold to be no better then deadly sinnes Thus the glozing sycophant still playeth his part still peruerting sometimes our saying sometimes our meaning Where he cannot oppugne that which we teach he will make his Reader beleeue that we meane not as we say We see no such difference betwixt them and vs betwixt their liues and ours but that we may well be thought to esteeme good workes as much as they do We would be ashamed to be such as their stories haue described their Popes and Cardinals and Bishops nay as M. Bishop and his fellowes haue described the Iesuites to be Whereas he saith that we account good workes no better then deadly sinnes he very impudently falsifieth that which we say We affirme the good workes of the faithfull to be glorious and acceptable in Gods sight for Christs sake being done in his name and offered vpon the altar of faith in him The imperfection thereof is accidentall and taketh not away the nature of a good worke but onely maketh it an vnperfect good worke which imperfection notwithstanding were sufficient to cause the worke to be reiected if in rigor and extremity God should weigh the same which he doth not but mercifully pardoneth it for Christs sake Seeing then the blemish set aside we acknowledge it to remaine intirely a good worke being the worke of the grace of God to be accepted and rewarded of God with what conscience doth this brabler say that of good workes we make no better then deadly sinnes As touching the question propounded by him it consisteth of two parts the one of the increase of righteousnesse the other of the cause of that increase We say that the righteousnesse whereby we are to be iustified before God admitteth no increase because it must be perfect righteousnesse for perfect righteousnesse consisteth in indiuisibili if any thing be taken from it it is not perfect and if it be not perfect it cannot iustifie before God Now by M. Bishop it appeareth that the inherent righteousnesse which they say is infused into a man in his first iustification is vnperfect because it remaineth afterwards to be increased Of the same inherent iustice we also make no question but that there is an increase thereof to be expected and laboured for and that we are therein to thriue and grow from day to day but hence we argue that it is not that that can make a man iust in the sight of God for the defect that is thereof is not by a meere priuation but by admixtion of the contrarie a August Epist 29. ex vitio est it is by reason of some corruption as S. Austin saith Yea b Idem de perf iustit Peccatum est cùm non est charitas quae esse debet vel minor est quà m debet there is sinne as he againe saith when charitie that is inhernt iustice is lesse then it ought to be But where sinne is a man cannot be said to be iust in the sight of God Therefore by the Popish imagined first iustification a man cannot be iustified in the sight of God no nor by their second iustification because it neuer groweth to that but that it is still capable of increase It remaineth therefore that we are iust in the sight of God onely by the righteousnes of Christ which is without increase being
iustification yet the very habite of iustice is with them a thing meerely infused of God and not the act of man himselfe Therfore as touching the very habite of iustice a man must be onely passiue not actiue in the same sence as M. Perkins speaketh onely a receiuer and not at all a worker thereof But now he telleth vs that the iustification which they so teach wrought and procured by hope feare loue c. excludeth all boasting as well as ours But that cannot be for the Apostle telleth vs that l Rom. 3.27 boasting or reioycing is not excluded by the law of workes but by the law of faith So long as any thing is attributed to our workes in this behalfe we haue somewhat to glorie in as that by our workes and for our workes sake we haue obtained that which we haue The Apostle saith that m Rom. 4.2 if Abraham were iustified by workes he had whereof to glorie or reioyce and therefore it is not true that iustification being attributed to workes we haue nothing whereof to reioyce or boast our selues Neither doth M. Bishops explanation helpe the matter at all that we cannot boast of those preparations as though they came of our selues because we see the Pharisee in the Gospell to glorie of that which notwithstanding he confesseth to be the gift of God n Luc. 18.11 August in Psal 31. Cùm dicebat gratias tibi fatebatur ab illo se ââcepisse quod habebat Hieron aduer Pelag li. 3 Jlle gratias agit Deo quia ipsius misericordia non sit sicut caeteri homines c. O God I thanke thee saith he that I am not as other men are But by his words of these good inspirations descending froÌ the Father of lights he doth but abuse his Reader dealing onely colourably as Pelagius the hereticke was wont to do For they make God the occasion only and not the true cause of them They make him externally an assistant to them but the internall producing and proper originall of them is of the Free will of man which is the cause why they affirme these works that go before iustificatioÌ not to be meritorious as they say those are that follow after For if they made them essentially the workes of grace they could haue no colour to attribute merit to the one and to deny it to the other Yea M. Bishop himselfe apparantly excludeth them from being the works of grace in that presently after he calleth the grace of iustification the first grace as being ignorant of the language of their owne schools wheras these workes are said to go before to prepare vs for the receiuing of iustifying grace In these works of preparation therfore there is apparantly somwhat attributed to man wherof he hath to glorie in himselfe for that howsoeuer being helped of God yet he doth somewhat himselfe for which God bestoweth vpon him the gift of iustification Yea M. Bishop plainly ascribeth to him somewhat wherof to reioyce in that he ascribeth it to him to consent to the grace of God Yea but a man saith he can no more vaunt of consent to these workes then of consent to faith true and therefore if either way he haue any thing of himselfe he hath somewhat whereof to boast M. Bishop therefore buildeth vp his owne glorie in both so acknowledging the grace of God both in faith and workes as that all is nothing but by the free wil of man Now we on the other side together with the auncient Church o Fulgen. ad Monim lib. 1. Nullatenus sinimus immo salâbriter prohibemus tam in nostra fide quà m in nostrâ opere tanquam nostrum nobis aliquid vindicare suffer not nay we vtterly forbid that either in our faith or in our worke we challenge to our selues any thing as our owne But in the iustification of faith boasting or reioycing is excluded not onely for that faith and all consent of faith is wholly the gift of God but also for that to faith nothing at all is ascribed for it selfe but onely to Christ who is receiued thereby and is it selfe a meere acknowledgement that we haue all that we haue of the soueraigne bountie and mercy of God only for his owne sake not for any thing that is in vs. Now therfore we hence argue against M. Bishops iustification that that is the onely true doctrine of iustification by which mans boasting or reioycing is excluded By the doctrine of iustification by workes mans boasting is not excluded Therfore the doctrine of iustification by works is not the true doctrine of iustification As for his comparison of a man mired in a lake and content that another should helpe him out it sauoureth very strongly of the stinke of the Pelagians leauing in a man both will and power for the helping of himselfe whereas the Scripture affirming vs to be p Ephe. 2.1 dead in trespasses and sinnes bereaueth vs altogether of all either will or power whereby we should yeeld any furtherance to the sauing of our selues But the same is also otherwise vnfit because the conuersion of a man is an acceptance of a seruice and an entrance into it wherein he is to bestow his labour and paines to deserue well as M. Bishop saith at his hands whose seruant he is and by couenant to merit heauen Hereto he worketh partly by grace as he saith and partly by free will and therefore hauing merited and deserued he hath somewhat in respect of himselfe wherein to glorie and reioyce whereas the course that God taketh is q Bernard Cant. Ser. 50. Vt sâiamââ in dâe illa quia non ex operibus iustitiae quae feâimus nos sed pro misericordia sua saluos nos fecit that we may know at that day as S. Bernard saith that not for the workes of righteousnesse which we haue done but of his owne mercie he hath saued vs. For this cause albeit he could haue perfected vs at once and euen at the first haue reformed vs to full and vnspotted righteousnesse to serue him accordingly yet hath he thought good to leaue vs groning vnder a burden of sinne and vnder many infirmities and imperfections in the seruice that we do vnto him that the sight of our foule feet may still pull downe our Peacockes tayle and we may alwaies fully know that we are to giue all the honour and glorie of our saluation to God alone But M. Bishop telleth vs that all glorying and boasting is not forbidden and we acknowledge the same for else the Apostle wold not haue said r 1. Cor. 1.31 He that glorieth let him glorie in the Lord. Our glorying or reioycing must be with the acknowledgement of his goodnesse and to the magnifying of him and not of our selues He that exalteth himselfe as the Pharisee did in that which he confesseth to be the gift of God reioyceth against God But M. Bishop offendeth both wayes he attributeth not all vnto God
illud esse consequens video vt quâlemlibes vel quantamlibet in hac vita potuerimus definire iustitiam nullus in ea sit hominum qui nullum habeat omninò peccatum Such iust men liuing by faith haue no need to say forgiue vs our trespasses do coÌuince it to be false which is writteÌ No maÌ liuing shall be iustified in the sight of God and that If we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues and that there is not a man that sinneth not and that There is not a man iust vpon the earth that doth good and sinneth not But because these sayings cannot be false it followeth that whatsoeuer or how great soeuer we can define righteousnesse in this life there is not a man therein that is without sinne Where very plainely he disclaimeth the assertion of any righteousnesse in this life in which that may be found that M. Bishop speaketh of namely not to sinne And surely had not this man a face of brasse and an iron conscience he would not in these dayes of light affirme a thing or seeme to affirme it so contrarie to the perpetuall doctrine and confession of the Church As for his distinction of veniall sinnes I haue before shewed it to be friuolous and vaine and the same God willing shall appeare further in the Section next saue one 46. W. BISHOP To these reasons taken partly out of the Scriptures and partly out of the record of Antiquitie let vs ioyne one or two drawne from the absurditie of our aduersaries doctrine which teacheth euery good worke of the righteous man to be infected with mortall sinne which being graunted it would follow necessarily that no good worke in the world were to be done vnder paine of damnation Rom. 7. thus No mortall sinne is to be done vnder paine of damnation for the wages of sinne is death but all good workes are stained with mortall sinne ergo no good worke is to be done vnder paine of damnation It followeth secondly that euery man is bound to sinne deadly for all men are bound to performe the duties of the first and second table but euery performance of any duty is necessarily linked with some mortall sinne therefore euery man is bound to commit many mortall sins and consequently to be damned These are holy and comfortable conclusions yet inseparable companions if not sworne brethren of the Protestants doctrine Now let vs heare what arguments they bring against this Catholike verity R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop hath learned from his fellow M. Wright to strike the matter dead at one blow Albeit it is more likely that these arguments going so currant amongst them were agreed vpon at Wisbich or some other like place in some solemne assembly and consultation where the graue and reuerend companie of the Seculars laid their wits together to giue the Protestants some ineuitable and deadly blow It is hard to thinke that one or two mens wits should serue to contriue such a matter as here is against vs. Now if some young Sophister of the Vniuersitie had stood by and smiling at them had said that it was pitty that they good old men should be troubled with making of Syllogisms who had forgotten of how many termes a Syllogisme doth consist would they not think you haue startled at the hearing of it and thought themselues exceedingly disgraced by a boy Surely the arguments here set downe are such as that if a boy in our Vniuersities should make the like in earnest he shold be thought iustly to deserue the rod and yet these are they who take vpon them as if we were to say vnto them a Iob. 12.2 Because you onely are men wisedome must dye with you He will proue by our doctrine that no good worke is to be done vnder paine of damnation And how forsooth no mortall sinne is to be done vnder paine of damnation but all good workes are stained with mortall sinne ergo c. Did not his head serue him to know that it is an error in arguing when a Syllogisme consisteth ex quatuor terminis We haue mortall sinne in the Maior proposition and in the Minor stained with mortall sinne If he would haue kept the course of argument he must haue said thus No mortall sinne is to be done vnder paine of damnation but all good workes are mortall sinnes ergo c. Which if he had said the absurditie of his minor proposition had easily appeared because euery man could haue discerned that good workes though they haue some aspersion or touch of our corruption yet do not thereby become sinnes no more then gold by his drosse becometh earth or iron no more then white linnen for some spot or staine is to be accounted blacke haire-cloth no more then the day is to be called night because it hath but ouercast and darksome light S. Hierome telleth vs that b Hier. aduers Pelag. lib. 2. Quando dicit nullas tenebras in Dei lumine reperiri ostendit omnia aliorum lumina sorde aliqua maculari Denique Apostoli appellantur lux mundi sed non est scriptum quod in Apostolorum luce nullae sint tenebrae When S. Iohn saith that there is no darkenesse found in the light of God he sheweth that all others lights are blotted with some vncleannesse The Apostles saith he are called the light of the world but it is not written that there was no darknesse in the Apostles light And what will M. Bishop conclude that because there was some darknes in the Apostles light therefore their light was darknesse and not light If he will not so conclude then let him say that it followeth not that good workes are sins albeit in our doing of them they receiue some blemish and staine of sinne But to shew vs somewhat more of the sweat and superfluitie of his learning he hath added another argument of the like feature to proue that by our doctrine euery man is bound to sinne deadly And why so because all men are bound to performe the duties of the first and second Table and euery performance thereof is necessarily linked with mortall sinne Which is as if a man should reason thus A lame man is bound by law to come to the Church but he cannot come to the Church but he must halt therefore he is bound by law to halt M. Bishop is bound to pay a man twenty pounds but he cannot tell the mony without soyling his fingers therefore he is bound to soile his fingers He can no way inferre his conclusion but by a sophisticall cauillation which the Logicians call fallaciam accidentis whereby in the conclusion he inferreth that of the accident which in the premisses is referred onely to the subiect his argument by that meanes wholly without forme and offending in the like sort as the other did Bring it into his due fashion and euery child then shal see that his proofe is most ridiculous and absurd For to bring in his conclusion
though any do by occasion name charitie for the wedding garment as men by diuers occasions speake diuersly thereof yet no man was euer so absurd as expresly to exclude true faith from being one part of it as M. Bishop doth And if any do speake sometimes of a faith without charitie and fruites of good workes they speake thereof as we do as being onely a bastard faith a false and fained faith an idle outward receiuing and professing of the faith or doctrine of faith not that true faith which the Apostle speaketh of to which he assigneth our iustification in the sight of God The like foolish argument he maketh from the i Mat. 25.1 foolish virgins he may well call it the like because indeed they are all naught They had faith saith he true but they had not true faith they had not that faith which the Apostle speaketh of wherein our iustification is affirmed to consist For of that faith the Protestants say truly that it cannot be lost because God hath made vnto it the promise of eternall life and therefore Christ prayeth for it that it may neuer faile They had a forme or shew of faith as they had k 2. Tim. 3.5 a forme or shew of godlinesse but neuer knew the power thereof His tale of perfection is an idle dreame as we shall see hereafter if God will As for them that apply this text to the profession of virginitie they do apparent wrong therein the very text it selfe giuing to vnderstand that therby is described the kingdome of heauen by which in these parables euery where is vnderstood the whole state of the outward and militant Church professing to seeke the kingdome of heauen To take it otherwise is to offer violence to a very plaine and manifest text Vnder the name of Virgins all are comprehended who by profession and promise of faith and baptism haue vndertaken to be l 2. Cor. 11.2 virgins that is entire and faithfull vnto Christ By the lampe is imported that outward profession to men the oyle signifieth true faith and a good conscience inwardly to God Howsoeuer the lampes of foolish virgins of idle and emptie professors giue them credit with men so as that they are not barred from the companie and conuersation of the wise yet in the sleepe of death they shall go out and shall not serue to light them to go to God then shall they too late seeke and wish for that the oportunitie whereof before they carelesly omitted Then shall they cry Lord Lord as the other did before but it shall not boot them to cry when the doores shall be shut against them Thus doth Christ giue the same to vnderstand of hypocrites in generall which before he had done of hypocriticall and false teachers and what he saith here he expresseth more fully by the other Euangelist that when they shall cry m Luk. 13.25 Lord Lord open to vs and Christ shall answer vnto them I know you not whence you are then they shall begin to say We haue eaten and drunke in thy presence and thou hast taught in our streets Where we see them pleading that they haue heard Christ preach and they haue bene partakers of his Sacraments but they cannot plead for themselues that they haue beleeued in him therfore he shall answer theÌ again I tell you I know ye not whence ye are depart from me ye workers of iniquitie His fourth argument is of n Ioh. 12.42 many amongst the chiefe rulers of the Iewes who beleeued in Christ but yet confessed him not because of the Pharisees lest they should be cast out of the synagogue for they loued the praise of men more then the prayse of God Here we see faith indeed as he saith but we see no necessitie that faith should be vnderstood here to be without charitie Here is weake faith and weake loue too much yet entangled and tyed in the nets of carnall and earthly respects but he hath no ground to affirme that there is no loue Yes saith he for charity prefers the glory and seruice of God before al things in the world whereas these men were afraid to confesse Christ Indeed o 1. Ioh. 4 18. perfect charitie casteth out all feare and perfect faith breedeth perfect charity but there is a beginning of true faith and loue which being yet little and weake and hauing not yet ouermastered all worldly regards is for a time timorous and fearefull to confesse Christ yet groweth to strength by litle and little till it resolue to cleaue vnto him with losse of all other things Such was the faith of Nicodemus and Ioseph of Arimathea who were two of these chiefe rulers the one p Ioh. 3.2 coming to Iesus by night the other a disciple also q Cap. 19.38 but secretly for feare of the Iewes who yet afterwards being stirred vp with those things which they beheld saw in the death of Christ more boldly shewed themselues in his behalfe and in the end forsooke all for the following of his seruice In the meane time they shewed loue also to Christ though weakly r Cap. 7.50.51 the one in speaking in his behalfe Å¿ Luk. 23.51 the other in withholding his consent from the counsell and deed that was acted against Christ both in yeelding themselues to be his disciples and to be instructed by him Such was the faith and loue of the Apostles themselues who were euery while affrighted and in his greatest distresse t Mat. 26.56 all forsooke him and fled But he that u Cap. 12.20 breaketh not the brused reed nor quencheth the smoaking flaxe till he bring foorth iudgement into victorie wheresoeuer he seeth true faith and vnfained loue though yet weake and feeble watereth and cherisheth and vndersetteth the same that it may grow to strength x Aug. in Ioan. tract 53. Videte quemadmodum Euangelista notauerit improbauerit quâsdam ques tamen in eum credidisse dixit qui in hoc ingressu fidei si proficerent amorem quoque humanae gloriae proficiendo superarent The Euangelist saith S. Austin noteth and reproueth some of whom notwithstanding he saith that they did beleeue in Christ who if they did grow forward in this beginning of faith wold by growing forward ouercome the loue of humane glory which the Apostle had ouercome who saith God forbid that I should reioyce but in the crosse of our Lord Iesus Christ This growth there is wheresoeuer there is true and vnfained faith and because it cannot grow without loue it groweth to the ouercoming of all contrarie loue til it cleaue wholy vnto God Thus the Gospel expresly teacheth concerning some of these chief rulers and we cannot doubt but that the like befell in the rest of them that did truly beleeue in Christ They beleeued but their faith was weake and their loue was according to their faith til increase of faith brought further strength of loue and they learned by faith
faith concerning which it is said of Abraham f Gen. 15.6 He beleeued the Lord and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse there followeth alwayes charitie as a necessary and infallible consequent and companion thereof 53. W. BISHOP The Protestants bold asseuerations that they cannot be parted are great but their proofes very slender and scarce worth the disprouing The first He that hath not care of his owne hath denied his faith 1. Tim. 5. therefore faith includeth that good worke of prouiding for our owne Answer That faith there seemes to signifie not that faith whereby we beleeue all things reuealed or the Protestants the certaintie of their saluation but for fidelitie and faithfull performance of that which we haue promised in Baptisme which is to keepe all Gods commandements one of the which is to prouide for our children and for them that we haue charge of so that he who hath no such care ouer his owne charge hath denied his faith that is violated his promise in Baptisme There is also another ordinary answer supposing faith to be taken there for the Christian beliefe to wit that one may deny his faith two wayes either in flat denying any article of faith or by doing some thing that is contrarie to the doctrine of our faith Now he that hath no care of his owne doth not deny any article of his faith but committeth a fact contrary to the doctrine of his faith so that not faith but the doctrine of faith or our promise in Baptisme includeth good workes Ioh â 2 There are among you that beleeue not for he knew who beleeued and who was to betray him Opposing treason to faith as if he had said faith containeth in it selfe fidelitie This argument is farre fetched and little worth For albeit faith hath not fidelity and loue alwaies necessarily ioyned with it yet falling from faith may well draw after it hatred and treason yea ordinarily wickednesse goeth before falling from the faith and is the cause of it which was Iudas case whom our Sauiour there taxed for he blinded with couetousnesse did not beleeue Christes doctrine of the blessed Sacrament and by incredulitie opened the diuell a high way to his heart to negotiate treason in it â Ioh 2. 3. They obiect that Who saith he knowes God and doth not keepe his commandements is a lyer Answer He is then a lyer in graine who professing the onely true knowledge of God yet blusheth not to say that it is impossible to keepe his commandements but to the obiection knowing God in that place is taken for louing of God as I know ye not that is I loue you not Our Lord knowes the way of the iust Math 7. 25. Psal 1. Ioh. 14. that is approues it loues it so he that knowes God keepes his commaundements as Christ himselfe testifieth If anie loue me he will keepe my word And he that loueth me not will not keepe my words Lastly they say with S. Paul That the iust man liueth by faith But if faith giue life then it cannot be without charitie Answer That faith in a iust man is not without hope and charity by al which conioyned he liueth and not by faith alone But faith is in a sinful and vniust man without charity who holding fast his former beliefe doth in transgressing Gods commandements breake the bands of charity And so it remaineth most certaine that faith may be and too too often is without the sacred societie of charitie R. ABBOT The Protestants asseuerations are indeed very bold but not vpon slender proofes Their proofes are stronger then that any such silly disputers as M. Bishop is shall be able to disproue them As for his proofes to the contrarie thou hast seene gentle Reader how miserable and poore and beggerly they be See now what choise he maketh of our arguments culling out those that he was best able to deale with and what slender shifts he maketh to auoid them a 1. Tim. 5.8 He that prouideth not for his owne saith S. Paul and namely for them of his houshold he denieth the faith and is worse then an infidell It must follow therefore that there can be no faith where this worke of charitie is wilfully cast off M. Bishop telleth vs that by faith is here meant either fidelitie as touching the performance of that we haue promised in baptisme or else the doctrine of faith But let him expound it as he list of either of them it shall yeeld an illation consequence of that which we affirme For seeing the introduction of iustifying faith is b Mark 1.15 repentance from dead workes iustifying faith must alwayes imply a conscience and care of conforming a mans selfe to the doctrine of the Gospell and to the promise and vowe that he hath made in baptisme of obedience vnto God and therefore where dead workes still raigne it cannot be said that iustifying faith hath there taken anie place Therefore he that shaketh off the yoke of the doctrine of the Gospell and by his conuersation disclaimeth the promise that he made in baptisme plainely sheweth that howsoeuer he professe the faith yet that he hath no true faith abiding in him And this the Apostle teacheth of him who is so inhumane and barbarous as that the commandement of God cannot moue him to prouide for them the care of whom euen infidels by instinct of nature do know and conceiue to belong vnto them But we would gladly vnderstand how M. Bishop diuideth the articles of faith from the doctrine of faith For what do the articles of faith containe but onely the doctrine of faith That then contrary to the doctrine of faith must needs also be contrary to the articles of faith He therfore that by his deeds denieth the doctrine of faith denieth in effect also the articles of his faith howsoeuer with his tongue outwardly to men he make shew to confesse the same M. Bishops answer then taketh not away the strength of this argument but rather addeth further force and strength vnto it But it is plaine by the very words that the Apostle vnderstandeth faith as it is opposed to infidelitie affirming that such though they be c Hieron in 1. Tim. cap. 5. Fideles nomine beleeuers in name as Hierome speaketh yet in deed are not beleeuers Therefore Chrysostome expounding the words by that saying of the same Apostle d Tit. 1.16 They professe that they know God but by their deeds they denie him inferreth e Chrysost in 1. Tim. hom 14. Quomodo hutuânodicredit qui Deum abâegauitâ How doth he beleeue that hath denied God The argument therefore is firme and sure that howsoeuer there may be an outward profession of faith yet indeed there is no faith wheresoeuer there wanteth a correspondence of good workes In the second place it is strange to see how M. Bishop making choise of his aduersaries weapons yet is foyled in his owne choise The argument he saith
turne Because he had no great skill to answer he thought it wisedom to take heed what he did obiect But yet out of that sentence truly alledged we may take somewhat to this point The words are p Gal. 3.11 The iust shall liue by faith According to these words true faith is said alwayes to imply and containe eternall life Our Sauior Christ speaketh as of a thing presently had q Ioh. 3.36 He that beleeueth hath eternall life r Cap. 5.24 he is passed from death to life But without charitie there can be no state of eternall life because Å¿ 1. Ioh. 3 14. he that loueth not abideth in death If then wheresoeuer there be true faith there be eternall life and without charitie there can be no eternall life it must necessarily follow that wheresoeuer there is true faith there is also charitie and loue bringing forth the fruites of good workes and seeking to winne others by example of iust and holy life M. Bishops answer we see giueth checke to the holy Ghost The holy Ghost saith The iust shall liue by faith Not so saith M. Bishop he liueth by faith hope and charitie and not by faith alone Further I trouble not my selfe with his idle words which containe nothing but a begging of the matter in question and are applied onely to an argument of his owne deuice CHAPTER 5. OF MERITS 1. W. BISHOP OBserue that three things are necessary to make a worke meritorious First that the worker be the adopted sonne of God and in the state of grace Secondly that the work proceed from grace and be referred to the honour of God The third is the promise of God through Christ to reward the work And because our aduersaries either ignorantly or of malice do slaunder this our doctrine in saying vntruly that we trust not in Christs merits nor need not Gods mercy for our saluation but wil purchase it by our owne works I wil here set downe what the Councell of Trent doth teach concerning Merits Sess 6. cap. vlt. Life euerlasting is to be proposed to them that work wel and hope wel to the end both as grace of mercie promised to the sonnes of God through Christ Iesus and as a reward by the promise of the same God to be faithfully rendred vnto their workes and merits So that we hold eternall life to be both a grace as well in respect of Gods free promise through Christ as also for that the first grace out of which they issue was freely bestowed vpon vs. And that also it is a reward in iustice due partly by the promise of God and in part for the dignitie of good workes vnto the worker if he perseruere and hold on vnto the end of his life or by true repentance rise to the same estate againe In infants baptized there is a kind of merit or rather dignitie of the adopted sonnes of God by his grace powred into their soules in baptisme wherby they are made heires of the kingdom of heauen but all that arriue to the yeares of discretion must by the good vse of the same grace either merit life or for want of such fruite of it fall into the miserable state of death R. ABBOT M. Bishop setteth downe three things which he saith are necessary to make a work meritorious but giueth vs no ground at all whereby we may rest perswaded that where those three things do concurre a man may be said to merit or deserue at Gods hands He leaueth vs still to wonder that a sinfull wretch offending and prouoking God from day to day should dare to talke of merite and desert with God but that we know that heresie and ignorance make men bold to frame the maiestie of God to their owne brainsicke and senslesse conceits The conditions and circumstances by him mentioned we alwayes teach and require in our doctrine of good workes but farre are we from finding merit in any of them For first the adopted sonne of God standeth bound by dutie to do all things to the honor of his Father and there can be no merit in doing that which a man by dutie is bound to do Secondly if the worke proceed from the grace of God the work is Gods and not mans and therfore man can therby merit nothing Thirdly if the reward depend vpon promise then it ariseth not of the merit or worth of workes especially there being by the frailtie of the worker and the bountie of the promiser that disproportion betwixt the worke and the reward as that it is meerly absurd to imagine that the one should be merited and deserued by the other These things God willing shall further appeare in the processe of this question In the meane time M. Bishop here challengeth vs for slaundering their doctrine with some matters of truth as that they trust not in Christs merits that they need not Gods mercy for their saluation but will purchase it by their owne workes Now we wote well that they vse speech of Christes merits and Gods mercie and of trusting therein because they know that if they abandoned the mention hereof they would soone grow odious and hatefull to all men For the cuppe of poison of the whore of Babylon they must vse a couer of such good words least they make men loth to drinke thereof But let it be examined how they teach these things and their falshood will soone appeare By trust in Christs merits men conceiue the placing of the confidence of saluation immediatly therein as the proper cause for which God accepteth vs to eternall life who our selues are miserable sinners and altogether vnworthy thereof But their trust in Christs merits is that he hath purchased for vs grace if we list by free will to merite heauen for ourselues thereby to be iust before God in our selues and worthy of the kingdome of heauen as M. Bishop in the former question of a Sect. 2. Iustification hath declared So then the effect of Christs merits is tied onely to this life and thenceforth we are to depend vpon that which here we do for our selues by wel vsing that grace which the merits of Christ first purchased for vs. Therefore one Richard Hopkins translating into English a booke of Granatensis as touching prayer and meditation giueth it one where for a marginall note that our Sauiour Christ is our Aduocate for the time of this life but after our departure out of this life he is no more our Aduocate but our Iudge for the time is past saith he of dealing with God by an Aduocate c. and we shall haue our definitiue sentence according to our workes Whereby it appeareth what reckoning they make of the mercie of God which they also pen vp within the compasse of this life and denie it that place which the Apostle giueth it b 2. Tim. 1.18 at that day Yea so little vse is there with them of Gods mercie as that M. Bishop doubteth not to demaund
owne mouth will I iudge thee thou euill seruant Thou hast despised my mercie Thou hast defined that euery one that doth not merite life must fall into the state of death Thy sentence shall stand good against thy selfe thou art farre off from meriting life and therefore thy iust portion shall be euerlasting death Let him learne in time to feare this doome and leaue off by this wilfull oppugning of the faith and doctrine of Christ to rebell against God 2. W. BISHOP With this Catholike doctrine M. Perkins would be thought to agree in two points First That merits are necessary to saluation Secondly That Christ is the roote and fountaine of all merit But soone after like vnto a shrewd cow ouerthrowes with his heele the good milke he had giuen before renouncing all merits in euery man sauing onely in the person of Christ whose prerogatiue saith he it is to be the person alone in whom God is wel pleased Then he addeth that they good Protestants by Christs merits really imputed to them do merite life euerlasting Euen as by his righteousnesse imputed vnto them they are iustified and made righteous To which I answer that we most willingly confesse our blessed Sauiours merits to be infinite and of such diuine efficacie that he hath not onely merited at his Fathers hands both pardon for all faults and grace to do all good workes but also that his true seruants workes should be meritorious of life euerlasting As for the reall imputation of his merit to vs we esteeme as a fained imagination composed of contrarieties For if it be really in vs why do they call it imputed and if it be ours only by Gods imputation then is it not in vs really Further to say that he onely is the person in whom God is well pleased is to giue the lye vnto many plaine texts of holy Scriptures Iac 2. Eccles 45. Act. 13. Ioh. 16. Rom. 1. Abraham was called the friend of God therefore God was well pleased in him Moyses was his beloued Dauid was a man according vnto his owne heart God loued Christs Disciples because they loued him Briefly all the Christians at Rome were truly called of S. Paule the beloued of God And therefore although God be best pleased in our Sauiour and for his sake is pleased in all others yet is he not onely pleased in him but in all his faithfull seruants Now to that which he saith that they haue no other merit then Christs imputed to them as they haue no other righteousnesse but by imputation I take it to be true and therefore they do very ingeniously and iustly renounce all kind of merits in their stained and defiled workes But let them tremble at that which thereupon necessarily followeth It is that as they haue no righteousnesse or merit of heauen but onely by a supposed imputation so they must looke for no heauen but by imputation for God as a most vpright iudge will in the end repay euery man according to his woorth wherefore not finding any reall worthinesse in Protestants but onely in conceipt his reward shall be giuen them answerably in conceipt onely which is euidently gathered out of S. Augustine Lib. 1. de mori Eccles cap. 25. where he saith That the reward cannot go before the merit nor be giuen to a man before he be worthy of it for saith he what were more iniust then that and what is more iust then God Where he concludeth that we must not be so hardie as once to demaund much lesse so impudent as to assure our selues of that crowne before we haue deserued it Seeing then that the Protestants by this their proctor renounce al such merit and desert they must needes also renounce their part of heauen and not presume so much as once to demaund it according vnto S. Augustines sentence vntill they haue first renounced their erronious opinions R. ABBOT M. Perkins hath indeed giuen good milke as M. Bishop saith euen a 1. Pet. 2.2 the syncere milke of the word which he had drawne from b August in Ioan. Epist trac 3. Est mater Ecclesia vbera eius duâ Testamenta Scripturari ãâã naruÌ the brests of the Church the old and the new Testament the writings of the Apostles and Prophets which are c Ephes 2.20 the foundations whereupon the house of God is built He plaid not the shrewd cow to ouerthrow it when he had giuen it but what he gaue M. Bishop seeketh to corrupt by blending and mingling with it not the leauen onely but the very poison of humane traditions He renounceth and so do we all merit but what is in the person of Iesus Christ for vs and thereby onely do we lay hold of eternall life acknowledging that not for any thing that we do but onely d Mat. 3.17 in him the Father is well pleased towards vs and accepteth vs to be his children and heires of his kingdome Whereas in his pleasance he tearmeth vs good Protestants I must tell him as before that if the Protestants do not exceede the goodnesse of them who will be taken to be the very best amongst the Papistes without question they are very bad and I doubt not but he himselfe will acquit the Protestants from being so bad as he and his fellowes haue told vs that their good maisters the Iesuites be But for answer he saith that Christ did merit for his not onely pardon of all faults and grace to do all good workes but also that their workes should be meritorious of life euerlasting A strange speech and such as the Apostles and Primitiue Church were not acquainted with Forsooth Christ did not merit eternall life for vs but he merited for vs grace that so we might merit eternall life for our selues Now M. Bishop hath taught vs before that grace is nothing but as Free will adioyneth it selfe vnto it and so the conclusion is that the grace of God doth not saue man but man by the helpe of grace doth saue himselfe Thus the matter resteth vpon vs Christ offereth vs grace we may receiue it if we will and when we haue it we may if we will thereby deserue eternal life otherwise we go without it But the Scripture teacheth vs farre otherwise that e 1. Ioh. 5.10.11 the record that God hath witnessed of his Sonne is this that God hath giuen vs eternall life and this life is in his Sonne Here is no record that God hath giuen vs grace to deserue eternall life but that he hath giuen vs eternall life nor that this life is in our merits but that this life is in his Sonne so as that f Ioh 3.36 he that beleeueth in the Sonne hath euerlasting life and g 1. Ioh. 5.13 they that beleeue in the name of the Sonne of God are to know that they haue eternall life God by the beginning giuing them certificate and assurance of the end The reall imputation of Christs merits to vs is
r August in Psal 109. Promisit hominibus diuinitatem mor talibus immortalitatem peccatoribus iustificationem abiectis glorificationem Quicquid promisit indignis promisit vt non quasi merces operibus promitteretur sed gratia à nomine suo gratis daretur quia hoc ipsaÌ quód iustè viuit inquantum homo potest iustè viuere noÌ merite humani sed beneficij diuini est God promised to men participation with God immortalitie to mortall creatures iustification to sinners glorification to abiects and cast-awayes Whatsoeuer he promised he promised to men vnworthie that it might not be promised as a reward to workes but being grace might according to the name be freely giuen because to liue iustly so farre as man can liue iustly is not a matter importing mans merit but the benefite and gift of God Where plainely he sheweth that whatsoeuer God hath promised it is his meere and onely gift that to speake simply thereof it is to be bereaued of the title of a reward of workes because God promised the same when we had no workes that it is not giuen for our woorth because it was promised when we had no woorth yea and that we haue any good workes it is an effect of the same promise it cannot be thought to make any merit on our behalfe but to set foorth grace and mercie on Gods behalfe so that all is free gift all is grace and mercie and the adding of one gift and grace and mercie to another howsoeuer sometimes in some respects as hereafter we shall see the gift of God is set foorth vnto vs vnder the name of recompence and reward In a word by that that followeth I doubt not but it will appeare that the Protestants Proctor if he must needes be so tearmed hath said nothing in this behalfe but what by S. Austine and other auncient Fathers may well be defended against this Romish prater who hath great insolencie of words but sound matter of proofe he can find none at all 3. W. BISHOP But M. Perkins will neuerthelesse prooue and that by sundry reasons that their doctrine is the truth at selfe and ours falshood First by a sorry short syllogisme containing more then one whole page It is taken out of the properties of a meritorious worke which must be saith he foure first That the worke be done of our selues without the helpe of another secondly That it be not otherwise due debt thirdly That it be done to the benefit of another fourthly That the worke and reward be equall in proportion These properties he sets downe pythagorically without any proofe but inserreth theron as though he had proued them inuincibly that Christs manhood separated from the Godhead cannot merit because whatsoeuer he doth he doth it by grace receiued and should be otherwise due He might in like manner as truly say that Christs manhood vnited to the Godhead could not merit neither for he receiued his Godhead from his Father and whatsoeuer he doth is therefore his Fathers by due debt And so the good man if he were let alone would disappoint vs wholly of all merits aswell the imputed of Christs as of all ours done by virtue of his grace Wherefore we must a little sift his foure forged proprieties of merit and touching the first I say that one may by the good vse of a thing receiued by free gift merit and deserue much euen at his hands that gaue it For example the farther bestowes a Farme vpon his sonne freely who may by often presenting his Father of the pleasing fruits growing on the same deserue his further fauour yea he may by the commodities reaped out of that farme buy any thing that it shall please his father to set to sale as well as if he had neuer receiued the farme from his fathers gift Which is so common a case and so sensible that euery man of meane wit may easily reach vnto it euen so by good manuring the gifts which God freely bestoweth vpon vs we may both merit the increase of them and according to his owne order and promise purchase thereby the kingdome of heauen which is plainely proued by that parable Of the talents giuen by a king to his seruants Mat. 25. the which they employing well and multiplying were therefore esteemed worthy of farre greater and withall to be made partakers of their Lords ioyes M. Perkins then was not a litle ouerseene to put for the first proprietie of merit that it must be done by a man and of a man himselfe R. ABBOT M. Perkins saith very truly vpon noting the conditions necessarily required in a meritorious worke that the manhood of Christ considered a part from his Godhead because it is but a creature and hath all by the gift of God and doth all by bond of necessary dutie cannot merit at Gods hands Whereas M. Bishop against this saith that he might in like manner as truly say that Christs manhood vnited to the Godhead could not merit neither because he receiued his Godhead from the Father and therefore whatsoeuer he doth is his Fathers by due debt he bewrayeth his notable and absurd ignorance For Christ receiueth his Godhead of the Father to be equall to the Father not inferiour to be the same in substance and maiestie and glorie that the Father is Now duty and debt do necessarily enforce minoritie and subiection Seeing therefore there is no minority or subiection in the Godhead of the Sonne towards the Father there can be no debt or dutie of the Sonne in that respect towards the Father Thus the good man to repay him with his owne stoute is taken before he is aware in the nets of the Arian heresie which made Christ as God inferiour and subiect to the Father The merit of Christ therefore consisted in this as S. Paule noteth that being equall to God his Father and owing no debt or dutie did voluntarily humble himselfe to obedience and duty for our sakes So then M. Perrkins indeed a good man as M. Bishop shall one day see hath not by his assertion bereaued vs of the merits of Christ but hath taught how rightly to vnderstand the same But now he will a litle sift as he saith the foure forged proprieties of merit which M. Perkins hath set downe Whether they be forged or not will appeare by the sequele in the meane time his answers to them may seeme rather to haue come from the Smiths forge then out of the studie and from the learning of a Doctor of Diuinitie The first condition required in a meritorious worke properly so to be called to which by dutie debt and right for the workes sake reward is to be yeelded is that a man do it of himselfe and by his owne power For so saith Hilary a Hilar. de Trin. lib. 11. Mereri eius est qui ipse sibâ meriti acqui rendi author existiâ It is for him to merit who himselfe is to himselfe the author of getting his
giuing to vnderstand that that former was not the whole meaning of Christes words r Beda in Luc. cap. 17. We are vnprofitable seruants because the sufferings of this time are not worthy of the glory to come as in another place which crowneth thee in mercy and compassion He saith not in thy merits because by whose mercy we are preuented that we may humbly serue him by his gift we are crowned to reigne with him What M. Bishop no more faith no more trust in you do you alledge Authors when they condemne your doctrine euen in the places whence you cite them Leaue of leaue of Act. 26.14 it is hard for you to kicke against the prickes You fight against the Gospell of Christ against the truth of God and do not you doubt but it will preuaile against you and the conquest thereof shall be your vtter confusion if you hold on your course 5. W. BISHOP And thus we fall vpon the third property of M. Perkins meritorious worke which is That it be done to the profit of another and say that albeit God in himselfe receiue no profit by our workes yet doth he in the administration of his holy common-weale the Church wherein good mens seruices do much pleasure him And in this sence it is said of S. Paul That by cleansing our selues from wicked workes 2. Tim. 2. Math. 5. we shall become vessels sanctified and profitable vnto our Lord. Againe God is glorified by our good workes That seeing your good workes they may glorifie your Father which is in heauen Finally God doth reioyce at the recouerie of his lost children Ioh. 15. ver 8. Luk. 15. If then good men trauailing painfully in Gods Vineyard do yeeld him outwardly both honour ioy and commoditie that may suffice to make their worke meritorious R. ABBOT As touching this condition we contend not with Maister Bishop concerning his exposition thereof Merit must be done by the will and for the vse and behoofe of him at whose hands it must merit So Christes obedience by the will of the Father to the praise of the glory of his grace did merit and deserue at his Fathers hands in our behalfe Onely it is to be added that it must fully satisfie the vse and behoofe whereto it is intended and not faile in any point thereof Now because a Aug. Euâhirid cap. 64. Sic spiritu Dei extitantur vt etiam spiritu suo c. tanquaÌ filij hominuÌ quibusdaÌ motibus humanis deficiant ad seipses c. the children of God are so moued by the spirit of God as that by their owne spirit as the sonnes of men through humane motions and affections they sometimes faile and fall backe to themselues and therefore do not so entirely and perfectly serue the vses of the Lord to yeeld either glory to God or loue to their brethren as they ought to do therefore neither do they attaine to this condition of merit nor can in any sort bind God to repay them for that broken seruice that they haue done nay if he would call matters to strict reckoning and account he hath rather occasion of quarell against them for disgracing and defiling the works that he hath wrought in them 6. W. BISHOP M. Perkins fourth property is That the worke and reward be equall in proportion If he vnderstand Arithmeticall proportion that is that they be equall in quantity to wit the one to be as great or of as long continuance as the other then we denie this kinde of equality to be requisite to merit there is another sort of proportion called by the Philosopher 5. Ethic. Geometricall and the equality of that is taken by a reasonable correspondence of the one vnto the other as when a good office is giuen vnto a Citizen of desart it may be that the honour and commodity of the office is farre greater then was the merit of the man yet he being as well able to discharge it as another and hauing better deserued it is holden in true iustice worthie of it In like manner in a game where maisteries are tried the prize is giuen vnto him that doth best not because the value of the reward is iust as much woorth as that act of the man who winneth it but for that such actiuitie is esteemed woorthy of such a recompence Now the crowne of heauenly glory is likened by Saint Pule vnto a Garland in a game where he saith 1. Cor. 9. 2. Tim. 2. That we all runne but one carieth away the prize And he that striueth for the maisterie is not crowned vnlesse he striue lawfully It is also resembled vnto places of honour Math. 25. Ioh. 14. I will place thee ouer much And I go to prouide you places Grace is also in many places of Scripture compared to seede Math. 13. 1. Ioh. 3. For the seed of God tarieth in him But a little seed cast into good ground and well manured bringeth forth abundance of corne Briefly then such equality as there is betweene the well deseruing subiect and the office betweene him that striueth lawfully and the crowne betweene the seede and the corne is betweene the reward of heauen and the merit of a true seruant of God And thus much of M. Perkins first Argument more indeede to explicate the nature and condition of merit then that his reason nakedly proposed did require it R. ABBOT The proportion that maketh merit or desert must be Arithmeticall wherein the worke must fully equall the reward though not in greatnesse and continuance yet in value and woorth If the one in that sort do not counterpoise the other the one cannot be said to be deserued by the other But there is no proportion at all either Arithmeticall or Geometricall betwixt that that is finite and that that is infinite therefore none at all betwixt the worke of man and the reward of heauen the one being euery way finite the other in continuance infinite So then Maister Bishops Geometricall proportion and reasonable correspondence is excluded also because a Fulgent ad Monim lib. 1. TantuÌ ibi graetia diuinae retributionis exuberat vt inceparabiliter atque ineffabiliter omne merituÌ quamuis bonae ex Deo datae humanae voluntatis operationis excedat the grace or gift of Gods reward as Fulgentius saith doth so much there abound as that incomparably and vnspeakeably it exceedeth all the merit of the will and worke of man albeit it be good and giuen vnto him of God There is no reasonable correspondence where the one incomparably and vnspeakeably exceedeth all the merit and desert of the other The same is imported by Saint Bernard who hauing said that mens merits are not such as that life eternall is due vnto theÌ of right giueth reason therof beside that that I mentioned before b Ber. in Annunciat Ser. 1. Quid sunt omnia merita ad tantaÌ gloriam For what are all merits to so great
he may giue it haue we reason hereupon with M. Bishop of mercie whereby we shold glorifie God to build vp merit and desert for the glorifying of our selues or shall we rather subscribe that which S. Austine saith for conclusion of that whole disputation coÌcerning that place of the Apostle as before I cited that it is not for our merits that God bringeth vs to eternall life but for his owne mercies sake The other place cited by M. Bishop is wholly to the same effect g Idem Epist 105. Cùm Deus coronat merita nostra nihil aliud coronat quà m munera sua sicut enim ab initio fidei mi sericordiam consecuti sumus non quia fideles eramus sed vt essemus sic in fine corona bit nos in miseratione misericordia Vnde vita ipsa aeterna gratia nuncupatur non ob aliud nisi quia gratis datur nec ideò quia meritis non datur sed quia data sunt ipsa merita quibus datur When God crowneth our merits he crowneth nothing else but his owne gifts For as from the beginning we obtained mercie to be faithfull so in the end he shall crowne vs in compassion and mercie Whence eternal life is called grace for no other cause but because it is freely giuen not for that it is not rendred to merits but for that the merits themselues are giuen to which it is giuen In which there is nothing that giueth any shew of fauor to M. Bishop but the very name of merits but that that helpeth him nothing shall appeare hereafter S. Austine meaning thereby meerely good workes without any conceipt of merit as it is now vnderstood in the Church of Rome Yea and that appeareth plainely here also for if God in crowning merits crowne nothing but his owne gifts then those merits are not truly and properly so called because a man cannot properly merit at Gods hands by that that is to him nothing else but the gift of God And this S. Austin sheweth further in that that followeth h Ibid. Cui debetur vita aeterna vera iustitia est Si autem vera iustitia est ex te non est desursum est descendens à Patre luminum c. Qua propter ô homo si accepturus es vitam aeternam iustitiae quidem stipendium est sed tibi gratia est âui gratia est ipsa iustitia Tibi enim tanquam debita redde redderetur si ex te tibi esset iustitia cui debetur Nunc ergo c. vt supra Sect. 3. It is true righteousnes to which eternall life is due But if it be true it is not of thy selfe it is from aboue descending from the Father of lights that thou mightst haue it if at least thou haue it verily thou hast receiued it For what hast thou that thou hast not receiued Wherefore ô man if thou be to receiue eternall life it is indeed the wages of righteousnes but to thee it is grace to whom righteousnesse it selfe also is grace It should be rendred as due vnto thee if of thy selfe thou hadst the righteousnesse to which it is due Now therfore of his fulnesse we receiue not only grace c. but also grace for grace c. If eternall life be merited and deserued by vs then to vs it is the wages of righteousnesse then it is rendred as due vnto vs. But S. Austine though he confesseth that it may be said that it is the wages of righteousnesse yet denieth it to be so to vs and denieth that it is rendred as due vnto vs. Therfore it must necessarily be granted that it is not merited and deserued by vs it can no way be auoyded but that if it be deserued by vs it is due vnto vs but it is not due vnto vs saith S. Austine because the righteousnesse is none of ours There is therefore on our behalfe no merit no desert to which it should be accounted due Thus S. Austine wholly bendeth himselfe to establish the truth of the grace of God against the Pelagian heretickes and saith nothing whereof M. Bishop may inferre the doctrine of merit which he together with them maintaineth against the grace of God But for the further declaring of S. Austines mind I will obserue that one sentence of his vpon the Psalmes i Aug. in Psal 144. Data est venia peccatori datus spiritus iustificationis data est charitas dilectio in qua omnia bona faci a ãâã super haec dabit vitam aeternam societatem Angelorum totum de misericordia Mârita tua nusquam iactes quia ipsa sua merita illius dona sunt To thee being a sinner is granted forgiuenesse the spirit of iustification is giuen thee there is giuen thee charitie and loue whereby to do all good things and beyond all these things he will giue thee also eternall life and the societie of the Angels all of mercy Do not talke of thy merits any where because euen thy merits also are his gifts In which words it plainely appeareth that albeit S. Austine vseth the name of merit according to the language of his time yet he did it not in any such sence but as still intending that both in the beginning and in the proceeding and in the end all is wholly and onely to be ascribed vnto Gods mercie But M. Bishop telleth vs here that S. Austine crosseth M. Perkins proportion in that he affirmeth that S. Paule might haue said that eternall life is the wages of good workes Wherein he doth but deceiue himselfe because to speake simply it is true that eternall life is the stipend and wages of true and perfect righteousnesse according to the sentence of the law k Gal. 3 12 He that doth these things shall liue in them and yet it is so but onely by couenant and condition not by merit because in doing all we should do but that that we are bound to do But as hath bene already said S. Austin though he graunt that simply it might haue bene so tearmed yet denieth it to be so to vs. It is indeed the stipend or wages of righteousnesse but to thee it is grace that is to thee it is no stipend Now this is spoken vpon a supposall of entire and perfect righteousnesse but take withall the exceptions that S. Austine putteth in by the way as we haue seene l Si tamen habet Epist 105. if at least thou haue it and againe m Inquantum homo potest iustè vinerean Psal 109. so farre as a man can liue iustly and let it be considered herewith which out of Austine hath bene abundantly declared in the former question that there is no righteousnesse so perfect in this life as that therby we can be found iust in the sight of God and then merit and stipend shall be excluded not onely for that our righteousnesse is the gift of God but also for that we haue not
because the mercie of God alone sufficeth not Now it were wickednes thus to crosse and contradict the Apostles words and therefore doth he conclude that al is wholy to be ascribed vnto Gods mercie See then the good dealing or rather the lewd falshood of M. Bishop and his fellowes who teaching for the maintenance of their doctrine of merits that good works are principally indeed of God but yet partly of our selues do alledge S. Austine for the defence thereof who constantly teacheth to the vtter ouerthrow of merits that our good workes are wholy and onely of the grace of God and in no part of our selues This is one thing for which we iustly detest them as setting vp the glorie of man in stead of the glory of God the righteousnesse of man in stead of the righteousnesse of God and so by bearing men in hand with a merit of eternall life do bereaue them of Gods mercie by which onely they should attaine the same And yet all this is graced and shadowed with goodly faire words as we see here by M. Bishop who hauing said that the grace of God is principally the cause of our saluation and therein implied that our free will also is partly though not principally a cause thereof yet addeth that the grace of God is the onely fountaine of merit and all good workes If grace be the onely fountaine of all good workes then all good workes proceed onely from grace and if onely from grace then what can we merit or deserue thereby If we merit and deserue thereby then they are partly of vs and of our free will then grace is not the only fountaine of merit and all good works Therfore let him not lye in this sort let him speake as he meaneth acknowledge that which they al maintaine that good works are therfore our merits because they proceed from our Free will and are no otherwise our merits neither do we otherwise deserue by them but as they proceed from our free will Yea when the grace of God hath done all that appertaineth to it to do all is nothing with them vnlesse man adioyne thereto the worke of his owne free will Either let him renounce his doctrine of Free wil or else let him leaue with colourable words thus to delude and mocke the simple and ignorant reader in saying that which he thinketh not that the grace of God is the onely fountaine of merit and all good works 9. W. BISHOP Ad Eph. 2. Ad Tit. 3. Now to those texts cited before about iustification We are saued freely not of our selues or by the workes of righteousnesse which we haue done I haue often answered that the Apostle speakes of workes done by our owne forces without the helpe of Gods grace and therefore they cannot serue against workes done in and by grace R. ABBOT The oftennesse of his answer sheweth the corruption of his conscience that was not moued with so often repeating a manifest vntruth What was it the Apostles meaning to teach the Ephesians that they were not saued by the workes which they did when they yet were a Eph. 2.1 dead as he saith in trespasses and sinnes or had the Ephesians any such opinion that the Apostle should need to reforme in them Did they renounce their former workes to come to Christ that they might be saued by him and did they afterwardes grow againe to a conceipt of being saued by their former workes These are grosse and palpable vntruths neither hath the Scripture any thing at all that may giue any shew for warrant of such constructioÌ Nay as hath bene before said when the Apostle hauing said b Ver. 9. Not of workes lest any man should boast addeth as a reason and proofe hereof c Ver. 10. for we are his workmanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good workes c. as if he should haue said We cannot be said to be saued by workes because our workes are none of ours but Gods works in vs he plainely sheweth that not onely workes before grace but after also are excluded from being any cause of our saluation The place to Titus likewise resteth our saluation only vpon d Tit. 3.5 Gods mercy and therefore leaueth no place to our good workes and therefore it is vsed by S. Bernard not only in this day for an exception against workes before grace but e Bernard in Cant. ser 50. that we may know at that day that not for the workes of righteousnesse which we haue done but of his owne mercie he hath saued vs. 10. W. BISHOP Now to that text which he hudleth vp together with the rest although it deserued a better place being one of their principall pillars in this controuersie it is Rom. 8. The sufferings of this life are not worthy of the glorie to come The strength of this obiection lieth in a false translatioÌ of these words Axia pros tein doxan equall to that glory or in the misconstruction of them for we grant as hath bin already declared that our afflictions and sufferings be not equall in length or greatnesse with the glorie of heauen for our afflictions be but for the short space of this life and they cannot be so great as will be the pleasure in heauen notwithstanding we teach that this shorter and lesser labour imployed by a righteous man in the seruice of God doth merite the other greater and of longer continuance and that by the said Apostles plaine words 2. Cor. 4. for saith he That tribulation which in this present life is but for a moment and light doth worke aboue measure exceedingly an euerlasting waight of glory in vs. The reason is that iust mens works issue out of the fountaine of grace which giueth a heauenly value vnto his workes Againe it maketh him a quicke member of Christ and so receiuing influence from his head his works are raised to an higher estimate it consecrateth him also a temple of the holy Ghost and so maketh him partaker of the heauenly nature as S. Peter speaketh which addes a worth of heauen to his works 2. Pet. 1. Neither is that glory in heauen which any pure creature attaineth vnto of infinite dignitie as M Perkins fableth but hath his certaine bounds and measure according vnto each mans merits otherwise it would make a man equall to God in glorie for there can be no greater then infinite as all learned men do confesse R. ABBOT These words of S. Paule to the Romanes a Rom. 8.18 The afflictions of this time are not worthy of the glorie that shall be reuealed vpon vs are verie directly cited and are as pregnant to the matter here in hand M. Bishop saith that that text is one of our principall pillars in this controuersie and indeed it is so strong a pillar as that all M. Bishops strength is not able to shake it from vpholding that which we professe to teach by it But yet pro forma he
Be it so and yet by all our expence and labors and trauels we merite nothing we looke for nothing by desert but craue it of the blessing and free gift of God Let M. Bishop say Is there any man who by his labour and paines can challenge at Gods hands a morsell of bread as of merite and desert If he cannot but is still bound to crie amidst all his trauels Giue vs this day our dayly bread why doth he put man in opinion of meriting at Gods hands eternall life who cannot by all his workes bind God vnto him for his dayly bread We labour therefore to lay hold of eternall life by such meanes as God hath ordained and by the exercise of good workes which God hath prepared for vs to walke in but after all our labour we still beg eternall life at Gods hands as of his meere blessing and gift that it may be true both in the beginning and in the end that a Rom. 6.23 eternall life is the gift of God through Iesus Christ our Lord. Yet he telleth vs that God hath appointed good workes for vs to walke in to deserue eternall life But where hath he so appointed We find that God b 1. Ioh. 5.11 in his Sonne hath giuen vnto vs eternall life and that he hath c Ephes 2.10 prepared for vs good workes to walke in as the Apostle speaketh namely to that eternall life which he hath giuen vs but that he hath appointed vs good workes to deserue eternall life M. Bishop cannot tell vs where to find Now because the spirit of God hath not any where taught vs so to conceiue what is it but Satanicall insolencie thus to teach against the doctrine of the spirit And whereas he saith that Saint Austine and the best spirit of men since Christs time haue taught that heauen may be merited we first tell him that all that is nothing vnlesse Christ himselfe haue so taught and secondly that he falsly fathereth vpon the Fathers this misbegotten bastard of merite which in that meaning as he and his fellowes teach it was neuer imagined by the Fathers as partly hath appeared alreadie and shall God willing appeare further 13. W. BISHOP But let vs heare his last argument which is as he speaketh the consent of the ancient Church and then beginneth with S. Bernard who liued a thousand yeares after Christ he in I know not what place the quotation is so doubtfull saith Those things which we call merits are the way to the kingdome but not the cause of raigning I answer that merits be not the whole cause but the promise of God through Christ and the grace of God freely bestowed on vs out of which our merits proceed Ser. 68. in Cantie which is Bernards owne doctrine Manuâl cap. 22. Secondly he citeth S. Augustine All my hope is in the death of my Lord his death is my merit True in a good sence that is by vertue of his death and passion my sins are pardoned and grace is bestowed on me to do good workes and so to merit In Psal 114. Thirdly Basil Eternall life is reserued for them that haue striuen lawfully not for the merite of their doing but vpon the grace of the most bountifull God These words are vntruly translated for first he maketh with the Apostle eternall life to be the prize of that combat and then addeth that it is not giuen according vnto the debt and iust rate of the workes but in a fuller measure according vnto the bountie of so liberall a Lord where hence is gathered that common and most true sentence That God punisheth men vnder their deserts but rewardeth them aboue their merits Psal 120. 4. M. Perkins turnes backe to Augustine vpon the Psal 120. where he saith as M. Perkins reporteth He crowneth thee because he crowneth his owne gifts not thy merits Answ S. Augustine was too wise to let any such foolish sentence passe his pen. What congruitie is in this He crowneth thee because he crowneth his owne gifts not thy merits It had bene better said He crowneth thee not c. But he mistooke belike this sentence of S. Augustins When God crowneth thee he crowneth his gifts not thy merites De grat lib. arb cap. 6. Which is true being taken in that sence which he himselfe declareth To such a man so thinking that is that he hath merits of himselfe without the grace of God it may be most truly said God doth crowne his owne gifts not thy merits if thy merits be of thy selfe and not from him but if we acknowledge our merits to proceed from grace working with vs then we may as truly say that eternall life is the crowne and reward of merits His other place on the Psalme is not to this purpose Psal 142. but appertaines to the first iustification of a sinner as the first word quicken and reuiue me sheweth plainly now we confesse that a sinner is called to repentance and reuiued not for any desert of his owne but of Gods meere mercie R. ABBOT The place of Bernard is in the very end of his booke De gratia libero arbitrio where hauing before deuided a Bernar. de grat et lib arbit Dona sua Deus in merita diuisit proemia the gifts of God into merits and rewards he sheweth that merites are wholly to be ascribed vnto God because b Non equidem quòd consensus ip se in quo merituÌ omne consistit ab ipso libero arbitrio sit c. Deus facit volenteÌ hoc est voluntati suae consentientem to consent to God which is the thing wherein merite wholly consisteth is not of our free will but of God himselfe So that although God in the worke of mans saluation do vse the will of man himselfe yet there is nothing in the will of man to that purpose but what is c Totum ex illa wholly of the grace of God Now hauing disputed and shewed these things at large in the end of the booke he shutteth vp all with this conclusion d Si propriè appellentur ea quae dicimus nostra merita spei quaedam sunt seminaria charitatis inceÌtiua occuliae praedâstinationis iudiciâ futurae foelicitatis praesagia via regni noÌ causa regnandi If properly we will terme those which we call our merites they are the seedgrounds of our hope incitements of our loue tokens of our secret predestination foretokens of our future happinesse the way to the kingdome not the cause of our raigning or of our hauing the kingdome Where plainely he giueth to vnderstand that whatsoeuer is spoken of our merites is but vnproperly spoken that God hauing purposed vnto vs eternall life bestoweth his grace vpon vs to leade a godly life as a foretoken thereof and therefore that our good workes are but the way wherein God leadeth vs to his kingdome which hee of his owne mercie hath intended and
constant confession of vs all which M. Bishop seemeth to apprehend as casually or forcedly spoken by M. Perkins that eternall life is a due debt to the righteous and faithfull yet with that exception still which he thinketh M. Perkins added as hauing ouershot himselfe because his ignorance conceiueth not how these two stand together not for any desert of theirs but only for his promise sake as hath bene declared sufficiently b Sect. 17. before in defending the answer to the third obiection But as touching the place here handled he shall find S. Bernard expounding this crowne of iustice in the same sort as we do c Bernard de grât lib. arb Est ergo quam Pâulus expectat corona iustitiae sed iustitiae Dei non suae Iustum est quippe vt reddât quod debet debet auteÌ quod pollicitus est Et haec est iustitia de qua praesumit Apostolus promissio Dei It is a crowne of iustice saith he which Paul expecteth but of Gods iustice not his owne For it is iust that God pay what he oweth and he oweth that which he hath promised And this is the iustice of which the Apostle presumeth euen the promise of God Albeit it is true also that mans iustice is crowned that in that respect also it is a crowne of righteousnes who maketh question therof but still it is true that it is not due to mans righteousnesse by merite and desert but is tied to it onely by the promise and grace of God And thus doth the Apostle reckon his good seruice for which the iust Iudge would render a crowne of iustice not as pleading his desert thereof but knowing that God hath promised such reward to such seruice He alledgeth to the contrary the examples of them that were called into the vineyard and of the other that receiued the talents but of them he hath before receiued answer All his error is that he cannot conceiue worke and reward but that it must necessarily imply merite and desert which notwithstanding children can distinguish because great reward by fauour may be giuen when the worke is in no sort to be thought worthy of it As for the place of Austine which he produceth it giueth him no succor We find there worke and reward I haue fought a good fight c. the worke There is layd vp for me a crowne of iustice the reward but we do not finde that the reward is deserued by the worke we do not find that by vertue of merite the iustice of God any way standeth bound vnto him Nay in the same sermon S. Austin saith d Augus lib. 50 homil 14 Da veniam Apostole propria tua non noui nisi mala Cùm ergo Deus coronat merita tua nihil coronat nisi dona sua Pardon me Apostle I know nothing of thine owne but euill therefore when he crowneth thy merits he crowneth nothing but his owne gifts His collection from the place is already answered that by the promise the reward is yeelded to the worke In the other place there is nothing more then in that I haue spoken of and hath full answer by the same exception Onely I will remember M. Bishop that by S. Austins doctrine there can no merite be pleaded on our behalfe because all our good workes come from grace on Gods behalfe so that therefore the crowne is but grace for grace and a latter mercy added as the consequent of a former mercie And this S. Austin noteth concerning this very place of S. Paul here debated e Idem in Psal 102. Reddet mihò Dominus c. Quare Quia bonum certamen certauâ c. Vnde certasti c. Non ego autem sed gratia Dei mecum Ergo quòd coronarââ illâus mesericordia coronaris Nusquam sis superbus semper lauda dominum The Lord will render vnto me a crowne of righteousnes Why because I haue fought a good fight c. But whence hast thou fought a good fight c. Yea not I but the grace of God with me Then it is by his mercie that thou art crowned Be no where proud but alwayes praise the Lord. In a word he saith againe as before we haue seene that f Idem de grat lib. arb cap 7. NoÌ coronat Deus merita tua tanquaÌ merita tua sed tanquam dona suae God crowneth our merits not as our merits but as his owne gifts and if they go not vnder account of our merits in heauen why are they so earnestly pleaded for as ours here vpon the earth 21. W. BISHOP And that the Reader may vnderstand that not onely S. Augustine doth so confidently teach this doctrine of merites which M. Perkins blushed not to terme the inuention of Satan I will fold vp this question with some testimonies of the most auncient and best Authors S. Ignatius the Apostles auditor saith Epist ad Roman Giue me leaue to become the food of beasts that I may by that meanes merit and win God Iustine a glorious Martyr of the next age hath these words Apolog. 2. ante med speaking in the name of all Christians We think that men who by works haue shewed themselues worthy of the will and counsell of God shal by their merits liue and raigne with him free from all corruption and perturbation S. Irenaeus saith Lib. 4. cont hâres cap. 72. We esteeme that crowne to be precious which is gotten by combat and suffering for Gods sake S. Basil All we that walk the way of the Gospel as merchants do Ora in initium prou Lib. de Spir. sancto cap. 24. buy and get the possession of heauenly things by the workes of the commaundements A man is saued by workes of iustice S. Cyprian If the day of our returne shall find vs vnloden swift Serm. de eleemos in fine and running in the race of works our Lord wil not faile to reward our merits He will giue for workes to those that winne in peace a white crowne and for martyrdome in persecution he wil redouble vnto them a purple crowne S. Hilary Can. 5. in Math. The kingdome of heauen is the hire and reward of them that liue well and perfectly Lib 1. de Offic. c. 25. S. Ambrose It is euident that there remaineth after this life either reward for merits or punishment S. Hierome Now after baptisme it appertaineth to our trauels according vnto the diuersitie of vertue to prepare for vs different rewards Ser. 68 in Cant. S. Bernard Prouide that thou haue merits for the want of them is a pernicious pouertie Briefly that this was the vniuersall doctrine of all good Christians aboue a thousand yeares past is declared in the Councell of Arausicane Reward is debt vnto good workes if they be done Cââ 18. but grace which was not debt goeth before that they may be done These testimonies of the most auncient and best learned
benefits go vnder the name of rewards yet in all our righteousnesse there is nothing to counteruaile in any sort the bountie of his goodnesse and therefore was farre from that Pharisaicall and proud opinion of merit which M. Bishop desireth to fasten vpon him Which is easie to be seene in that also which I cited out of him before that t Basil in Psal 114. supra sect 13. eternall rest is layd vp for them who lawfully fight the combat of this life not to be rendered by way of debt to workes but prouided by the grace of the bountiful God for them that trust in him u Cypr de eleem Si expeditos si celeres si in hoc operis agone currentes dies nos vel reditiones vel persecutionis inuenerit nusquam Dominus meritis mostris ad proemium decrit In pace coronam vincentibus candidam pro operibus dabit in persecutione purpuream propassione geminabit Cyprian hath nothing for M. Bishops turne but onely the name of merits and it is already shewed that that can auaile him nothing In steed of merits put in good workes which is all that it importeth and Cyprian saith nothing but what we say No more doth Hilary whose words are x Hilar in Mat. can 5. Haec rectè perfectèque viuentium merces est vt in nouam âoelestemque substantiam ex hac corruptibilu corporis materie transferantur This is the reward of them that liue well and perfectly that from this matter of a corruptible bodie they are translated to a new and heauenly substance M. Bishop somewhat forceth the place to serue his turne but it is plaine by that that hath bene said before that the names of hire and reward are farre enough off from prouing merit and desert And whatsoeuer they import with men yet that they import not so with God let Hilary himself be witnes who speaking of the wages of them that were hired into the vineyard saith y Idem ibid. can 20. Merces quideÌ ex dono nulla est quia debetur ex opere sed gratuitaÌ Deus omnibus ex fidei iustificatione donauit Wages indeed there is none of gift because it is due by worke but God hath giuen the same freely to all by the iustification of faith There is no merit then in the reward that Hilarie speaketh of because though it be termed reward yet it is freely giuen by the iustification of faith In the place of Ambrose it is plaine that the name of merits is taken indifferently for workes either good or euill He saith that z Ambros Offic. lib. 1. cap 15. Nonnè euidens est meritorum aut proemia aut supplicia post mortem manere it is euident that for merits there remaineth after this life either reward or punishment and M. Bishop will not say that punishment remaineth for the merits that he pleadeth for Yet he calleth good workes by the name of merits but to how little purpose for Popish merit hath bin already shewed And how farre Ambrose was from opinion thereof his owne words shall witnesse where he saith a Ambr. in Psal 118. ser 20. Quis nostrum sine diuina potest miseratione subsistere Quid possumus dignum proemijs facere coelestibus c. Quo tandâm hominum merito defertur vt haec corruptibilis caro induat incorruptioneÌ mortale hoc induat immortalitatem Quibus laboribus quibusue iniurijs possumus nostra leuare peccata Indignae sunt passiones huius teÌporis ad superuenturam gloriaÌ Non ergo secundum merita nostra sed secundum misericordiam Dei coelestium decretorum homines forma praecedit Which of vs can stand without the mercie of God What can we do worthy of the reward of heauen By what merit of man is it yeelded that this corruptible should put on incorruption or this mortall should put on immortality By what labours by what suffering of wrongs can we abate our sinnes The sufferings of this time are vnworthy for the glory that is to come Therefore the forme of heauenly decrees goeth before men not according to our merits but according to Gods mercie This being so by the iudgement of Ambrose why doth M. Bishop seeke to perswade vs by the name of Ambrose that God frameth his heauenly decrees concerning vs according to our merits and that the works that we do are worthy of the reward of heauen He vseth commonly the name of merit as the rest do but neuer had in his heart that matter of merit that M. Bishop dreameth of Hierome also is cited but for shew and onely to fill vp a place b Hieron adueâ Jouinian lib. 2. Nostri laboris est pro diuersitate virtutuÌ diuersa nobis proemia praeparare It belongeth to our labour according to diuersitie of vertues to prepare for our selues diuersity of rewards The rewards by the promises of God are tied to the workes and therefore in doing the workes to which the rewards belong we may well be said to prepare for our selues the same rewards As we are said to worke out our saluation because though it be Gods meere grace by which we are saued yet he vseth our will and our worke for the effecting thereof so are we said also to prepare rewards for our selues because God vseth vs as instruments to do for our selues the workes that belong to those rewards which he hath prepared for vs. And these rewards we doubt not as before was said but that they are diuers according to the diuersity of our works greater rewards to greater works lesse reward to lesser works but what is all this to proue that the rewards are iustly merited and deserued by our workes That Hierome thought not so it is plaine by that we haue seene out of him c Supra sect 17. before that there can no worke be found worthy of the iustice of God as also for that he sayth in the name of the people of God d Hieron in Esa lib. 17. cap. 64. Si consideremus merita desperanduÌ est If we consider our owne merits we must despaire and resolueth euen concerning e IdeÌ adu Pelag. lib. 2. Pro nihilo saluos faciet eos haud dubiuÌ quin iustos qui non proprio merito sed Dei saluantur clementia the iust that they are not saued by their owne merite but by the mercie of God There followeth Saint Bernard whom M. Bishop would not haue cited if he had meant so faithfully as he should haue done In what sort S. Bernard taketh the name of merits hath bene declared a little before so as they may well blush to cite any thing out of him for maintaning their doctrine of merits But M. Bishops dealing is so much the more vnhonest for that in the very same sermon Bernard ouerthroweth that that he would proue by him f Bernar. in Can. ser 68. Quid de meritis solicita sit Ecclesia cui
de proposito Dei firmior suppetit securiorque gloriandi ratio c. NoÌ est quòd iam quae ras quibus meritis speremus bona praesertim cùm audias apud prophetam Non propter vos c. Ezec. 36. Sufficit ad meritum scire quòd non sufficiunt merita c. Merita habere cures habita data noueru fructum speraueris misericordiam Dei c. Perniciosa paupertas meritorum penuria est To what end is the Church carefull as touching merites which hath a more sure and secure ground of reioycing by reason of the purpose of God It is not for thee to aske by what merits we hope for good things seeing thou hearest by the Prophet Not for your sakes but for mine owne sake will I do it saith the Lord. It sufficeth for merite to know that merits are not sufficient Be carefull to haue merits when thou hast them know them to be giuen thee but for fruite thereof hope for the mercie of God The waât of merits is a pernicious pouertie Thus vnder the name of merites he commendeth the hauing of good workes and our care to be rich therein shewing that it is a pernicious want to be destitute thereof and to be men fruitlesse in the Church of God But yet when we haue them he teacheth vs to conceiue the vnsufficiency thereof and to rest the expectation of the fruit and reward thereof onely vpon Gods mercie who hath promised to performe it not for our sakes but for his owne sake and so fully bereaueth them of that nature of merite which M. Bishop doth assigne vnto them Thus doth he euery where giue vs to vnderstand his mind g Ibid. ser 61. Meritum meum miseratio domini My merit saith he is the mercie of the Lord. h Ibi. ser 73. Opus habent sancti pro peccatis exorare vt de misericordia salui fiant propriae iustitiae non fidentes Euen the Saints haue need to intreate for their sinnes that by thy mercie they may be saued not trusting to their owne righteousnesse And againe i In Psal Qui habitat ser 1. Periculosa habitatio illorum qui in meritu suiâ sperant periculosa quia ruinosa Dangerous is the dwelling of them that trust in their owne merit it is dangerous because it is ruinous k Ibi. ser 16. Hoc totum hominiâ meritum si totam spem suam ponat in illo qui totum hominem saluuÌ fecit This is the whole merite of man to put his whole trust in him who hath wholly saued man Many other such like speeches of his might be alledged whereby M. Bishop may well take occasion to bethinke himselfe whether he haue not done S. Bernard wrong to make him a patron of the doctrine of merits which the Church of Rome now maintaineth Let him duly consider whether he haue done well to take a little aduantage of a scrap of a sermon and to vrge it contrary to the whole drift of the Author in that place and his perpetuall doctrine other where For conclusion we are assaulted with a whole generall Councell that saith neuer a word against vs. The Arausican Councell saith l Concil Arausic cap. 18. Debetur merces de bonis operibus si fiant sed gratia quae non debetur praecedit vt fiant Reward is due for good works if they be done but grace which is no due goeth before that they may be done Euen so say we we also confesse that there is a reward due vnto good workes which God taketh vpon him to owe vnto vs but we say it with that limitation that before we haue heard out of S. Austin from whom that Councell boroweth almost all that they haue set downe that m Supra sect 17 God hath made himselfe a debtor vnto vs not for any thing that he hath receiued of vs but by promising all things vnto vs. It is due then to the worke not simply in respect of the worke it selfe or for the merite and worth thereof but by vertue of the promise that God hath made to them that so worke And thus we are come to an end of M. Bishops antiquitie which we may see doth pitifully faile him in that out of all antiquitie he could bring no stronger proofes then he hath done his doctrine of merits being expresly thwarted by the most of them whom he hath brought for defence of it But as touching Antiquitie gentle Reader for thy further satisfaction and the better arming of thee if need require against the fraud of these vndermining Sophisters it shall not be amisse to aduertise thee thus much that as we do so did the auncient Fathers vpon diuers occasions speake diuersly of good workes and both their speeches and ours are always to be weighed according to the same occasions When there is cause to set forth the true and proper cause of our saluation they referre the same as we do to the free grace and mercy of God and wholly to his gift they vilifie as we do the workes and worth of men and acknowledge that there is nothing in vs in the confidence whereof we may offer our selues to God nothing in strength whereof we can stand before God or whereby we should merite and deserue any thing at Gods hands Here workes are considered meerly as they are and as God instrict and precise iudgement findeth them to be and therefore are pronounced of accordingly But when occasion requireth to speake only of good works and of the end thereof and we look no further but to inforce a conscience of the way wherein God hath called vs to walke to that saluation that he hath promised or when we haue in hand to commend any speciall point of godly and vertuous conuersation we presse the same with all instance as the Fathers do we shew how necessarily God requireth the workes of our obedience how graciously he vouchsafeth in mercie to accept them how he hath promised of his bountie to reward them We forbeare not to say that eternall life is the stipend of our warfare the hire and wages of our workes that God hath not appointed heauen for idle persons and loiterers but for such as labor for it that because God rendereth heauen we must haue that whereto it is to be rendered if we haue not there is no heauen for vs. We say it is a crowne or garland win it and weare it it is a haruest labor for it if thou wilt enioy it it is a field of treasure if thou wilt possesse it thou must purchase it Such kind of speeches euery man may obserue who is either a hearer of our sermons or a reader of our bookes Now if any man will hereof conclude that we teach the merit of workes it is his ignorance and mistaking and he doth vs wrong We teach what followeth of what we teach the dependance and consequence of good life and eternall life of the work and
punishments in the world to come but also for the temporall afflictions punishments that are incident to this life It is therefore a great impiety in the Church of Rome to take away this part of Christes office from him and to make euery man thereof partaker to his wrong But now whereas M. Bishop saith that it would require an infinite vertue to satisfie for the euerlasting punishment of sinne we would gladly know of him how it standeth that a greater vertue is required to satisfie for the euerlasting paines of hell then there is to merit and purchase the euerlasting ioyes of heauen He saith the grace of Christ giueth force to our workes to deserue the one but if that be true by what reason doth he deny that the grace of Christ giueth force to our satisfactions to quit the other His owne confession in the one condemneth his assertion in the other and because he denieth that our merits of satisfaction can release from hell he must deny that our merits of purchase are of sufficient value to deserue heauen because the grace of God must be holden to be of the same power and vertue on both sides Againe it is vntrue which he saith that the temporall punishment being limited may be satisfied for by a meere creature because the satisfaction is not to be esteemed according to the quantity of the temporal punishment but according to the maiestie of him to whoÌ the offence is done who being the same in punnishing whether temporally or eternally can haue none of sufficient worth to deale with the one who is not the same for the other also He cannot in any sort merit any thing at Gods hands who is not in worth and power answerable to his infinite greatnesse And this Thomas Aquinas saw who to make good humane satisfaction attributeth vnto it d Thom. Aquin. suppl q. 13. art 1. ad 1. Sicut offensa habuit quandaem infinitateÌ ex infinitate diuinae maiestatisââta etiam satisfactio accipit quandaÌ infinitatem ex infinitate diuinae misericordiae proui est gratia informata per quam acceptum redditur quod homo facere potest an infinitie in respect that it is informed by grace accepted thereby whereby we may see how well these men accord in the grounds of their defence But Thomas Aquinas saw it to be an absurd fancie which M. Bishop here followeth in designing a rate as he calleth it of sins to be answered by a measure of temporall stripes whereas the infinitenesse of sin can beare no such limitation nor be bounded in any sort within the coÌpasse of temporall reuenge But yet M. Bishop will make vs beleeue that he hath a deuice whereby to make good this rate and measure He telleth vs that in sin two things must be considered the one is the turning away from God whom we offend the other is the turning to the thing for the loue of which we offend Our turning from God both the fault the eternall punishment due vnto it he saith are freely pardoned by Christ but man forsooth must satisfie for the pleasure that he tooke in turning to the creature But this idle Sophisme of his is reiected also by the same great Rabbine of theirs Thomas Aquinas as a thing of nought e Jbid. Quidam dicum quòd habet infinitateÌ ex parte auersionis sic gratis dimittitur sed ex parte coÌuersionis finita est sic pro ea satisfiers potest Sed hoc nihil est quia satisfactio non respondet peccato nisi secundum quod est offensa Dei quod noÌ habet ex paâââ conuersionis sed âx ãâã âââsionis ãâ¦ã 22. Ciâ ãâ¦ã beneââ ãâ¦ã dineââist ãâ¦ã muliaeuteÌ ãâã perturâato Some say saith he that sin hath an infinity in respect of auerting or turning away from God and so it is freely pardoned but that in respect of conuersion or turning to creatures it is finite and so may be satisfied for But this is nothing because satisfaction answereth not to sin but according as it is an offence to God which it hath not of conuerting to other things but of auerting and turning from God There is a loue of the creatures which is according to God standeth with the loue of God f The creature because it is good it may be loued aright saith Austin and it may be loued amisse aright if order be kept amisse if order be peruerted Therefore vertue righteousnes is not a deniall of the loue of the creatures but it is as he saith g Ibid. Definitio breuis vera virtutis ârdo est amoris an order in louing The act of sin then consisteth in disordered loue in that the loue of the creature implieth an auersion and turning away from God Now then seeing satisfaction is to be made by vs in respect of auersion froÌ God the punishment that belongeth to auersion froÌ God is the eternall punishment of sin as M. Bishop also saith he must acknowledge by the doctrine of their owne Schooles that we are to make satisfaction for the eternall punishment of sin and then let him tell vs what exception he hath yet giuen that their doctrine of satisfactions doth not make vs Christes Redeemers of our selues Priests of the same order with the Sonne of God But we are yet further desirous to know vpon what ground M. Bishop would haue vs to beleeue that only temporall punishments should belong to the pleasures delights of sin or in what sort we should conceiue the same pleasures of sin seuered from auerting turning away from God These are such strange deuices howsoeuer he setteth them downe as speciall tricks of wit as that he should thinke him to haue written them in a dreame but that he vttereth so many of them as that then we must imagine him to liue in a continuall dreame Must we thinke that the Apostles were acquainted with this nice conceipt of his Did they meane that Christ suffered and died for our sins quantum ad auersionem so farre as concerneth turning from God but that he left vs to suffer for our owne sins and one for anothers sins quantum ad conuersionem so farre as concerneth turning to the pleasures of our sins Surely the Prophet saith quantum ad auersionem h Esa 53.6 All we like sheepe haue gone astray and quantum ad conuersionem we haue turned euery man to his owne way and addeth concerning both And the Lord hath laid vpon him the iniquities of vs all But M. Bishop hath learned another lesson of their schoolemen who haue exercised their wits to mocke the word of God for the colouring of those lewd and blasphemous nouelties which the Romish Apostasie hath brought in to the wrong and derogation of the crosse of Christ 4 W. BISHOP But Christ saith M. Perkins said on the Crosse It is finished Wherfore all satisfaction was at Christes death ended as well temporall as eternall Answer
many times did and many men do This worke saith he is but common oile and of no great sauour and yet it is acceptable with God as Daniel signifieth saying to a King that knew not God Heare my counsel O King and redeeme thy sinnes with almes Some such matter Peter also saith in Clement that the good workes which are done by infidels do benefit them in this world but not in the world to come for the obtaining of eternall life and that very rightly because they do them not for Gods sake but onely as of the nature of man But they which do these things in respect of God that is the faithfull haue benefit thereby not onely in this world but also in that yea specially in that that is to come Here is the true condition of Nabuchodonosors workes set forth vnto vs he was an infidell he knew not God that which he did he did it only by naturall instinct God respected it no further but only for this world and onely in that respect did Daniel say vnto him Redeeme thy sinnes with almes and therefore it must needes be granted that the word of redeeming is very vnproperly vsed can haue no such meaning as M. Bishop intendeth by it Now therfore albeit it be true which M. Perkins obserueth out of the learned in the Chaldee tongue that the word which is by the vulgar interpreter translated to redeeme doth properly signifie to breake off yet he needed not to haue rested vpon that answer but should rather haue taken the common translation thereby to euict that the name of redemption hath vse with ecclesiasticall writers without any intendment of Popish satisfaction Forwords are not alwaies to be racked to their natiue and proper vse but from it are borowed many times to import somewhat else which in some respect may seeme neere vnto it Redemption properly importeth the paiment of a iust price for the setting of a captiue or bondman free In this meaning it is vsed of our Sauiour Christ who gaue himselfe for a price for vs to set vs free from death and sinne to reconcile vs vnto God but in this meaning to attribute vnto our selues any power or worth to pay any price or to yeeld any valuable recompence vnto God for our sinnes is a blasphemie intollerable and a great impeachment of the sufficiencie of Christes redemption Yet notwithstanding the terme of redeeming is otherwise many times vsed when one thing is made consequent to the doing or forgoing of another as the freedome of the bondman is to the paiment of the price In this case the one is said to be redeemed by the other not because it is a worthy price for the purchase but because it is an opportunity for the obtaining or gaining of it Thus Nabuchodonosor formerly said to his soothsaiers e Dan. 2.8 I know certainly that ye redeeme the time that is that ye vse your talke for the prolonging of the time So are we said by forgoing the vanities and pleasures of the world f Ephe. 5.16 Col 4.5 to redeeme the time because thereby we take the opportunity therof to bestow it to the Lords vse Thus the heathen King was willed by almes-deedes to redeeme his sinnes not as though his almes-deedes were any satisfaction to God for his sinnes which by the doctrine of Poperie could not be but because God for the common benefit of mankinde hath vouchsafed to yeeld good for the onely outward forsaking of euill waies howsoeuer inward regeneration finde no place at all Thus a man is said with his goods to redeeme his soule not for that worldly goods are a price for the sauing of a soule God forbid but for that by forgoing his goods he findeth meanes and opportunitie of being saued by Iesus Christ And in this sort ecclesiasticall writers are wont sometimes to attribute to workes of repentance and charity the redemption of our sinnes not for that they tooke them in themselues to be any price for the worth whereof God should be appeased towards vs but onely because to the faithfull doers thereof for Christes sake in whose name they are done God hath made the promise of forgiuenesse of sinnes and euerlasting life Now by that that hath bene said we see that M. Bishops argument is fallen into this frame Nabuchodonosor an infidell and heathen King neuer partaker of forgiuenesse of sinnes and not capable by the doctrine of the Church of Rome of doing any satisfaction for sinne is willed to redeeme his sinnes with almes-deedes therefore after forgiuenesse of sinnes there remaineth yet a satisfaction to be made for the sinnes that are forgiuen He that shall denie his argument shall do him a shrewd turne for how to proue it he cannot tell As for the place which he citeth out of S. Luke it must import somwhat further then the words sound For infidels as we haue seene of Nabuchodonosor do giue almes and yet all things are not cleane vnto them for g Tit. 1.15 to vnbeleeuers nothing is cleane but euen their mindes and consciences are defiled The Pharisees also to whom Christ there speaketh h Math. 6.2 gaue almes and yet they were not clensed thereby Yea the Apostle S. Paul giueth vs to vnderstand that i 1. Cor. 13.3 a man may giue all his goods to feede the poore and yet being without charity and loue it profiteth him nothing But by the occasion of the words the meaning of them will appeare He hath said before k Luk. 11.39 Indeede ye Pharisees make cleane the outside of the cup and of the platter but * ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã that which is within you is full of rauening and wickednesse Hereupon he addeth for reproofe Ye fooles did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also Then for correction and exhortation he bringeth in the words which M. Bishop alledgeth by halues * ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Yea rather giue for almes those things that are within behold all things shall be cleane vnto you Where presupposing as we may conceiue that they did giue almes or otherwise exhorting them so to do he withall directeth the true manner of the giuing thereof consisting not onely in reaching a gift with the hand but in giuing the heart and affection and l Esa 58.10 powring out the soule as the Prophet speaketh to the hungry in shewing iudgement and mercy and fidelitie to our brethren for the want whereof he taketh exception against them in the next words m Math. 23.23 as Saint Mathew expresseth the particulars thereof Therefore he admonisheth them by these words that as they were carefull outwardly to clense their cups and platters so they should much more be carefull to clense their hearts to voide themselues of hypocrisie couetousnesse briberie crueltie and to put on charity compassion mercy iustice and faithfulnesse and then not only their dishes and vessels but their almes-deedes their meates and
sinnes may be called a satisfaction for our sinnes There is no disproportion whence he may take any aduantage against the force of this exception But yet further he maketh God by this meanes like vnto his needy creditour For as the creditour must be appeased by money so must God by merit and on both parts satisfaction is required What it is wherewith the satisfaction is made it skilleth not be it to God one way and to the creditor another way but on both sides there must be iust and worthy satisfaction He would make vs beleeue that God freely forgiueth nothing but either we must by merit purchase our release or else we must lye by it till we haue payed the vttermost farthing Yea and that must be many times for mony also for although God himselfe take no mony for Pardons yet the Vicar of Rome doth for him An humble and contrite heart will not serue the turne he must pay for it that will be pardoned Thus M. Bishops shifts fall out amisse on euery side and he can say nothing to serue his turne Better were it for him to yeeld to the truth then thus to shame himselfe by fighting so childishly against it In a word we tell him that God indeed esteemeth an humble and contrite heart grieuing for sinne and suing for pardon but he esteemeth the same as suing for pardon not as presuming of satisfaction A strange suter is he that thinketh suite to be satisfaction or that by requesting a pardon he iustly deserueth to be pardoned He alledgeth that it is said h Mat. 18.32 Did not I forgiue thee the debt because thou besoughtest me but yet he doth not find that it is said I forgaue thee the debt because by beseeching me thou madest me a full recoÌpence satisfaction for the debt If he had made satisfaction therby then it should not haue bene said afterwards which M. Bishop should haue remembred i Vers 34. His master was wroth and deliuered him to the iaylers till he should pay all that was due vnto him There could nothing remaine due where iust satisfaction had bene made 16. W. BISHOP Secondly saith M. Perkins Fasting is a thing indifferent of the same nature with eating and drinking no more conferring to the kingdome of heauen then eating and drinking doth What an Epicurian and fleshly doctrine is this Why then did the Niniuites fast put on sack-cloth and lye on the ground all which bodily afflictions are reduced to fasting rather then eate and drinke and presume of Gods mercy if the one had bene as acceptable to God as the other Why is S. Iohn Baptist commended for his rough garments and thin diet if cherishing the flesh please God as well as punishing of it Christ saith expressely That if we fast in secret his heauenly Father will repay vs openly will he reward eating and drinking so liberally but of fasting we shall haue a whole Chapter hereafter Therefore brieflly I here conclude that this doctrine tendeth to the establishment of the kingdome of Atheists and Epicures whose sweet speech is Let vs eate and let vs drinke for after death there is no pleasure true for such belli-gods and their followers R. ABBOT That fasting of it self is a thing indifferent neuer wise man made any doubt No man euer yet in a right mind thought it to be a matter of vertue to keepe a mans belly emptie Surely if to fast be a vertue then to eate and drink is a vice because whatsoeuer is contrarie to vertue is vice If fasting of it selfe be a good worke a man may do a good worke against his will because a man may be made to fast when he hath more will to eate But it might please his wisdome to vnderstand that some things simply and of themselues are good other some things simply and of themselues are euill othersome of themselues are neither good nor euill but yet are instruments and may be vsed either to good or euill Of this last kind are riches health strength walking sitting waking sleeping mariage virginitie and such like by which for the things themselues a man is neither the better nor the worse but by a good man they may be applyed to good and by an euill man to euill Of the same nature are eating drinking fasting for none of which can a man be called better then another man because they are things indifferently common both to good and euill although by a good man they may be vsed to good And therefore as Iohn Baptist came a Mat. 11 18.1â neither eating nor drinking so the sonne of man came both eating and drinking to giue to vnderstand that neither eating nor fasting of themselues do make vs any whit the more accepted in the sight of God Neither did our Sauiour Christ by eating and drinking cherish the flesh in such sort as it is vnlawful to cherish the flesh which is meant of the vices not of the substance of the flesh by wantonnesse intemperancie and excesse not by moderate and sober feeding and diet in which respect let him remember what the Apostle saith that b Eph. 5.29 neuer any man hated his owne flesh but loueth and cherisheth it euen as the Lord doth the Church thereby noting them to be vnnaturall monsters rather then men of whom he speaketh in another place who place c Col. 2.23 religion in not sparing the body and not hauing it in any honour to satisfie the flesh As for the Niniuites if they had but only fasted they had done as good as nothing what had they done more then their cattle did But they fasted to humble themselues to God and to shew their feare of his iudgement and for these things God vouchsafed to respect their fast And thus he that d Mat. 6.17.18 fasteth in secret not to fast but e Tertul. de poen leiunijs preces a alâre by fasting to cherish prayer not to afflict the body but to affect the soule that is that vseth the one not for it selfe but for the other not for f 1. Tim. 4.8 bodily but for spirituall and godly exercise him the Father seeth in secret and will reward him openly It is not simply fasting that God requireth but humiliation and prayer he requireth fasting accidentally onely as a support and help therof Therefore the doctrine of Poperie is most absurd and senslesse which maketh fasting distinctly by it selfe and for it selfe not only an act of Gods worship but also a matter of merit such as whereby we make satisfaction to God and purchase of him the remission of our sinnes M. Bishop alledgeth somewhat concerning fasting as we see but concerning this vse of fasting though it were the matter in hand he had nothing at all to say As for his cauils they are handled before in g Sect. 18. answer to his Epistle to the King The kingdom of Atheists Epicures in the whole world doth not flourish more then in the
as written For inke and paper brought no new holinesse nor gaue any force vertue vnto either Gods or the Apostles words but they were of the same value and credit vttered by word of mouth as if they had bene written Here the question is principally of diuine traditions which we hold to be necessary to saluation to resolue and determine many matters of greater difficulty For we deny not but that some such principall points of our Faith which the simple are bound to beleeue vnder paine of damnation may be gathered out of the holy Scriptures as for example that God is the Creator of the world Christ the Redeemer of the world the holy Ghost the sanctifier and other such like Articles of the Creed R. ABBOT Traditions saith M. Bishop are of three sorts Diuine Apostolicall Ecclesiasticall Which distinction in some meaning standeth good but as he expresseth the meaning of it it is absurd For if Apostolike traditions be expounded of doctrines as he expoundeth them what warrant hath he to put difference betwixt diuine and Apostolike traditions when the Apostles for doctrine deliuered nothing but what they themselues had receiued froÌ God Our Sauiour limited their commission in this sort a Mat. 28.20 teaching them to do whatsoeuer I haue commanded you Accordingly they professed to do b 1. Coâ 11.23 I haue receiued of the Lord that which I haue deliuered vnto you saith Saint Paul c 1. Thess 4.2.8 We gaue you commaundements by the Lord Iesus and he that despiseth these things despiseth not man but God d Gal. 1.11 12. The Gospell which was preached by me I receiued it not of man nor was taught it but by the reuelation of Iesus Christ Therefore Tertullian saith of them that e Tertul. de praescript Nec ipsi Apostoli quicquam ex suo arbitrio quod inducerent elegeruÌt sed acceptam à Christo disciplânam fideliter nationibus adsignauerunt they did not vpon their liking make choise of any thing to bring in but faithfully assigned to the Nations the doctrine which they had receiued of Christ So that if Traditions be vnderstood of doctrine there is no reason to make any difference betwixt the traditions of Christ the traditions of the Apostles because they are both one But if we wil make difference betwixt them we must call Apostolike traditions onely such ordinances whether written or vnwritten as the Apostles prescribed for ceremony vsage in the Church as the obseruation of the memoriall of the natiuity death resurrection of Christ the alteration of the seuenth day from the Iewes Sabbath to the day of Christes resurrection the precept of the Apostle of preaching bareheaded such like And in these traditions we may note that they were sometimes subiect to diuersity according to diuersity of places as was at first the feast of Easter sometimes subiect to alteration change where there might be reason of any such alteration as were f Iude vers 12. the feasts of charity first vsed by the Apostles afterwards abolished for the abuse of them as that order of the Apostle for preaching bareheaded it being by the custome of that time a signe of honour and authority so to do whereas since it is become a matter of authority to preach with the head couered The obseruation of g Acts. 20.7 Apoc. 1.10 the Lords day we hold perpetuall vnchangeable because we find it noted in the Scriptures to haue bene froÌ the Apostles and there can be no reason of reuersing or altering what they ordered therin If thus M. Bishop will speake of Apostolike traditions we acknowledge the name of theÌ but Apostolike doctrines we know none but such as are also to be acknowledged for diuine Thus therefore the question is of diuine traditions that is doctrines of faith of the worship and seruice of God which we deny to be any but what are comprised in the written word of God Now of diuine traditions he telleth vs some parabables which it seemeth he himselfe did not well vnderstand We hold them saith he to be necessary to saluation to determine matters of greater difficulty Be like then they are not necessary for theÌselues but only to determine matters of greater difficulty and those that are not necessary for the determining of matters of greater difficulty are not necessary to saluation By this meanes a number of their traditions must fall Purgatory praier for the dead inuocation of Saints Popes Pardons worshipping of idols images and the rest because no matters of difficulty are determined thereby Againe we deny not saith he but that some such principall points of our faith which the simple are bound to beleeue vnder paine of damnation may be gathered out of the Scriptures It seemeth then that the simple are not bound vnder paine of damnation to beleeue the rest that cannot be gathered out of the Scriptures if he say they be so bound then that clause of his was very idlely and impertinently inferred But we must pardon him it seemeth he wanted sleepe the night before and therefore being very drowsie could not well consider of that he wrote 5 W. BISHOP M. Perkins goeth about to proue by these reasons following that the Scriptures containe all matter of beliefe necessary to saluation Testimonie * Deut. 4.2 Thou shalt not adde to the words that I coÌmand thee nor take any thing there from Therefore the written word is sufficient for all doctrine pertaining to saluation If it be said that this is spoken as well of the vnwritten as written word for there is no mention in the text of the written word then M. Perkins addeth that it must be vnderstood of the written word onely because these words are as a certaine preface set before a long Commentarie made vpon the written Law Answer Let the words be set where you will they must not be wrested beyond their proper signification The words cited signifie no more then that we must not either by addition or subtractioÌ change or peruert Gods commandements whether they be written or vnwritten Now to inferre that because they are as a preface vnto Moses law that therfore nothing must be added vnto the same law is extreame dotage Why theÌ were the bookes of the old Testament written afterward if God had forbidden any more to be written or taught besides that one booke of Deuteronomie Shall we thinke that none of the Prophets that liued and wrote many volumes after this had read these words or that they either vnderstood them not or that vnderstanding them well did wilfully transgresse against theÌ one of these the Protestants must needs defend or else for very shame surcease the alledging of this text for the al-sufficieÌcy of the writteÌ word R. ABBOT M. Bishops allegations are too simple childish to moue the Protestants to surcease the opposing of that text of Moses against vnwritten traditions doctrines a Deut.
sedulò vt quae tibi lex facienda praescripsit opere expleas diligentèr certus opperitor iucundissimaÌ fruitionem repositoruÌ tibi bonoruÌ c. Bonis perfruâ siquidem desideres quae praescripta sunt mandata opere exequitor which God hath giuen as to guide vs by the hand to direct vs the way Wilt thou then saith he be certainly perswaded what shall hereafter befall thee Prouide diligently to do the things which the law coÌmandeth thee to do and waite assured of the most ioyfull fruition of the good things which are prouided for thee If thou desire to enioy good things performe the commandements that are prescribed vnto thee By Basils iudgement then it is plaine that the words haue further meaning then to refer theÌ to the law concerning that one particular of consulting wizards But Hierome goeth yet further tels vs the meaning of the Prophet in this sort e Hieron in Esa cap 8. lib. 3. Si de aliquo dubitaris c. si vultis nosse quae dubia sunt maÌgis vos legi et testimonijs tradite scripturarum If ye doubt of any thing if ye would know the things that ye doubt of referre your selues to the law and to the testimonies of the Scriptures What wil M. Bishop say now wil he cal Hierom a wizard as he hath done M.P. for saying the Prophets meaning to be that the Scripture the written word shold resolue theÌ of al that they doubted towards God Yea the law it self sufficiently warranteth vs so to coÌceiue f Deut. 12.32 Whatsoeuer I coÌmand you take heed you do it saith Moses thou shalt put nothing therto nor take ought therefroÌ Those words M. Bish vulgar Latin expoundeth thus g Quod praecipio tibi hoc tantùm facito Domino What I coÌmand thee that onely do to the Lord thou shalt put nothing thereto c. Now we haue seene before that Moses committed to writing whatsoeuer he commaÌded If then nothing were to be done to the Lord but what Moses commanded and all that Moses commanded was written then by the written word all doubts were to be resolued as touching those things that were to be done to the Lord and nothing to be done but that that was written But saith M. Bishop what need we then the Prophets what need we the Euangelists and the Epistles of the Apostles I haue answered him before but yet let me tell him here that Faustus the Maniche denying God the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ to be the author of the old Testament when he was vrged that Christ approueth the same in saying I came not to destroy the lawe but to fulfill it replied that it could not be that Christ should say so because the author of the Law had said that nothing should be added to the law nor taken from it Saint Austine answereth him that h August cont Faust Manich. lib. 17. cap. 6. Venit legem adimplere non vi legi adderentur quae decrant sed vt fierent quae scripta erant quod ipsa eius verba iestantur Non enim ait Joâa vnum aut vnus apex non transiet à lege donec addantur quae desunt sed donec omnia fiant Christ came to fulfill the Law not as that any thing should be added which was wanting to the law but that the things should be done which are written therein as his words saith he do shew for he doth not say Not one iot or title of the law shall passe till the things be added which are wanting but till all things be done Hence therefore we answer M. Bishop once againe that the Prophets writings were no additions of doctrine but onely explanations of the law and so likewise that the writings of the new Testament do adde nothing to the law but onely do further declare and withall set foorth the accomplishment of those things that were foreshewed prophecied in the law And therefore Paul in preaching the Gospell professeth i Act. 26.22 to say no other things then those which the Prophets and Moses did say should come so that to vse the distinction that Vincentius Lyrinensis vpon other occasion vseth though the Euangelists and Apostles spake in a new manner yet they spake k Vincent Lyr. Eadem quae didicisti doce vt cùm dicas nouè non dicas noua no new matter or to allude to Saint Austines words though they varied in the tense yet they differed not in the signification of the word but in both times or in all times the same doctrine was preached the same faith continued the latter affirming nothing but what was confirmed by the writings of them that went before 7 W. BISHOP 3. Testimony * Ioh. 20.31 These things were written that ye might beleeue that Iesus is the Christ in beleeuing might haue life euerlasting Here is set downe the ful end of the Gospell that is to bring men to faith and consequently to saluation to which the whole Scripture alone is sufficient without Traditions Answ Here are more faults then lines first the text is craftily mangled things being put instead of miracles For S. Iohn saith Many other miracles Christ did c. but these were written c. Secondly S. Iohn saith not that for faith we shall be saued but beleeuing we shold haue saluation in his name which he clipped off thirdly remember to what faith S. Iohn ascribes the means of our saluation not to that wherby we apply vnto our selues Christs righteousnesse but by which we beleeue Iesus to be Christ the Messias of the Iewes and the Sonne of God which M. Perkins also concealed Now to the present matter S. Iohn saith that these miracles recorded in his Gospell were written that we might beleeue Iesus to be the Sonne of God and beleeuing haue saluation in his name c. Therefore the written word containes all doctrine necessary to saluation Answ S. Iohn speakes not a word of doctrine but of miracles and therfore to conclude sufficiency of doctrine out of him is not to care what one saith But M.P. foreseeing this saith it cannot be vnderstood of miracles only for miracles without the doctrine of Christ can bring no man to life euerlasting true and therefore that text speaking onely of miracles proueth nothing for the sufficiencie of the written Word Christs miracles were sufficient to proue him to be the Sonne of God and their Messias but that proueth not S. Iohns Gospell to containe all doctrine needfull to saluation for many other points of faith must be beleeued also And if it alone be sufficient what need we the other three Gospels the Acts of the Apostles or any of their Epistles or the same S. Iohns Reuelations Finally admit that S. Iohns Gospell were al-sufficient yet should not Traditions be excluded for Christ saith in it in plaine termes * Ioh. 16. that he had much more to say vnto his Apostles but
they as then being not able to beare it he reserued that to be deliuered vnto them afterward of which high mysteries S. Iohn recordeth not much in his Gospel after Christs resurrection and so many of them must needs be deliuered by Tradition vnwritten R. ABBOT More faults then lines saith M. Bishop but very slender proofe doth he bring of any fault First he cauilleth that the text is mangled and things put in instead of miracles The words are thus a Ioh. 20.30 Many other signes also did Iesus in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this booke but these things are written that ye might beleeue that Iesus is Christ the Son of God and that in beleeuing ye might haue life through his name Where we translate the Greek relatiue ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã being in the neuter gender these things because it hath not reference only to miracles mentioned in the former verse but to the matter of the whole book S. Iohn here intending to set foorth the end purpose of all that he hath written For being b Hier. Proem in Matth. Cum esset in Asia tam tunc haereticorum seminae pullularent Cerinthi Hebionis caeteroruÌ qui negant Christum in carne venisse coactus est ab omnibus penè tunc Asiae Episcopis multaruÌ Ecclesiarum legationibus de diuinitate saluatoris altiùs scribere in Asia as Ierome saith and the seeds of heretickes beginning to grow of Cerinthus Ebion and others denying Christ to haue come in the flesh he was forced by almost al the bishops of Asia and by messages from other churches to write more deeply then the other Euangelists had done of the diuinity of our Sauior Christ Here then he signifieth that he hath so done these things saith he are written that ye may beleeue that Iesus is Christ the Son of God Therefore Cyrill saith hereof c Cyril in Ioan. lib. 12. cap 61. Quasi repetendo quae scripsit intentionem EuaÌgelij manifestat As it were repeating or recounting the things which he hath written he manifesteth the intent of his Gospell The first fault then pretended by M. Bishop is no fault because the relatiue implieth generally what the Euangelist hath written according to the intent and purpose of his Gospell The second fault is ridiculously alledged for wheÌ M. Perkins collecteth that by faith we be saued how doth he meane it or how doth any man meane it but d Acts. 3 16. by faith in the name of Christ As touching the third point it hath bene e Of Iustification Sect. 18. before declared that to beleeue that Iesus is Christ the Son of God importeth the applying vnto vs of the merit and righteousnes of Christ For as a man may f Thom. Aquin. 22 q. 2. art 2. ad 3. Credere DâuÌ non conuenit infidelibus sub ea ratione qua ponitur actus fidei Non enim credunt Deum esse sub his conditionibus quas fides determinat beleeue that there is a God or that God is and yet be still an infidell wanting that beleefe therof which is properly the act of faith as Thom. Aquinas noteth so a man may in some sort beleeue that Iesus is Christ the Son of God yet not so beleeue it as the Scripture nameth it for the act of iustifying faith because he beleeueth it not vnder such conditions as are determined by the doctrine of faith If it be taken only for an act of vnderstanding as the Papists take it a maÌ may beleeue it without any fruit because the diuels so beleeue but the beleefe of the heart which the Scripture intendeth importeth affiance and trust and inward feeling and comfort of that which it beleeueth whilst therby we apply vnto our selues the benefite of the merit passion of Christ expecting therby the remission of our sins But now froÌ noting of faults M. Bishop cometh to a finall answer that because S. Iohn speaketh of miracles not of doctrine therefore these words proue nothing for the sufficiency of the written word Where M. Perkins exception still standeth vnremoued that because by miracles without doctrine we caÌnot attaine to that faith wherby we beleeue that Christ is the Son of God therfore the words of the Euangelist cannot be restrained to miracles only For others did miracles as great yea g Ioh. 14.12 greater then Christ did as by example we see when h Act. 5.15 by the shadow of Peter and by i Chap. 19.12 napkins and handkerchifes from Paules body the sicke are healed which we reade not of Christ himselfe By miracles therfore Christ is not discerned vnlesse by doctrine accoÌpanying the same he be made known vnto vs therefore the words of the Euangelist must be referred to the doctrine also whereby he teacheth to make vse of the miracles of Christ So S. Austin referreth the words both to those things which Christ did and said k Aug. in Joan. tract 49. Sanctus Euangelista testatur multa Dominum Christum dixisse fecisse quae scripta non sunt Electa sunt auteÌ quae scriberentur quae saluti credentium sufficere videbantur The holy Euangelist testifieth that Christ both did and said many things which are not written and for the ouerthrowing of M. Bishops answer and iustifying of our assertion he addeth but those things were chosen to be written which seemed sufficient for the saluation of them that beleeue Cyril speaketh more expresly l Cyril in Ioan. lib. 12. cap. 68. Non omnia quae Dominus fecit conscriptasunt sed quae scribentes sufficere putarunt tam ad mores quà m ad dogmata vt recta fide operibus virtute rutilantes ad regnum coeloruÌ perueniamus Al things which Christ did are not writteÌ but what the writers thought to be sufficient as well touching conuersation as doctrine that shining with right faith and vertuous works we may attaine to the kingdom of heauen It is not then our collection only but thus these ancient Fathers conceiued that of the miracles doctrine of Christ so much was written as is sufficient to instruct vs to faith to the attainment of euerlasting life And this is plainly deliuered in the words of S. Iohn who could not say These things are written that ye may beleeue and beleeuing may haue eternall life if there be not that written by the beleefe whereof we may obtaine eternall life Therefore as touching Saint Iohns Gospell containing all things needfull to saluation we answer him first that indeed we affirme that there is no article of faith necessarie to saluation which is not to be taught and learned out of the Gospell of S. Iohn Secondly there is no cause so to restraine the words as if Saint Iohn would meane onely in his Gospell to comprehend all that should be needfull for the instruction of the Church Nay he hath a plaine reference to those things
them But if Christ had left any such matters to be deliuered by traditioÌ then it should vndoubtedly be knowne which and what they were We desire then by M. Bishop to be aduertised particularly therof and to know what those high mysteries were which the disciples could not beare What shal we think that Christ spake of that trash which they deliuer vnto vs vnder the name of traditions But S. Austin again cutteth him off froÌ all answer in that behalf u Ibid. tract 96. Quae cùm ipse tacuerit quis nostrum dicat ista vel illa sunt aut si dicere audeat vnde probat Quis enim est tam vanus aut temerarius qui cum dixerit etiaÌ vera quibus voluerit quae voluerit fine vllo testimonio diuino affirmet ea esse quae tuÌc dominus dicere noluit Quis hoc nostruÌ faciat non mâximaÌ culpam remeritatâ incurrat in quo nec Prophetica nec Apostolica excellit authoritas Seeing Christ himself hath bin silent of those things who of vs can say they are these these or if he dare to say it how doth he proue it For who is there so vaine or so rash who though he say things that are true will affirme without any testimony froÌ God that those are the things which Christ wold not say Which of vs should so do and not incurre a note of great presumption not hauing any authority either of a prophet or an Apostle Now if it cannot be known what those things were of which Christ spake then M. Bishop can haue no proofe for their traditioÌs hereby because wheras his words import that S. Iohn in his gospel recordeth somewhat hereof though not much after the resurrectioÌ of Christ we see nothing in that which he recordeth but that the matter of all the rest may be contained in the rest of his and the other Apostles writings But for the more full clearing of this matter it is to be noted that our Sauior before hath said to his Apostles x Iohn 15.15 All things that I haue heard of my Father haue I made knowne to you And again in his prayer to the Father y Chap. 17.8 I haue giuen vnto them saith he the words which thou gauest me and they haue receiued them If Christ deliuered all the words of God to his disciples before his death then it must needs follow that he deliuered no other words vnto them after his resurrection Therfore those many things which he had to speake vnto them are not to be vnderstood of any other things then he had taught them before but of a more full perfect reuelatioÌ for the more ful perfect apprehension vnderstanding of the same things To which purpose we are againe to note against M. Bishops fraudulent collection that our Sauior here saith not that he wold declare those things vnto them himself after his resurrectioÌ but deferreth the same to the coming of the Spirit saying z Chap. 16.13 Howbeit when he is come which is the spirit of truth he wil leade you into al truth Now how he shold lead them into all truth he hath before shewed a Chap. 14.26 He shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance which I haue told you He shold teach them all things not by teaching them other things but by bringing all things to their remembrance which they had bin taught by Christ himself Therfore here Christ saith further for he shal not speak of himself but whatsoeuer he shal heare that shal he speake Wherby he importeth that the holy Ghost shold speake according to his example and he stil professeth that b chap. 7.16.17 he speaketh not of himselfe that c Chap. 8.28 he doth nothing of himself but as the Father hath taught me saith he so I speake these things Christ spake d Chrysost de sanct adoran spiritu Non discessit à lege non discessit à Prophetis c. Non locutus est ex seipso sed ex Prophetis c. A seipso enim loqui extra legeÌ loqui est not of himself as Chrysostom noteth because he spake out of the Law and the Prophets for to speake of himself is to speake without or beside the Law So then the holy Ghost shall not speake of himselfe but as Christ spake according to the words of the Father in the law and the Prophets so the holy Ghost should speake according to the words of Christ and therefore according to those things that are written in the Law and the Prophets Therefore those many things which Christ had to speake vnto them and into the truth and knowledge whereof the holy Ghost was to leade them were no other things but what were contained in the written word of the Law and the Prophets whereof as yet they were not capable because as yet they did not so well e Iohn 20.9 know the Scripture nor could do vntill he should f Luk. 24.45 open their vnderstanding that they might vnderstand the same Origen vnderstandeth the words spokeÌ to the Apostles g Origen contra Cels l. 2. Fortassis vt Judaeis in litera legis Mosaicae educatis Apostolis habebat dicenduÌ quae sit vera lex c. VideÌs perdifficile esse ex animo reuellere penè conata et vsque ad grandem aetateÌ coalita dogmata adeòque pro diuinis habita vt amouere illa videretur imptum c. Jdeo dictum Deducet vos in omnem veritateÌ id est in omnem veritatem earuÌ rerum in quatuÌ figuris versantes putabatis vos vero cultu DeuÌ colere as Iewes brought vp in the letter of Moses law our Sauior seeing that it was very hard to pull out of their minds the opinions which had grown vp with theÌ to those yeers which were taken to be of God so as that it should seeme impious to remoue them Therefore where Christ saith The spirit shall leade you into all truth it is saith he as if he had said Into all the truth of those things in the figures whereof ye haue bin conuersant thinking thereby truly to worship God Here is then no warrant at all for M. Bishops vnwritten mysteries here is nothing as Origen conceiueth but that the spirit shold afterwards instruct them of the abolishing of the ceremonies of Moses law which they were not yet well able to conceiue And therefore against all illusions of heretikes pretending for their vnwritten traditions and doctrines the holy Ghost as the Church of Rome doth Chrysostom taking it for granted that what Christ spake is set foorth vnto vs in the writings of the Apostles and Euangelists giueth this most notable rule h Chrysost vt supra Si quis eoruÌ qui dicuntur habere spiritum sanctuÌ ex seipso loquitur non ex Euangelijs non credite Venit Manes dicit Ego sum Paracletus c.
desire to see Tertullians iudgement of traditions let him reade his booke of prescriptions against heretikes where he auerreth that traditions serue better then the Scriptures themselues to confute all heresies heretikes alwayes either not allowing all the bookes of Scripture or else peruerting the sense and meaning of the Scriptures And in his book de Corona militis he formally proposeth this question whether traditions vnwritten are to be admitted or no and answereth by many instances that they must be receiued concluding thus For these and the like points if thou require law out of the Scriptures thou shalt find none but Tradition is alledged to be the author of them Custome the confirmer and Faith the obseruer So that nothing is more certaine then that Tertullian thought vnwritten Traditions necessary to be beleeued R. ABBOT It followeth not that antiquitie is needlesse though all doctrine needfull to saluation be contained in the scriptures because antiquitie giueth vs many good and profitable helpes for attaining to the vnderstanding of many places and stories of the scripture when yet it teacheth vs to admit of no doctrine but what is proued thereby The first testimony alledged by M. Perkins is out of Tertullian a Tertul. de resurr carn Aufer haereticis quae cuÌ Ethnicis sapiunt siue vt alià s legitur quaecunque Ethnici saepiunt vt de scripturis solis quaestiones suas sistant stare noÌ poteruÌt Take from heretikes what they conceiue like the heathen or what the heathen conceiue that they may determine their questions only by the Scriptures and they cannot stand M. Bishop telleth vs for answer that Tertullian opposeth Scripture alone to the writings of heathen authors not to the trrditions of the Apostles and therfore maketh nothing against them But Tertullian speaketh not any thing there of heathen authors but of heathenish reasons fancies wherby heretikes plead against the mysteries of faith as there he giueth example by the resurrection of the dead He requireth them to forgo these and to bring their questions onely to the Scriptures or to the Scriptures alone Now to say that he opposeth not Scripture alone to the traditions of the Apostles is a ridiculous euasion when as by calling them thus to onely Scripture he giueth to vnderstand that he knew no such traditions belonging to matters of doctrine and faith for determining of questions that might arise thereof For whether he oppose the same to heathen authors or to heathenish reasons we may well take it to be absurd that he should require heretikes to be brought onely to Scripture if it be as M. Bishop telleth vs that questions cannot be determined onely by the Scriptures or if he thought any other meanes to be as necessarie as the Scriptures for the determining of theÌ But this sentence hath not so much strength by it selfe as it hath by that that is cited together with it b Idem de Praescript Nobis non est opus curiositate post ChristuÌ Iesum nec inquisitione post EuaÌgelium Cùm hoc credimus nihil desideramus vltra credere Hoc enim priùs credimus non esse quod vltra credere debemus We need no curiositie after Christ Iesus nor inquiry further after the Gospell when we beleeue that we desire to beleeue no more for this we beleeue that there is nothing further for vs to beleeue Where when M. Bishop saith that by the Gospell is to be vnderstood all our Christian doctrine so farre he saith truly but when he addeth written or vnwritten he beggeth the question and his Commentarie goeth without the compasse of Tertullians text He should by plaine example or reason haue giuen vs to vnderstand that Tertullian by the Gospel importeth any doctrine vnwritten otherwise he may well thinke that we scorne his interpretation hauing no warrant of it but his owne word Tertullian spake of the Gospell as the Apostle doth who saith c Rom. 1.2 that God before promised it by his Prophets in the holy Scriptures and that it was d Cap. 16.26 opened and published amongst all nations by the Scriptures of the Prophets We haue heard before out of Irenaeus that e Sect. 8. the Gospell which the Apostles first preached they afterwards committed to writing to be the foundation and pillar of our faith and out of Chrysostome that f Sect. 7. to speake any thing that is not written is to speake of himselfe and not out of the Gospell So doth Basil of the word of God and Scripture make one and the same thing and denieth that there is any word of God beside the Scripture saying g Basil Ethic. reg 80. Si quicquid ex fide non est peccatum est sicut dicit Apostolus fides veró ex auditu auditus autem per verbum Dei ergo quicquid extra diuinam Scripturam est cum ex fide non sit peccatum est If what soeuer is not of faith be sinne and faith come by hearing and hearing by the word of God then whatsoeuer is beside the holy Scripture because it is not of faith is sinne If there be no Gospell but written no word of God but Scripture then surely Tertullian when he saith that we need no inquirie further after the Gospell taketh away Traditions and leaueth no place for doctrine vnwritten Whereas he saith that by the Gospell is not vnderstood onely the written word of the foure Euangelists he talketh idlely because no man vnderstood it so The doctrine deliuered in the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles is no lesse the doctrine of the Gospell then that that is recorded by the foure Euangelists But here to see Tertullians iudgement of traditions he referreth his Reader to the same Tertullians booke of Prescriptions against heretikes Now this sentence alledged by M. Perkins was taken out of that booke although he quoted not the place which M. Bishop knew not because indeed he had neuer read the booke Therefore this that he here faith he saith it onely by hearesay and for ought he knoweth Tertullian may as wel speak against Traditions as any thing for them And the truth is that Tertullian speaketh no otherwise for Traditions then doth Irenaeus whome he cited before in his Epistle to the King whome I haue shewed to make nothing at all for M. Bishops purpose The occasion of both their speeches was the same hauing to do with wicked and blasphemous heretikes who admitted h Tertullian de Praescript Ista haeresis non recipit quasdam Scripturas si quas recipit adiectionibus detractionibus ad dispositionem instituti sui interuertit si recipit noÌ recipit integras si aliquatenus integras praestat nihilâminùs dâuersas expositiones commentatae conuerâit of the scriptures no otherwise then they lift themselues reiecting the bookes that specially made against them and by additions detractions framing the bookes which they did receiue to serue their owne turne and by their
u Percurie Ecclesias Apostolicaâ apud quas ipsae adâuc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesideÌtur apud quas ipsae authenticae literae eorum recitantur c. Proxima est tibi Achaia habes Corinthum Si non longe es à Macedonia habes Philippos c. si Italiae adiaceâ hâbes Romanam c. Cum Aphricanis quoque Ecclesijs contestatur vnum Deum nouit Creatorem vniuâsitaâââ Iesum Christum ex Virgine Maria filium Creatoris carnis resurrectionem legem Prophetâs cum Euangelicis Apostolicis literis miscet inde fidem portat eam c. where were still Bishops in the seates of the Apostles and their authenticall Epistles were still read as of the Corinthians the Philippians the Thessalonians the Ephesians the Romanes which together with the Aphricane Churches acknowledged one God the Creatour of the whole world and Iesus Christ of the Virgin Mary the Sonne of the Creator and the resurrection of the flesh ioyning the lawe and the Prophets with the writings of the Euangelists and Apostles and thence deriuing that faith Thus had he before set downe the doctrine and faith which in all this treatise he thus laboureth to vphold and maintaine x Regula est autem fidei illa scilicet qua creditur vâum omninò Deum esse nec alium quà m mundi Creatorem qui vniuersa produxerit de nihilo per verbum suum primò omnium omissum c. Superest vt demonstremus an haec nostra doctrina cuius regulam supra edidimus de Apostolerum traditione censcatur The rule of faith is this to beleeue that there is one onely God and the same no other but the Creator of the world who by his word first of all sent foorth made all things of nothing The same word called his Son was vnder the name of God diuersly seen of the Patriarkes euermore heard in the Prophets last of all by the spirit and power of the Father was brought into the Virgin Mary made flesh in her wombe and being borne of her did the part of Iesus Christ preached thencefoorth the new law and the new promise of the kingdome of heauen wrought miracles and being nailed to a crosse rose againe the third day and so forth according to the articles of Christian beleefe VpoÌ the assertion of this rule he inferreth that y Si haec ita se habent vt veritas nobis adiudicetur quicunque in ea regula incedimus quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis Apostoli à Christo Christus à Deo tradidit constat ratio pro positi nostri definientis non esse admittendos haereticos ad eanâè de Scripturis prouocationem quos sine Scripturis probamus ad Scripturas non pertiâere sith the truth must be adiudged to them who walke in that rule which the Church had deliuered from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God it was hereby assured which he had before propounded that the heretikes were not to be admitted to disputation by the Scriptures who without the Scriptures were proued to haue no title to the Scriptures Therefore for conclusion of all this he saith that z Illic igitur ScripturaruÌ expositionum adulteratio deputanda est vbi diuersitas muenitur doctrinae Quibus fuit propositum aliter doceÌdi necessitas institit aliter disponendi instrumenta doctrinae Alias enim non potuissent alitèr docere nisi alitèr haberent per quae decerent Sicut illis non potuisset succedere corrup tela doctrinae sine corruptela instrumentorum eius ita nobis integritas doctrinae non compentisset sine integritate eorum per quae doctrina tractatur Etenim quid contrarium nobis in nostris quid de proprio iâtulimus vt aliquid contrarium ei in Scripturis deprehensum detractione vel adiectione vel transmutatione remediaremus Quod sumus hoc suntinde Scripturae ab initio suo Ex illis sumus antequam nihil aliter fuit quà m sumus the corrupting of the Scriptures and of the meaning thereof must be reckoned to be there where there was found diuersitie of doctrine from the Scriptures For they saith he who intended to teach otherwise had need otherwise to dispose of the instruments of doctrine and teaching For they could not teach otherwise except they had somewhat otherwise whereby to teach But on the contrarie side he saith As their corrupting of doctrine could not haue successe without corrupting of the instruments thereof so neither could integritie or soundnesse of doctrine haue stood with vs without the integritie of those instrumeÌts by which doctrine is handled For in our Scriptures what is there contrarie to vs What haue we brought in of our owne that somewhat being found in the Scriptures thereto contrarie we should remedie by adding or taking away or changing any thing What we are the same are the Scriptures euen from their beginning From theÌ we are euer since there was nothing otherwise then we are This is the briefe summe of all that Tertullian in that booke saith pertinent to the matter here in hand wherein as there is nothing in fauour of the cause which M. Bishop maintaineth so there is much to be obserued for the oppugning and conuincing thereof First it is apparent that Tertullian here saith not a word for the auouching of any doctrine beside the Scripture but onely for iustifying the doctrine that is contained in the Scripture The heretikes oppugned the maine and fundamentall grounds of Christian faith concerning the vnitie of the Godhead the creation of the world the Godhead and incarnation of Christ the resurrection of the dead the coming of the holy Ghost and sundry other such like They reiected such whole bookes and razed such testimonies of Scripture as euidently made against them affirming the same not to haue bene written by the Apostles or by any diuine inspiration a Contra Marc. lib. 4 Contraria quaeque sententiae suae erasit conspirantia cum Creatore quaesi ab assertoribus eius intexta but foisted in yea sometimes that they were to correct and reforme those things which the Apostles had written Therefore albeit the points in question were manifestly decided by cleare testimony of Scripture yet the authoritie of Scripture being reiected and refused it was necessarie for many mens satisfaction to take some other course for the conuicting of them b Ibid Haeresis sic semper emendat Euangelia dum vitiat Iren. lib. 3 cap. 1. EmeÌdatores Apostolorum Hereupon he referred men to the consideration of the Apostolicke Churches where the doctrine of the faith of Christ was most renowmedly planted and had successiuely continued from the time of the Apostles that by the testimonie of those Churches it might appeare both that the Scriptures were authenticall and true and that the doctrine auouched against the Heretickes was no other but what the Apostles themselues by the institution of Christ had in those Scriptures
sine peccato nascitur c. Dicit Apostolus Per vnum hominem c. Jdeo non est superfluus baptismus paruulorum vt qui per generationem illi condemnationi obligati sunt per regenerationem liberentur They say saith he that an infant not being baptized cannot perish because he is borne without sinne but the Apostle saith By one man sinne entred into the world and by sinne came death and so death went ouer all forasmuch as all haue sinned c. Therefore the baptisme of infants is not superfluous that they who by generation are bound to condemnation by regeneration may be deliuered from it And in another place against the Donatists q De Baptis lib. 4. cap. 24. Si quisquam hac in re authoritatem diuinam quaerat c. Veracitèr conijcere possumus quid valeat in parââââs Baptimi sacramentum ex circumcisione carnis quam prior populus accepit If any man saith he desire diuine authority in this behalf we may truly coniecture what the sacrament of Baptisme auaileth in infants by the circumcision of the flesh which the former people receiued So by the rest of the Fathers sundry arguments are taken from the Scriptures for the iustifying of that custome and r Bellarm de saâram Baptism lib 1. cap 8 Bellarmine himselfe by the Scriptures proueth that infants are to be baptized and therefore full weakly doth M. Bishop deale to bring this for proofe of their Traditions that is of doctrines beside the Scripture In his other obiections he is as idle as in any of these or rather more idle The Arian hereticke presseth Austine to shew where the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is read in the Scriptures Saint Austine answereth him that Å¿ August Epist 174. Respondebatur à nobis quia nos Latinè loqueremur illud Graecum esset prius quarenâ on esset quid sit Homousion tunc exigendum vt in libris sanctis ostenderetur c. quia et si fortasse nomen ipsum non inueniretur restamen ipsa inueniretur Quid est enim contentiosius quà m vbi de reconstat certare de nomen ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã was a Greeke word and they spake Latin and therefore it was first to be set down what is meant by ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and then to be required in the scriptures because albeit the word perhaps be not found there yet the thing it selfe is found For what greater wrangling is there then to contend about the word when there is a certaintie of the thing Where we see M. Bishop in the place which he himselfe citeth condemned for a contentious wrangler that thus vrgeth the word consubstantiall as a tradition beside the Scripture when as the thing it self and matter imported by it is contained in the Scripture yea and S. Austin himself in the same place proueth it by the Scripture and elsewhere asketh of the Arian heretike t Idem contrae Maximin lib. 3. cap 14. Quid est Homousion nisi Ego Pater vnum sumus What is Homousion consubstantiall but I and my father are one By the other word vnbegotten he taketh aduaÌtage against the Arian who had set downe that terme in the confession of his faith concerning God the Father He demaundeth of him whether the Scripture had vsed that word which not being found and yet approoued he concludeth u Jdem epi. 174. Vides posse fieri vt etiaÌ de verbo quod in scriptura Dei non est reddatur tamen ratio vnde rectè dici ostendatur sic ergo homousion quod in authoritate diuinorum librorum cogebamur ostendere etiamsi vocabuluÌ ipsum ibi non inuentamus fieri posse vt illud inueniamus cut hec vocabuluÌ rectè adhibitum iudicetur Thou seest that it may be that of a word which is not set downe in Scripture yet reason may be giuen to shew that it is rightly spoken so therefore consubstantiall also which we were required to shew by authoritie of Scripture albeit we find not the very word there yet it may be that we find that to which the word may be iudged to be rightly applied In these words therefore there is nothing imported but what we are instructed by the Scriptures the meaning is there though the letters and syllables be not there In like sort the case standeth with his other instance of the holy Ghost to be adored which we may wonder that he should be so impudent or rather so impious as to make an example of traditions beside the Scripture as if the Scriptures did not prooue that the holy Ghost is to be worshipped when as S. Austine prooueth it there against the Arian no otherwise but by the Scriptures But as touching all these points concerning the Godhead let that suffice which Thomas Aquinas hath giuen for a rule that x Thom. Aquin. sum p. 1. qu. 36. art 2. ad 1. De Deo dicere non debemus quod in sacra Scriptura non inuenitur vel per verba vel per sensum Licet per verba non inueniatur in sacra scriptura quod spiritus sanctus procedit à Filio inuenitur tamen quantum ad sensum concerning God we ought to say nothing which is not found in Scripture either in words or in meaning Whereof he saith for example Though in very words it be not found in holy Scripture that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Sonne yet in sense and meaning it is there found To this our assertion accordeth that no matter of faith or doctrine is to be admitted but what either in words or in sence is contained in the Scriptures Let M. Bishop shew vs the sence of their Traditions in the Scriptures and we will receiue them though we find not the words but if he alledge for Traditions beside the Scripture those things the sence and meaning whereof is in the Scriptures though the words be not he abuseth his Reader and saith nothing against vs. For this matter I referre thee further gentle Reader to that which hath bene said y Sect. 11. before in answer of his Epistle to the King As touching the perpetuall virginitie of the blessed virgin what we are to conceiue hath bene before declared S. Austin z August haeres 56 84. affirmeth it but not vnder the name of a tradition and Hierome when he would maintaine it against a Hieron aduer Heluid Ipsa Scripturarum verba ponenda sunt c. Non credimus quia non legimus Heluidius tooke vpon him no otherwise to maintaine it but onely by the Scripture thereby shewing that he tooke tradition to be a very weake and vncertaine ground Now therefore it plainly appeareth that S. Austin hath pulled downe the churches treasury of traditions because M. Bishop can bring nothing to the contrary but that he plainely and truly meant that which he said that in those things which are plainly set downe in Scripture are
found all things belonging to our faith and conuersation of life and thereby leaueth no place to M. Bishops matters of faith that are not contained in the written word 13. W. BISHOP M. Perkins his last testimonie is taken out of Vincentius Lyrinensis who saith as he reporteth that the canon of the Scripture is perfect and fully sufficient for all things Answ I think that there is no such sentence to be found in him the says by way of obiection What need we make recourse vnto the authoritie of the Ecclesiasticall vnderstanding if the Canon of the Scripture be perfect He affirmeth not that they be fully sufficient to determine all controuersies in religion but through all his booke he proues out the cleane contrary that no heresie can be certainly confuted and suppressed by onely Scriptures without we take with it the sence and interpretation of the Catholike Church R. ABBOT The words of Vincentius are vttered first by way of obiection thus a Vincen. Lyrin Hic forsitan requirat aliquis cum sit perfectus Scripturarum canon sibique ad omnia satis supèrque sufficiat quid opus est vt et Ecclesiasticae intelligentiae âungatur authoritas Some man happely may ask seeing the Canon of Scriptures is perfect and in it selfe abundantly sufficient for all matters what needeth it that the authority of Ecclesiastical vnderstanding shold be ioyned vnto it He hath taught a man in the words before to ground and settle his faith b Duplici modo fidem munire primo diuinae legis authoritate tum deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae traditione first by the authoritie of the law of God and then by the tradition of the Catholike Church meaning by tradition as appeareth the interpretation or exposition of Scripture deliuered by the Church not any matters of doctrine to be receiued beside the Scripture Hereupon he asketh the question seeing the Scripture is abundantly sufficient what need is there to adde the tradition of the Church taking it for a thing receiued and by all men approued that the Scripture in it selfe is abundantly sufficient to instruct vs euery way and in all things belonging to faith and godlinesse and therefore making it a doubt why the other should be needfull And that we may vnderstand that he meant it not only by way of obiection but positiuely in the repeating of the same points afterwards he setteth downe this exception and reason c Jbid. Non quia canon solas non sibi ad vniuersa sufficiat sed quia verba diuina plerique pro suo arbitratis interpretantes varias opiniones erroresque concipiant Not but that the Canon alone is in it selfe sufficient for all things but because many interpreting the words of God as they list do conceiue diuers opinions and errors there from M. Bishops answer then is false that Vincentius affirmeth not that the Scriptures be fully sufficient to determine all controuersies in religion for Vincentius affirmeth it peremptorily and therefore teacheth vs to shun them who after the Scriptures and interpretation thereof teach vs that there are yet other matters of Christian doctrine and faith that are not contained in the Scriptures M. Bishop telleth vs that through all his booke he proues the contrary But what is that contrary Marry that no heresie can be certainly confuted and suppressed by onely Scriptures without we take with it the sense and interpretation of the Catholike Church Whereby we see that either he hath not read that booke of Vincentius or doth impudently falsifie that which he hath read True it is that Vincentius in respect that heretikes do often very guilefully alledge the Scriptures and wrest them to the maintenance and defence of their new deuices doth referre a man for his safetie to the iudgement and resolution of the Catholicke church not as they loudly beare vs in hand of the church of Rome as if by it the Catholike Church were to be vnderstood but so as d Vt id teneamus quod vbique quod semper quod a omnibus credituÌ est hoc est etenim verè proprièque CatholicuÌ quod ipsa vis nominis raâieque declarat quae omnia verè vniuersaliter comprebendit that we hold that which hath bene beleeued euery where and alwaies and of all for this saith he is truly and properly Catholike as the nature and signification of the word declareth which indeed comprehendeth vniuersally all Hereto he frameth those rules of antiquitie vniuersalitie and consent idlely bragged of many times by the Papists when as according to the declarations of Vincentius they are not able to make good any one point of their doctrine oppugned by vs but in diuers and sundry points are conuicted thereby But the matter that toucheth M. Bishop very neerly is the restraint and limitation of this rule which he saith is e Quae tamen antiquae sanctorum Patrum consensio non in omnibus diuinae legis quaestiunculis sed solùm certè praecipuè in fidei regula mag no nobis studio inuestigandae sequenda est not to be followed in all questions of the word of God but onely or chiefly in the rule of faith whereby he meaneth those things that concerne the articles of the Creed f In ijs duntaxat praecipuè quaestionibus quibus tetius Catholici dogmatis fundamenta nituntur in those questions as he repeateth afterwards vpon which the foundations of the whole Catholike faith do rest It is vntrue then which M. Bishop saith that Vincentius holdeth no heresie to be suppressed or confuted but by the tradition of the Catholike Church when as he applieth his rule only or at least chiefly to those heresies which touch the maine pillars foundations of Christian faith And it is yet further vntrue because Vincentius further addeth that g Sed neque semper neque omnes haereses hoc modo impugnandae sunt sed nouitiae recentesquè tantummodo cùm primum scilitet exoriuntur antequam infalsarint vetustae fidei regulas ipsius temporis vetentur augustijs ac priusquam mananie latùs veneno maiorum volumina vitiare conentur Caeterùm si dilatatae inueteratae hareses nequaquam hac via aggrediendae sunt eò quòd prolixo ten porum tractu longa ijs furandae veritatis patuerit occasio Atque ideo quascunque illas antiquiores vel schismatum vel haereseoÌn prophanitatet nullo modâ nos oportet nisi aut sola si opus est Scripturarum authoritate conuincere aut certè iam antiquitùs vniuersalibus sacerdotum Catholicorum Concilijs conuictas damnatásque vitare neither alwayes nor yet all heresies are to be impugned in that sort but onely those that are new and fresh namely when as they first spring vp before they haue falsified the rules of auncient faith and are therein hindered by the straitnesse of the time and before the poison spreading further abroad they labor to corrupt the bookes of the auncient Fathers But heresies
Vincentius Lyrinensis either as doing damage to vs or yeelding any gaine or aduantage to themselues 14. W. BISHOP Thus M Perkins hauing ended with the Law and Testimony addeth in a postscript two other slender reasons to his former the first that Christ and his Apostles vsed alwayes to confirme their doctrine with the testimonies of Scriptures and not with Tradition Answ First for our Sauior Iesus Christ be out of his diuine wisdome deliuered his doctrine most commonly in his owne name But I say vnto you and very seldome confirmeth it with any testimony out of the Law The Euangelists do often note how Christ fulfilled the old prophecies but neuer or very seldome seeke to confirme his doctrine by testimonies their owne they do sometimes but to say they neuer wrote any thing out of Tradition proceeds of most grosse ignorance Where had S. Mathew the adoring of the Sages S Iohn Baptists preaching briefly that was done before his owne conuersion but by tradition S. Marke wrote the most part of his Gospell out of Tradition receiued from Peter as witnesseth Eusebius * Lib. 2. hist cap. 14. S. Luke testifieth of himselfe that he wrote his whole Gospell * Cap. 1. as he had receiued it by Tradition from them who were eye-witnesses What desperate carelesnesse was it then to affirme that the Apostles neuer vsed Tradition to confirme any doctrine when some of them built not onely parcels but their whole Gospels vpon Traditions R. ABBOT The reasons seeme slender to M. Bishop but yet the Reader must needs take them to be very strong in that they are put off with so slender and weake an answer If the doctrine of faith and of the seruice of God had stood in the old Testament in any part vpoÌ tradition vndoubtedly our Sauiour Christ would haue made some mention therof and as he often referreth himself to the Scriptures so would sometimes haue appealed to tradition also But that doth he neuer he reproueth traditions and condemneth them but neuer vseth one word to approue any M. Bishop answereth that Christ most commonly deliuereth his doctrine in his owne name I say vnto you and very seldome confirmeth it out of the Law But that is a very weak and silly shift yea there is in it apparent and manifest vntruth For we find our Sauiour in the Gospel more often citing and alledging the Scriptures then we heare him saying I say vnto you as euery Reader may obserue Againe where he doth say I say vnto you he teacheth vs to vnderstand that a Iohn 14 10. he speaketh not of himselfe but what he saith he speaketh as Chrysostome before hath taught vs to construe it b Chrysost supra sect 7. out of the Law and the Prophets according to the written word of the law and the Prophets deliuering no point of doctrine but what hath witnesse and confirmation from thence Thirdly it is much to be obserued against M. Bishop that where our Sauiour doth most often vse those words c Mat. 5.18.20 I say vnto you he vseth them to challenge the written Law froÌ the corruption of Tradition and to affirme the original truth thereof For Tradition had taught men to vnderstaÌd the law literally only of outward actions but he shewes in the commandements d Ver 22.28 of murther and adultery that the intention of the Law is extended to the affections of the heart Tradition had diminished the integritie of the Law and taken from it e Ver. 34. teaching onely not to forsweare but he teacheth that the truth of the Law extendeth to vaine and idle swearing Tradition had added to the Law of it owne deuice and where God had said Thou shalt loue thy neighbour by a corrupt glose put to it Thou shalt hate thine enemie but he teacheth that the name of f Ver. 44. a neighbour reacheth to them also that are our enemies Thus he rectifieth that which Tradition had made crooked but for Tradition he saith nothing Surely they that thus peruerted the written Law would haue peruerted Traditions also if there had bene any and Christ would haue restored the integritie thereof but there is no surmise giuen vs of any such matter We heare him often saying g Mat. 19.4 Haue ye not read and h Chap. 21.13 It is written and i Luke 10.26 What is written in the law how readest thou but we neuer heare him saying Haue ye not thus receiued by Tradition He telleth the Saduces k Mat. 22.29 Ye erre because ye know not the Scriptures and the cause of the Disciples error was noted l Iohn 20.9 As yet they knew not the Scripture but no where doth he note the not knowing of Tradition for any cause of error He saith m Iohn 5.39 Search the Scriptures they testifie of me but he neuer saith search after Traditions they are they that testifie of me n Mat. 26 54. How then should the Scriptures be fulfilled saith he but neuer mentioneth the fulfilling of any thing that was deliuered by tradition o Luke 24.27 He interpreted to his Disciples in all Scriptures the things which were written of him but out of Tradition he interpreted nothing vnto them p Ver. 45. He opened their vnderstanding that they might vnderstand the Scriptures but we reade not of giuing them vnderstanding of Traditions Thus the Euangelists from place to place vpon diuers occasions do set downe q Mat. 1.22 2.17 c. the fulfilling of those things which were spoken by the Prophets mentioning the things which are wriââen but neuer once speake of the fulfilling of Tradition And what will M. Bishop haue vs to dreame as idlely as he doth that there were Traditions from God beside the Scriptures when we find these infinit references to the Scriptures and to Traditions none at all He telleth vs a childish tale that the Euangelists very seldome confirme Christs doctrine by testimonies but their owne they do sometimes as if the doctrine of the Euangelists were not the doctrine of Christ and shewing that he is little acquainted with the reading of the Euangelists who maketh that very seldome which is so often done And when it is done it is done by Scripture only neuer by Tradition which is the point whereto he should haue answered and he saith nothing to it Onely he lewdly abuseth the ignorant Reader by seeming to say somwhat when that which he saith is but an impertinent vagary and concerneth not that that is obiected to him To say that they neuer wrote any thing out of tradition saith he proceedeth of most grosse ignorance Where had Mathew the adoring of the Sages c. Pelting brabler what is this to that that M. Perkins saith Christ and his Apostles in infinite places confirme that which they preach by the doctrine of former times they signifie the fulfilling of those things which were of old taught vnto the people of God They neuer confirme
any thing but by Scripture they mention nothing fulfilled that was taught by Tradition but only by Scripture Tell vs M. Bishop how could this be if there were Tradition beside the Scripture We aske you not whence the Euangelists had the history of those times whereof they wrote but how it commeth to passe that they neuer mention anything deliuered by tradition in former times But these are the iuggling tricks of shifting companions deluding the eyes of the simple with shadows and empty colours maliciously oppugning the truth when as they haue nothing to say against it In that that we say is nothing but what S. Hierom said long ago r Hieron in Mat. 13. Quicquid in Euangelio praedicabant legis prophetaruÌ vocibus comprobaruÌt Whatsoeuer the Apostles preached in the Gospell they preached it by the words of the law and the Prophets wherof it followeth against M. Bishop that they taught no doctrine by tradition but only by the scriptures As for his questions wheras he demandeth where S. Mathew had the adoring of the Sages and Iohn Baptists peaching c. I answer him first with the like question where had Moses the story of the creation of the world and the knowledge of those things which God in * Gen. 11.6 18.17.20 sundry places is brought in speaking as with himselfe I suppose he wil answer that he receiued the same from him that made the world from him that was the author of those speeches So say we that Mathew learned the worshipping of Christ by the Sages of Christ himself whom they worshipped he learned Iohn Baptists preaching of him whoÌ Iohn Baptist preached He learned his Gospell as Paul did who saith of himself Å¿ Gal. 1.12 Neither receiued I it of man neither was I taught it but by the reuelation of Iesus Christ As touching the Gospel of S. Mark Eusebius reporteth that the faithfull t Euseb hist lib. 2. cap. 15. Non suffecranâ illis semel audita nec contenti fuerunt non scripta diuinae praedicationis doctrina sed Marcum omnigena obsecratione obtestati sunt vt commentarios ipsis doctrinae eius quam verbo traditaÌ accepissent literis comprehensos relinquerent nec destiterunt donec viro persuaserint c. Aiunt autem Petrum cùm ex instinctu spiritus sancti factum hoc cognonisset delectatuÌ esse virorum istoruÌ voluntate scriptum hoc Euangelium Ecclesius ad legenduÌ authoritate suae confirmasse who had heard the preaching of S. Peter not thinking that sufficient nor contented with the doctrine of that diuine preaching vnwritten most earnestly intreated Marke that he would leaue them in writing the commentaries or records of the doctrine which they had deliuered vnto them by word and ceased not till they had perswaded him thereto Now they say saith he that the Apostle when he vnderstood this to haue bene done by the instinct of the holy Ghost ioyed much in the desire of those men and by his authoritie warranted this Gospell in writing to the reading of the Church Now this story is well worthy to be obserued The faithfull had heard the preaching of Peter they thought Tradition to be a very vncertaine keeper of the doctrine which they had heard they desire to haue the same left vnto them in writing to that purpose they intreate Mark the scholer and follower of Peter the thing is done by the instinct of the holy Ghost Peter acknowledgeth so much and by his testimonie approueth the Gospell thus written to the reading of the Church Who would not here wonder that M. Bishop should alledge this story for patronage of his traditions which shewes that the church from the beginning was so iealous and fearfull of resting vpon tradition S. Luke wrote his storie u Luke 1.2 as they deliuered who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word they x 2. Cor. 13.3 in whom Christ spake and whose word was y 1. Thess 2 13. the word of God the word of the preaching of God Yea and what he wrote he wrote also as S. Marke did by the instinct of the holy Ghost because as S. Paul telleth vs z 2. Tim. 3.16 all Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God and as of prophecie so of the Gospell also we must vnderstand that a 2. Pet. 1.21 it came not by the will of man but holy men of God spake as they were moued by the holy Ghost b August de consens Euangel lib. 1. cap. 35. Cum ille scripserunt quae ille ostendit dixit nequaquam dicendum est quôd ipse no scripserit quandoquidem membra eius id operata sunt quod dictante capite cognonerunt Quicquid enira ille de suis factis dictis nos legere volun hoc scribendum illis tanquam suis manibus imperauit When the disciples wrote saith S. Austin what Christ shewed said vnto theÌ it is not to be said that he did not write because the members wrought that which they learned by the inditing of the head For whatsoeuer he would haue vs to reade of the things which he did and said he gaue in charge to them as his hands to write the same Now therefore the Euangelists grounded not their Gospels vpon Traditions that is vpon report from man to man but vpon the immediate oracle and instinct of God himselfe But the absurd Sophister dallieth by an equiuocation of the word tradition and whereas it is questioned betwixt vs in one meaning he bringeth proofe for it in another meaning The word originally may import any thing that is deliuered howsoeuer either by word or writing Whatsoeuer God saith vnto vs it may in this sort be called Gods tradition because he hath so deliuered vnto vs. Thus doth Cyprian call that which we reade in the written gospell c Cyprian lib. 2. epist 3. Adradicem atque originem traditionis Dominicae reuertatur In calice dominico offerendo custodire tradiotionis dominicae veritatem the originall of the Lords tradition and willeth in the Lords cup to keepe the truth of the Lords tradition Thus whatsoeuer we haue receiued in the Scriptures was first Tradition as deliuered by word and still is Tradition because it is deliuered in writing tradition signifying whatsoeuer is deliuered as before was said But though the word in it selfe haue this generall and indifferent signification of any thing that is deliuered yet in our disputation it is restrained to one onely maner of deliuering by word and relation onely and not by Scripture and therefore where Irenaeus saith d Jren. lib. 3. cap. 1. EuangeliuÌ nobis in Scripturis tradiderunt he that should translate as M. Bishop doth they deliuered the Gospell by tradition in the Scriptures should shew himselfe as absurd a man as M. Bishop is because he setteth downe two opposite members of a distinction and confoundeth them both in one Now then the question
whether those things which they taught were so whereby it appeareth that the word which he preached in both places was no other but according to the Scriptures Thus we haue heard him before saying that h Cap. 26.22 he spake nothing beside those things which Moses and the Prophets did say should be Now all the doctrine of the Gospell that is set downe in the Scriptures of Moses and the Prophets is fully contained in the Scriptures of the new Testament Seeing therefore the traditions that is those things which the Apostle deliuered to the Thessalonians were wholy according to the Scriptures of Moses and the Prophets it must necessarily follow that in the Scriptures of the new Testament the same are fully and perfectly contained and so on both sides now can be no other but according to the Scriptures We are out of doubt that the Apostle preached to the Thessalonians the whole doctrine of the Gospell which we find set downe in writing by the Euangelists and by himselfe other the Apostles in their Epistles to other Churches In his former Epistle to the Thessalonians he did not set downe that whole doctrine which is written by them Now we cannot make question but that his meaning was to exhort them to perseuere in the whole as in those things which he expressed in his Epistle so in the rest also which we find written by himselfe and others Therefore the traditions or things deliuered by word haue a necessarie and vndeniable construction of all the rest of the written doctrine of the Gospell that is not set downe in that first Epistle to the Thessalonians Our exposition then is irrefragable and infallible that the Apostle by those words hath reference to those things which are written otherwhere but Master Bishop hath no argument to euict that he intended any thing that is written no where Because therefore we haue a meaning of the wordes whereof we are certaine and sure we rest there and list not to admit a further meaning whereof we can haue no assurance As for that which he cauilleth of whether Paule in his Epistles wrote all that he preached by word I answer him that he wrote the effect and vse of all but not all whereof that vse is to be made because many things are written by the Euangelists necessarie for the vse of Christian faith which are not written in the Epistles of Saint Paule though by him they were deliuered to the Churches to which he preached But though he wrote not all that was needfull to be written yet we beleeue the testimony that he hath giuen in that Epistle which he wrote last euen a little before his death when almost al the bookes of the new Testament were now written that i 2. Tim. 3.15 the Scriptures are able to make a man wise vnto saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus and therefore that what by him and others there is so much written as concerneth vs to know for our instruction in the religion and faith of Iesus Christ Now whereas M. Bishop to proue the contrarie alledgeth the expositions of some of the Fathers concerning those wordes of the Apostle to the Thessalonians I may well answer him as Austine answered Hierome pressing him in the like sort with the names of sundry of the Fathers that were before theÌ k Aug. Epist 19 Ad ipsum confugio ad ipsum ab omnibus qui aliter sentiunt literarum eius tractatoribus prouoco I flie to Paul himselfe to him I appeale from all expositors of his writings that thinke otherwise He hath told vs that the Scriptures are able to make vs wise vnto saluation therfore we do not beleeue theÌ that tell vs that his meaning is in the other place that we haue need of traditions beside the Scripture for supply of that wisedom Yea their collection as M. Bishop conceiueth of it cannot stand good It appeareth by those words of the Apostle that he deliuered more to the Thessalonians by word then is contained in his former Epistle to theÌ but it doth not therfore follow that he deliuered more vnto theÌ then is coÌtained in the Scriptures No reason can there be deuised to make good this coÌnexioÌ But to examine theÌ particularly first we may not thinke Chrysostome so forgetfull as that he should crosse that which in the very next Homily before he hath said l Chrysost in 2. Thess hom 3. Omnia clara sunt plaâa ex Scripturis diuinis quaecunque necessaria sunt manifesta sunt All things are cleare and euident by the holy Scriptures whatsoeuer things are necessarie they are manifest Surely if any thing be to be cleared by tradition beside the Scripture then it cannot be said that all necessarie things are manifest by the Scriptures And therefore whereas he saith Hereby it appeareth that the Apostles deliuered not all in their Epistles but many things also vnwritten and both the one and the other are alike to be beleeued we must vnderstand it of that tradition which the Church holdeth collected and gathered from the Scriptures though it be not literally expressed therein Thus the baptising of infants and the not rebaptising of them that haue bene baptized by heretikes and the administring of the Lords supper onely by the Minister and such like haue bene alwaies holden by the Church and defended by the Scriptures and yet they are no where literally contained in the Epistles of the Apostles In such things Chrysostome requireth a man to submit himself in peace to that which the Church practiseth being grounded vpon the Scripture and not contentiously to wrangle against it because it is not in very words contained therein But if any tradition be vrged vpon vs that hath no ground or warrant from the Scripture good reason we aske as Cyprian did of Stephanus m Cyprian ad Pomp. supra Sect. 5. Whence is this tradition Cometh it from the authoritie of Christ or of the Gospell or from the instructions and Epistles of the Apostles For God testifieth that we are to do those things which are written * Si ergo aut in Euangelio praecipitur aut Apostolorum Epistolis aut Actibus continetur obseruetur certè haec sancta traditio Therefore if this tradition be commanded in the Gospell or in the Epistles or Acts of the Apostles let it be obserued and kept for holy Whereby he will haue it vnderstood that if it be not there warranted it is not to be obserued The tradition which he there impugneth is taught indeed by the Gospell though he conceiued not so but hereby he teacheth vs that it was to stand for a certaine rule that no tradition could be iustly approued without warrant of the Gospell And therefore Chrysostome himselfe also teacheth vs otherwhere that n Chrysost in Psal 95. Siquid dicitur absque Scripturis auditorum cogitatio claudicatâ vbi verò ex Scripturis diuinae vocit prodijt testimonium
ipsa nisi quaedaÌ scriniaria Christianorum baâulans legem Prophetas in testimonium assertionis ecclesiae the roll-keepers of the Christians as Saint Austine noteth carying the law and the Prophets for the testimonie of that which the Church teacheth If God then haue appointed them to be witnesses of those bookes of the old Testament which should serue for the assertion of our faith in the new wee should doe amisse to admit of other bookes of the old Testament for assertion of our faith whereof they giue no witnesse This computation of the Scriptures according to their tradition is followed by the fathers of the Christian Church professing exactly to set downe the number of Canonicall bookes as by z Euseb lib. 4 cap. 25. Veteris instrumenti libros diligenter cogritos subieci Where wisedome in the Greeke is added by apposition to the Prouerbs so called by the auncients Melito Bishop of Sardis by a Jdem lib 6. cap. 24. Where a fault is committed by Eusebius in leauing out the booke of the twelue lesser Prophets for the two and twentith Origen by b Athan. in Synopsi Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria by c Epiphan de mens pond Epiphanius Bishop of Cyprus by the whole Councell of d Concil Laodic cap. 59. Laodicea for the Greeke and Easterne Churches and for the Latine and Westerne Churches by e Hilar. Prolog in Psal Ita secundum traditiones veterum deputantur Hilarie by f Hieron in Prolog Galeato Hierome by g Ruffinus in expositione Symboli Ruffinus all reckoning for Canonicall Scriptures the same that wee doe and excluding from the Canon the same that wee exclude The same reckoning we finde in the Canons which haue gone in the Church of Rome vnder the name of the Canons of the Apostles onely h Canon Apostol 84. three bookes of Machabees are foisted in of which we reade not to that purpose any other-where Yea and that they went not in that account in the Church of Rome is apparent by Gregory Bishop there who being to apply the example of Eleazar in the Machabees to the matter that he had in hand saith i Gregor Moral lib. 19. cap. 13. De quae re non inordinatè agimus si ex libris licet noÌ canonicis sed taâân ad ecclesiae edificationeÌ editis exempliâm proferamus Eleazar enim c. Of this thing we shall not doe amisse to bring an example out of the bookes though not canonicall yet set forth for the edification of the Church In which words he plainly sheweth that neither the bookes of Machabees nor the rest of that sort were holden for canonicall Scriptures albeit they were set forth to be read for that they contained many things profitable for the edifying of the people For this cause S. Austine reckoneth them amongst the canonicall bookes but because he confesseth as we haue seene that in contradiction they haue not that k August cont faust lib. 28. cap. 4. Confirmatiua authoritate clarescerent confirmatiue authority which elsewhere he nameth for the prerogatiue of the Scriptures he thereby confesseth that they are not truly canonicall because it is for that authorities sake that the name of canonicall Scriptures is giuen to those to which it doth appertaine Therefore we reckon him also as a witnesse of this tradition whereby our Church discerneth what books wee are to approoue for determining faith and doctrine in the Church and vnder that name to commend as the infallible Oracles of God to the deuotion of the people But now Maister Bishop will aske what the reason is that admitting this tradition we do not admit also of other their traditions of which we also reade in the writings of the fathers Whereto to say nothing that their traditions are vncertaine as touching their beginning variable in their proceeding corrupt in their vse and many of them vpstart deuices shamefully and lewdly attributed to the fathers whereas this tradition of the Scriptures without alteration or interruption hath had constant perpetuall acknowledgment both of the whole nation of the Iewes and of the whole Christian Church throughout the whole world from the beginning vntill this day wee answere him that by this tradition it selfe wee are instructed against the admitting of their traditions For this tradition or deliuering of the Scriptures from God is as the deliuering of a commission from a Prince For as by the commission the subiect is directed what to do in the Princes seruice and is thereby listed and bounded so as to do nothing but according to the tenure and warrant of the commission being punishable if he shall attempt any thing further vpon his owne head so by this commission of holy Scripture deliuered vnto vs by the Church from God we are instructed and limited what to beleeue and what to doe as touching faith and dutie towards God and are iustly to be punished if we shall dare in any sort to go beyond the bounds and warrant of this commission yea and the Church it selfe is to hold and professe it selfe so tied to the precepts and rules of this commission as that it may not presume to obtrude or thrust any thing vpon the people of God to be beleeued and taught but whereof it hath thereby receiued warrant and instruction from God himself And if the Church shall further attempt or enterprise any thing as the Church of Rome doth it is to receiue checke and controlement from this writ of Gods commission neither are we to thinke our selues discharged for that we are thus told by the bearer of the writ so long as by the writ it selfe we are commaunded otherwise 18. W. BISHOP The two next arguments for traditions be not well propounded by Master Perkins The third is to be framed thus Either all the bookes of holy Scripture containe all needfull doctrine to saluation or some certaine of them without the rest not some of them without the rest for then the other should be superfluous which no man holdeth therefore all the bookes of holy Scripture put together do containe all necessary instruction Now then the argument followeth but some of those bookes of holy Scripture haue bene lost therefore some points of necessary doctrine contained in them are not extant in the written word and consequently to be learned by tradition Master Perkins answereth first supposing some of the books to be lost that all needfull doctrine which was in them is in some of the others preserued But why did he not solue the argument proposed were then those bookes superfluous Doth the holy Ghost set men to pen needlesse discourses which this answer supposeth therefore he giues a second more shamefull that none be perished which is most contrary vnto the plaine Scriptures * 1. Paral. vit 2 Paral. 9. as S. Iohn Chrysostome proueth * Hom. 9. in Mat. Et hom 7 an priorem ad Corinth where he hath these expresse words
That many of the Propheticall bookes were lost may be proued out of the history of Paralipomenon which they translate Chronicles Now as for M. Perkins guesses that some of them are yet extant but otherwise called some were but little roles of paper some prophane and of Philosophie I hold them not worth the discussing being not much pertinent and auowed on his word onely without either any reason or authoritie R. ABBOT Of this argument well propounded we deny the minor propositioÌ We say that some of the Scriptures though some other had miscaried should containe all doctrine needfull to saluation The consequence that he maketh thereof that then those other are superfluous is childish and absurdly iniurious to the Scripture The same doctrines are contained in a hundred places of holy Scripture and who will hereupon conclude that they are superfluous in one place because they are contained in another The Euangelists diuers times record the same stories and euen word for word and must it follow that the latter did superfluously write that which the former had set downe There is no point of necessary doctrine and faith contained in any one booke of holy Scripture but the same hath testimonie and witnesse of other bookes Matters of fact and circumstance there may be one where which otherwhere are not mentioned but points of necessary doctrine and faith haue manifold testimonie of the written word Supposing it then to be true which M. Bishop saith that some of the old bookes were lost which the wisedome of God thought necessary for those times though vnnecessary for vs yet it cannot be inferred hereof that any doctrine was thereby lost because though there might be some matters of storie there onely mentioned yet there could be no matter of doctrine that was not contained in Moses law And if Maister Bishop will needs perswade vs that some points of doctrine were there deliuered that are not in other scripture and must now be learned by tradition we desire to vnderstand whether by tradition he haue learned what those traditions were and that out of their Churches treasury of traditions he will discouer these secrets of which neither the Prophets nor Euangelists nor Apostles nor Fathers nor Councels were euer able to informe vs. He telleth vs that Chrysostome affirmeth the losse of those books but doth Chrysostome tell him of any doctrines deriued by tradition from those books Surely he wanted some proofe for the Popes triple crowne his yeare of Iubile and the great storehouse of merits and satisfactions at Rome and dreaming it in his sleepe beleeued it when he was awake that these matters were written of in these bookes and the bookes being now lost they come to vs by a tradition of which the world neuer heard any thing for the space of two or three thousand yeares But we must thinke that he wrote not these things for vs but for them who he thought would be more ready to beleeue him then we are Now M. Perkins further answereth that though those bookes were lost yet it followeth not that any part of the Canon of the Scripture was lost because there might be bookes which were not reckoned for Scripture bookes For proofe hereof he bringeth the words of the Apostle a Rom. 15.4 Whatsoeuer things were written before time were written for our learning arguing hereof that because bookes that be lost cannot serue for our learning and all the books of scripture that were formerly written were to serue for our learning therefore no bookes of scripture formerly written could be lost M. Bishop after his manner calleth it a shamefull answer but saith not a word to disproue it He telleth vs that there were such bookes but he proueth not that they were bookes of scripture and to the reason alledged out of the Apostles words he replieth nothing at all and therefore I passe him ouer without any further answer 19. W. BISHOP Master Perkins his fourth obiection of the Iewish Cabala is a meere dreame of his owne our argument is this Moses who was the pen-man of the old Law committed not all to writing but deliuered certain points needfull to saluation by tradition nor any Law-maker that euer was in any country comprehended all in letters but established many things by customes therfore not likely that our Christian law should be all written That Moses did not pen all thus we proue it was as necessary for women to be deliuered from originall sinne as men Circumcision the remedie for men could not possible be applied to women as euery one who knoweth what circumcision is can tell neither is there any other remedy prouided in the writen law to deliuer women from that sinne therefore some other remedy for them was deliuered by tradition Item if the child were likely to die before the eight day there was remedy for them as the most learned do hold yet no where written in the law Also many Gentiles during the state of the old Testament were saued as Iob and many such like according to the opinion of all the auncient Fathers yet in the Law or any other part of the old Testament it is not written what they had to beleeue or how they should liue wherefore many things needfull to saluation were then deliuered by tradition To that reason of his that God in his prouidence should not permit such a losse of any part of the Scripture I answer that God permitteth much euill Againe no great losse in that according to our opinion who hold that tradition might preserue what was then lost R. ABBOT It concerneth M. Bishop to speake well of the Iewish Cabala for if the Cabala be not good certainly Popish traditions are starke naught the Iews hauing as good warrant for the one as the Papists for the other Both of them to purchase credit to their owne fancies and deuices betooke themselues to this shifting pretence that the word of God was deliuered first by Moses and then by Christ and his Apostles partly written and partly vnwritten Whatsoeuer they haue listed to bring in either of curiositie or for profit they haue referred it to the vnwritten word and this hath bene the sinke of all both Iewish and Popish superstition both verifying in themselues that which our Sauiour obiecteth to the one a Mat. 15.6 Ye haue made the commaundement of God of no authoritie by your tradition M. Bishop here like a louing brother taketh the Iewes by the hand and will help them for the maintenance of their traditions that by them he may gaine some reputatioÌ to his owne His proofs for them are such as that without doubt they being but dul-heads in coÌparisoÌ of him were neuer able for themselues to deuise the like That Moses committed not all to writing he proueth because it was necessary for women to be deliuered from originall sin but they could not be deliuered from it by circumcision not being capable therof and no other remedy is prouided in
to vnbeleeuers onely by their default and therfore onely accidentally and respectiuely is so called set aside the respect and he cannot be truly called so Euen so the Scriptures are made a matter of strife by the iniquitie and importunity of euill men and to them onely they are so called whereas in themselues they are not so but properly serue for the ending and determining of all strife Maister Perkins therefore might iustly say that they are falsly termed the matter of strife hauing respect to the affection and intention of them by whom they were so termed For they who gaue this name gaue it by way of deprauing and disgracing the Scriptures when being required by vs to stand to the iudgement of the Scriptures they refused to do so and alledged that the Scriptures could giue no iudgement but rather were themselues matter of controuersie and strife seeking by this pretence to draw all to the determination of their owne Church But herein they offered indignity and dishonour to him who hath giuen vnto vs b Psal 119.104.105 his word to be the lanterne vnto our feete and the light vnto our steps by his precepts to get vnderstanding to hate all the waies of falshood Froward men may take occasion to striue about matters of the Scriptures when notwithstanding the Scriptures cleare those things whereabout they striue c Tertul de resur carn Videntur illis materias quasdam subministrasse ipsas quidem ijsdem literis reuincibiles The Scriptures saith Tertullian seeme to minister matter to heretikes but yet they are to be conuicted by the same Scriptures Where there is in the heart humility and obedience to the word of God there question and controuersie soone endeth but where there is frowardnesse and selfewill there will be no end of contention howsoeuer there be apparent conuiction To leaue this to come to the matter specially in hand it seemeth that M. Bishop hath much forgotten what he was about The matter in hand is to proue traditions that is doctrines of faith beside the Scriptures and he maketh here a long discourse concerning the meanes of attaining to the vnderstanding of the Scirptures Let that meanes be what it may be in the true vnderstanding of the Scriptures there is no other but the doctrine of the Scriptures and what is that to their traditions In this argument he his fellowes keepe their woont that is to trifle and say nothing to the matter whereof they pretend to speake Yet to follow them in their own steps the question is of the true interpreting and expounding of the Scriptures It is apparent they say what the Scripture saith but it is doubtfull what it meaneth There be many difficulties some expound one way some another way but how is it to be knowne who expoundeth the right way M. Perkins bringeth them in playing their old trump that we must haue recourse to the tradition of the Church imitating therein the old heretikes whose allegation was as Irenaeus recordeth that d Iren. lib. 3 cap. 2. CuÌ arguuntur ex Scripturis in accusationem conuertuntur ipsarum scripturarum c. quia non possit ex his inuentri veritas ab his qui nesciant traeditionem by the Scriptures the truth could not be found out by them that were ignorant of tradition To this M. Perkins answereth that the Scripture it selfe declareth it owne meaning if we obserue the analogie of faith gathered out of the manifest places of Scripture if we weigh the circumstance of the place and signification of the words if we diligently weigh and compare one place with another and vse such other like helpes as the Scripture yeeldeth With these words M. Bishop notably plaieth the sycophant as if M. Perkins hereby affirmed that euery Christian man by these means is enabled to iudge which is the true sence of any doubtfull or hard text that euery simple man furnished with these three rules is able to resolue any difficulty in the Scriptures whatsoeuer Against this he bringeth in the confession of S. Austine that after so long study the things which he knew not in the Scripture were more then those which he did know Thus he setteth vp a S. Quintin for himselfe and bestoweth himselfe very valiantly in running at it But where doth M. Perkins professe this effect of those three rules with euery Christian man euery simple man nay where doth he affirme so much of any learned man be he neuer so learned He setteth downe those rules as S. Austine doth the same and many other as necessary helpes for the searching of the truth and by the exercise whereof men should labour to profit and grow in the vnderstanding of the Scriptures may attaine to the knowledge of that truth that is necessary to saluation but farre was he from conceiuing that which M. Bishop speaketh of that euery simple man may thereby resolue all difficulties whatsoeuer M. Bishop for the attaining of the sence of Scripture referreth vs to their Iudge and to the traditions and auncient records of the primitiue Church to those auncient and holy commentaries But is he so witlesse as to think that any man vsing this direction of his shall be thereby enabled in the Scriptures to resolue all difficulties whatsoeuer If he will haue no such fantasticall paradox gathered of that which he saith why doth he lay the imputation of it vpon M. Perkins when it followeth no more of M. Perkins speech one way then it doth of his the other way As for his question why the Lutherans notwithstanding these rules do vnderstand the Scriptures in one sort the Caluinists after another the Anabaptists a third way we answer him that in his question there is more malice then wit We aske him the like question how it commeth to passe that notwithstanding their rules directions yet all these differ from them in the expounding of Scripture Now as he will answer that notwithstanding their directions be true yet that cannot hinder but that heretikes will dissent from them so we answer him that notwithstanding our rules and instructions in this behalfe be true and taken from the course of the auncient fathers yet that cannot let but that Popish heretikes and selfe-willed Lutherans and foolish mad Anabaptists will dissent from vs. If he will say that albeit all these dissent from them yet they themselues agree in one the like will be said of all other parties that albeit others do vary from them yet amongst themselues they vary not It is therefore no more prejudice to our rules that others dissent from vs then it is to Papists that we dissent from them As for the Anabaptists let him not put them to vs because we wholy detest them but rather take them home to them because being both of them the wicked ofspring of him who is e Iohn 8.44 a liar and the father of lies they haue both learned of him to teach men by equiuocations
the Epistles in generall if any thing in Paules Epistles sound to him as contrary to the doctrine of the Catholike Church it is vnknowne what Church they meane he faileth of the right sense Thus howsoeuer clearely the scripture soundeth yet it meaneth not that which it saith if it be contrarie to that which they affirme To this impudent deuise they are driuen because they see that the scripture condemneth them vnlesse they themselues haue the managing of the scripture that if the scripture be admitted for iudge it peremptorily pronounceth sentence against them so that they haue no meanes to colour their abhominations but by challenging to themselues to be iudges of the scripture As for vs we hang the doctrine of faith not vpon our expositions but vpon the very words of God himselfe we make the holy scripture the iudge not in ambiguous and doubtfull speeches but in cleare and euident sentences where the very words declare what the meaning is It is a question betwixt vs and them whether Saints images be to be worshipped or not they say they are we say they are not Let the Iudge speake x Exod. 20.4 Deut. 5.8 Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any likenesse of any thing in heauen aboue or in the earth beneath or in the waters vnder the earth thou shalt not now down to them nor worship them It is a question whether there be now any sacrifice to be offered for the forgiuenesse of sins They say there is so in their Masse we say there is none Let the Iudge speake y Mat. 26.28 This is my bloud of the new Testament which is shed for you for many for remission of sins z Heb. 10.18 Now where remission of sins is there is no more offering for sin It is a question betwixt vs whether the Saints be our Mediators vnto God or not They say they are we say they are not Let the Iudge determine it a 1 Tim. 2.5 There is one God saith he and one Mediatour betwixt God and man euen the man Iesus Christ It is a question whether a man be iustified before God by workes or not They say it must be so we say it cannot be Let the Iudge answer it b Rom. 3.20 By the workes of the lawe shall no flesh be iustified in his sight c Gal. 3.11.12 That no man is iustified by the law in the sight of God it is euident for the iust shall liue by faith and the law is not of faith but the man that shall do those things shall liue in them They alledge that the Iudge saith that d Iam. 2.24 a man is iustified by workes and not by faith onely we say that that is onely in the sight of men or with men they say that it is in the sight of God Let the iudge end it e Rom. 4.2 If Abraham were iustified by workes he had to reioyce but not with God It is a question whether the crosses and sufferings of the Saints do yeeld vs any helpe with God or any part of satisfaction for our sinnes They say they do we say they do not let the iudge tell vs whether they do or not f 1. Cor. 1.13 Was Paul crucified for you g Gal 6.14 God forbid that I should reioyce but in the crosse of our Lord Iesus Christ It is a question whether the people ought to be partakers of the Lords cup they say no we say yea Let the iudge decide it h Mat. 26.27 Drinke ye all of this Thus in all matters betwixt them and vs the iudge speaketh clearely on our side his words are so plaine as nothing can be more plaine Yet notwithstanding they tell vs that all these things haue another meaning which we must take vpon the Popes word The commaÌdement forsooth is meant of the idols of the Gentiles not of the images of Saints As if a whore-monger should say that the lawe forbiddeth whoredome of Christians with heathens not one with another The Scripture they say intendeth there is no other Mediator of redemption but one but Mediators of intercession there are many As if an adulterous woman should say that she may haue but one husband of this or that sort but of another sort she may haue many And yet they make them mediators of redemption also because they make them mediators of satisfaction and redemption is nothing else but the paiment of a price of satisfaction Thus they dally in the rest and shew themselues impudent and shameles men let them for their meanings reade to vs as plaine words of the iudge as those are that we reade to them and we will admit of them If not they must giue vs leaue to stand to the sentence of the iudge of heauen and earth and to account the Pope as he is a corrupt and wicked iudge although were he what he should be yet void of all title of being iudge to vs. 22. W. BISHOP Giue me leaue gentle Reader to stay somewhat longer in this matter because there is nothing of more importance and it is not handled any where else in all this Booke Consider then with your selfe that our coelestiall Law-maker gaue his law not written in Inke and Paper but in the hearts of his most faithfull subiects * Ierem. 31. 2. Cor. 3. endowing them with the blessed spirit of truth * Iohn 16. and with a most diligent care of instrusting others that all their posteritie might learne of them all the points of Christian doctrine and giue credit to them aswell for the written as vnwritten word and more for the true meaning of the word then for the word it selfe These and their true successors be liuely Oracles of the true and liuing God them must we consult in all doubtfull questions of Religion and submit our selues wholy to their decree S. Paule that vessell of election may serue vs for a singular modell and patterne of the whole who hauing receiued the true knowledge of the Gospell from God yet went vp to Hierusalem with Barnaby to conferre with the chiefe Apostles the Gospell which he preached lest perhaps he might runne in vaine and had runne as in expresse words he witnesseth himselfe * Gal. 2. Vpon which fact and words of S. Paule the auncient Fathers do gather that the faithful would not haue giuen any credit vnto the Apostles doctrine vnlesse by S. Peter and the other Apostles it had bene first examined and approued * Tertul lib. 4. in Marc. Hier. Ep. 89 quae est 11. inter Ep. Augustini August lib. 28. contra FaustuÌ cap. 4. Againe when there arose a most dangerous question of abrogating Moses lawe was it left to euery Christian to decide by the written word or would many of the faithfull beleeue S. Paule that worthy Apostle in the matter Not so but vp they went to Hierusalem to heare what the pillars of the Church would say where by the decree of the Apostles
is also to sustaine and comfort the weake There is to prouoke the appetite but yet there is also to satisfie the hunger There is q Bârnard in paru ser 64. In Pelago sacra lectionââ agnus ambulat elephas natat depth for the Elephant to swim but there are also shelfes and shallowes for the lambe to wade It is truly said by S. Austin that r Aug. ep 3. Non quòd ad ea quae necessaria sunt saluti tanta in eis difficultate peruentatur without any great difficultie we thereby attaine to those things that are necessary for saluation and that Å¿ Idem de vtilit credendi cap. 6. Inscripturis disciplina ita modificata vt nemo inde haurire non possit quod sibi satis est si modo ad hauritendum deuotè ac piè vt vera religio poscit accedat the doctrine thereof is so tempered as that there is no man but may draw from thence that that is sufficient for him if he come to draw with deuotion and pietie as true religion requireth he should do M. Bishop goeth on and telleth vs These and their true successors be the true and liuely oracles of the true and liuing God them we must consult in all doubtfull questions and submit our selues wholy to their decree But what M. Bishop are not onely the Apostles but their successors also the liuely oracles of God Which of the successors of the Apostles euer tooke vpon him either seuerally or ioyntly so to be We haue heard that t Ephes 2.20 the houshold of God are built vpon the foundations of the Apostles and Prophets but that they are built vpon the foundations of the Apostles successours we neuer heard As for consulting with the Fathers in doubtfull questions we willingly yeeld to do it that we may haue their helpe to find out in the Scripture the resolution of such doubts but that we are to submit our selues wholy to their decree as accounting them the oracles of God is a point of learning which S. Austin knew not when he said u Aug. de nat grat cap 61. Egâ in hutusmedi quorumlibet hominum scriptu liber sum quia solis Canonicis Scripturis debeo fine vlla recusaânne confensum I am free in such writings of men whatsoeuer they be because to the Canonicall Scriptures onely do I owe consent without refusall But not to stand too long vpon these fancies let one place of Hierome be an ââsâer to them all x Hier. in Psal 86. Quomodo narrabit Dominus Non verbo sed Scriptura In cutus Scriptura in populorum quae Scripturae populis omnibus legitur hoc est ve omnes intelligant c. The Lord will declare or shew in the Scripture of the people and of the Princes that haue bene in her How will the Lord declare Not by word but by writing or by Scripture In whose Scripture Euen in the Scripture of the peoples which is read to all peoples that is that all may vnderstand The Lord hath spoken by his Gospell not that a few but that all should vnderstand the Princes of Christ haue not written for a few but for all the people The Princes are the Apostles and the Euangelists Those saith he which were or haue bene in her Marke what he saith which were not which are so that the Apostles excepted whatsoeuer after shall be said is cut off and hath no authoritie Albeit therfore a man be holy albeit he be learned after the Apostles he hath no authoritie In which words he sheweth vs that the counsell of God thought good to leaue vs the Apostles doctrine not by word not by tradition but by writing that the scriptures which he hath giuen vs by them are so disposed as that they serue for the vnderstanding of all men that all authoritie of doctrine is concluded and ended in them neither hath any after them authoritie to teach vs any thing towards God that is not warranted and approued by their writings It is false therefore which M. Bishop saith that Christ gaue not his lawes written with inke and paper and againe that the meaning of the word is not to be knowne by the word it selfe and againe that the successors of the Apostles also are the liuely oracles of the true and liuing God In the next place he abuseth the Apostle S. Paule and vnder colour of the names of two or three of the Fathers absurdly misapplieth his going vp to Hierusalem as if he had gone to haue his doctrine examined and approued by the Apostles that were before him He nameth S. Peter single and by himselfe as to haue vs to conceiue that S. Paul yeelded some high preheminence superiority to him But there is no such matter as he pretendeth the Apostles own declaration ouerthroweth all this fancie He professeth that y Gal. 1.12 he receiued not his Gospell of man nor was taught it but by the reuelation of Iesus Christ After that he had receiued the reuelation of the Gospell from Christ was appointed to preach the Gospell amongst the Gentils directly against M. Bishops deuise he saith z Ver. 16.17 Immediatly I communed not with flesh and bloud neither went I vp to IerusaleÌ to theÌ that were Apostles before me but went into Arabia c. a Ambros in Gal. cap. 1. Nec consilium cutusquam petijt aut ad aliquem retulit quid esset acturus sed protinùs Christum praedicauit c. Non fuisse dicit necessitatem electum se à Deo pergendâ aââ praecessores Apostolos vt aliquid fortè disceret ab eis c. He asked no mans counsell saith Ambrose nor referred it to any man what he should do but foorthwith preached Christ He saith that there was no necessity that he being chosen of God should go to the Apostles his predecessors as haply to learne any thing from them Now how badly doth M. Bishop deale to make his reader beleeue that S. Pauls doctrine was first to be examined and approued by Peter and the rest of the Apostles when as S. Paul professedly saith that he went not to take any approbation from them because he had receiued equall authoritie coÌmission with them He further declareth that b Ver. 18. three yeares after he went to Hierusalem to see Peter and abode with him 15. daies c Ambros ibid. Non vt alâquid ab eo disceret quia âam ab authore didicerat à quo ipse Petrus fuerat instructus sed propter âffectum Apostolatus vt sciret Petrus hanc illi datam licentiam quam ipse acceperat Not to learne any thing of him saith Ambrose because he had already learned of the author himself by whom Peter was taught but for affection of the Apostleship that Peter might know that the same coÌmission was giue to him which Peter himselfe had He went to him d Theophy actâân Gal.
via duceret aut reduceret ad te Ideâque euÌ essemuâ insirmi ad inueniendam liquida ratione veritateÌ obhoc nobis opâs esset authoritate sanctaâuÌ literarum âam credere caeperam nullo modo te fuisse tributuruÌ tam excellentum illi Scripturâe per omnetiâm terras authoritatem nisi per ipsam tibi credi per ipsam te quaerivoluisses I alwaies beleeued saith he that thou art and that thou hast care of vs albeit I knew not what to think of thy being or which way should leade me or bring me againe to thee Therefore when I was too weake by apparent reason to find out the truth and for this purpose needed the authority of the holy Scriptures I began now to beleeue that by no means thou wouldest giue that excellency of authority to those scriptures euen throughout the whole earth but that thou wouldest haue vs therby to beleeue thee and thereby to seeke thee This place sheweth the true effect of that other speech and it is great impudency and impiety in M. Bishop and his fellowes to force vpon S. Austine that protestation which they do by their false construction 23 W. BISHOP This matter is so large that it requireth a whole question but being penned vp within the compasse of one obiection I will not dwell any longer in it but here fold vp this whole question of Traditions in the authorities of the auncient Fathers out of whom because I haue in answering M. Perkins and else-where as occasion serued cited already many sentences I will here be briefe S. Ignatius the Apostles Scholler doth exhort all Christians * Euseb li. 3.36 To sticke fast vnto the Traditions of the Apostles some of which he committed to writing Polycarpus by the authority of the Apostles words which he had receiued from their owne mouthes confirmed the faithfull in truth and ouerthrew the heretikes * Ibid. li. 5. c. 20. S. Irenaeus who imprinted in his heart Apostolicall traditions receiued from Polycarp saith If there should be a controuersie about any meane question ought we not to runne vnto the most auncient Churches in the which the Apostles had conuersed and from them take that which is cleare perspicuous to define the present question For what if the Apostles had not written any thing at all must we not haue followed the order of Traditions which they deliuered to them to whom they deliuered the Churches Origen teacheth that the Church receiued from the Apostles by Tradition to baptize Infants * Rom. 6. Athanasius saith * Lib. de decreâ Niceni conc We haue proued this sentence to haue bene deliuered from hand to hand by Fathers to Fathers but ye O new Iewes and sonnes of Caiphas what auncestors can ye shew of your opinion S. Basil hath these words * De Spir. Sanct. cap. 27. We haue the doctrine that is kept and preached in the Church partly written and part we haue receiued by Tradition of the Apostles in mysterie both which be of the same force to godlinesse and no man opposeth against these who hath at the least but meane experience of the Lawes of the Church See Gregory Nazianz. Orat. 1. in Iulian. R. ABBOT M. Bishop is here as he was before like the melancholike merchant of Athens who reioyced at the sight of euery ship that came in perswading himselfe that it was his ship He cannot light any where vpon the name of traditions but he presently imagineth that it is meant of their Popish vnwritten traditions And here in the first place to colour this he translateth the words of Eusebius amisse by changing the singular number into the plurall a Euseb hist lib. 3. cap. 32. Vt Apostolorum traditioni indivulsè adhaerent admonebat ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã He warned them saith Eusebius concerning Ignatius that they should cleaue stedfastly to the tradition of the Apostles He saith not traditions as to note sundry doctrines left vnwritten as M. Bishop would haue it but tradition as entirely generally to signifie the doctrine deliuered by the Apostles Therefore he must necessarily be vnderstood of the doctrine of the Apostles which is written but there is no necessity of vnderstanding any more This tradition that is the doctrine deliuered by the Apostles Eusebius saith that Ignatius did testifie by writing and what he testified we should see by those writings if we had them now in such sort as he left them euen no other doctrine but what the Apostles before had left in writing But those Epistles haue bene diuersly in hucksters hands being growne to greater number then Eusebius and Hierome heard of in their times containing many things now which they had not then and many then which they haue not now Ignatius now is made to say that b Ignat. epist 5. ad Phil. p. Siquâ dominico die reiunauerât aut sabbato praeter vnum sabbatuÌ is est Christi interfector if any man fast vpon the Lords day or vpon the Saterday he is a murtherer of Christ whereas S. Austine confesseth that c Aug. epist 86. Quibus diebus ââunare eporteat vel quibus non oporteat nullo Domini vel Apostolorum praecepto inuenio definitum he found it not defined by any precept of Christ or his Apostles what daies we are to fast and what not and Hierome as we haue heard before confesseth that Paul and others with him did fast vpon the Lords day He is now made to say that d Ignat. ibid. Siquâ eum Iudaeis pascha peregeris festi eorum Symbola susceperit is particeps est socius eoruÌ qui Dominum occiderunt Apostolos eius if any man obserue Easter with the Iewes or shall beare the marks of their festiuall day he is a companion and partaker with theÌ who killed Christ and his Apostles whereas it is manifest by the ecclesiastical history that e Euseb hist lib. 5 cap 23. Polycarpus the Bishop of Smyrna at that time kept Easter in that sort refused to yeeld to Anicetus Bishop of Rome to do otherwise therefore that there was no such obseruation to which Ignatius should adioine any such censure as here is Againe Hierome citeth this sentence out of Ignatius that f Hieron cont Pelug lib. 3. Ignatius vir Apostolicus martyr scribit audacter Elegit Dominus Apostolos qui super omnes homines erant peccatores Christ chose Apostles who were sinners aboue all men which now is not found in those Epistles that we haue Therfore sith we haue his writings no otherwise but maimed and corrupted it is hard from them now to gather any certaintie at all and those some traditions which M. Bishop speaketh of are but meere forgeries conueyed into them by the Popes agents albeit the former of those traditions which I haue mentioned maketh them also murtherers of Christ because they fast vpon the Saterday or else they must denie that these
epistles do faithfully report the traditions of the Apostles But what tradition it was that Irenaeus meant wil appeer by that that is cited in the next place concerning Polycarpus who M. Bishop sayth by the Apostles words receiued from their owne mouthes confirmed the faithfull in truth and ouerthrew the heretickes Let his author speake and let the Reader iudge how honestly he dealeth in this citation The words are the words of Irenaeus of whom Eusebius reporteth that in certaine speeches against Florinus the hereticke he saith of himselfe hauing bene with Polycarpus when he was very yong g Euseb hist eccl lib. 5. ca. 18. Commemorare queaÌ sermones eius quos fecit ad multitudineÌ quomodo se cum Ioanne ac reliquis qui DominuÌ viderunt conuersatum esse dixerit sermones ecruÌ memorauerit quae ex illis de Domino audierant de virtutibus eius doctrina tanquaÌ ex ijs qui ipsi verbuÌ vitae viderant et cuncta sanctis Scripturis consona recensuerit I remember the sermons that he made to the people and how he told that he had bene conuersant with Iohn and others that saw the Lord and mentioned their speeches and what he had heard of them concerning the Lord and concerning his miracles and doctrine as receiued from them who themselues had seene the Word of life and reported all things agreeable to the holy Scriptures Here was then the tradition of Polycarpus containing nothing else but according to the Scripture As touching the tradition that h See the Answer to the Epistle sect 11. Irenaeus speaketh of it hath bene before shewed that it containeth nothing else but the elementall articles of Christian faith for the auouching whereof he was forced to appeale to the tradition and successiue doctrine of the Church because he had to do with heretickes that refused the triall of the Scriptures He saith rightly that if nothing had bene written we must haue rested vpon Tradition but because God knew that Tradition was too vncertaine and weake a meanes for preseruation of truth therefore as he hath before said the Apostles deliuered the Gospel which they preached in writing and that by the will of God to be the foundation and pillar of our faith In a word when he saith What if the Apostles had not writteÌ any thing at all must we not then haue followed the order of tradition he intimateth that now that they haue written we are to follow that which they haue written for the certaintie assurance of our faith He forceth the order of tradition in this sort vpon the heretiks because by the Scriptures there was no dealing with them but the matters whereof he treateth are cleerly taught therein as euery where he sheweth throughout his whole booke His next allegation is vaine and childish Origen teacheth that the Church receiued from the Apostles by tradition to baptize infants whereas Bellarmine himselfe proueth it to be necessary by the Scriptures as I haue shewed i Sect 12. before That of Athanasius is as little to the purpose as all the rest The thing that he hath in hand in the k Athanas lib. Quòd Nicena synod u congruis pijs verbis decreta sua super Ariana haeresi exposuerit booke cited is to giue a reason of the decree of the Nicene Councell that the Sonne of God is of the same substance with the Father He sheweth that the Fathers there assembled determined it by the Scriptures Constantine also so directing them as we haue seene before The matter was so cleared as that the heretickes for shame were content to subscribe to that which was concluded vpon Yet he declareth that afterwards they fell to cauilling that the words whereby the Councell expressed their meaning were not found in the Scriptures that they deuised them of themselues and that none of the former Fathers had vsed the same He answereth that l Cognoscet quisquis est studiosioris animi has voces tamitsi in Scripturis non reperiantur habere tamen eas eam sententiam quâm Scripturae volunt hoc ipsum sonaere c. Whosoeuer is of a studious mind or desirous to learne will know that those words though they be not found in the Scriptures yet haue the same meaning which the Scriptures intend and do signifie the very same Further against their other cauil he sheweth by diuers places alledged that the Fathers of former times had vsed the same words and maner of speech as the Councell did Hereupon he concludeth m Ecce nos demonstramus istiusmodi sententiaÌ Ã patribus ad patres quasi per manââ traditaÌ esse Vos autem nouâ Iudeâ Cataphaeque discipuli quos verboruÌ vestroruÌ patreâac maiores demonstraâuâ Behold we shew that this sentence hath bene deliuered from fathers to fathers as it were from hand to hand but O you new Iewes and sons of Caiphas what fathers or auncesters will ye shew vs for your termes Now shall not we thinke that M. Bishop hath here brought vs a stout proofe for traditions vnwritten and doctrines beside the Scripture Euen as if we should say to M. Bishop and his fellowes Behold we shew you that which we say of the sufficiencie of the Scriptures deliuered from fathers to fathers euen as it were from hand to hand and he should herupon cite vs for witnesses of their traditions As much wit should he shew in this as he now doth in that The place of Basil is answered at large n Sect. 16. before He further referreth vs to the first oration of o Greg Naziân contra Julian erat 1. Doctrina nostra insigââreÌ videus ob ecclesiae figuras quas traditioâe acceptas in hunc vsque dieÌ seruaââmus c. Idem hic cogit ãâã scholas in omnibus ciuitatibus extruere parabat sacraria se desque partim altiores partim depressiores prophaâââum dogmatum lectiones âxplicationes instituere tum precaâoâum alternatim caâââarum fârmam c. Gregorie Nazianzen against Iulian but was ashamed to set downe any words of his because the matters of tradition that he there mentioneth amongst the Christians which Iulian the Apostata apishly would resemble in his Paganisme were schools and formes higher and lower lectures hospitals monasteries companies of virgins singing by turnes and such other matters of external order and discipline in the Church and what are these to prooue traditions that is matters of doctrine not contained in the Scriptures We admit almost all those things which he there speaketh of and yet we condemne traditions in that sence as we here make question of them Surely M. Bishops traditions are in a miserable case that in all antiquity can find no better foundations wherupon to build them A man would not thinke that in so serious a matter he would so trifle as he hath done bringing not one place in any sort appliable to his purpose but only that of Basill
manifest and abhominable idolatry in that confessing vowes to be a substantiall part of the worship of God they communicate this honour to the Saints and make vowes to them of fastings praiers pilgrimages churches altars tapers and what not a thing so voide of all testimonie of Scripture as that Bellarmine is content to say e Bellar. de cultu sanct ca 9. Cum scriberentur scripturae sanctae nondum caeperat vsus vouendi sanctis that when the holy Scriptures were written the custome of vowing to Saints was not yet begun It is nothing therefore against vs that he alledgeth that Iacob made a vow thereby to proue that there was vse of vowes before the time of Moses law but whereas he saith that the things which Iacob vowed were out of his owne deuotion and not commanded of God he speaketh it but at all aduenture and hath no ground for that that he saith For if his reason be because we do not read that any thing was commanded to Iacob in that behalfe we may likewise argue that he did all other deuotions out of his owne heart and receiued them not by commaundement from God because we reade nothing of any such commaundement But it is true which Origen saith that f Origen cont Cels lib 7. Nemo qui oculis animae cernit alio modo DeuÌ colit quà m sicut ipse docuit no man that seeth with the eies of his soule worshippeth God otherwise then as he himselfe hath taught and which Hilary saith that g Hilar. de Trinit lib. 4. Neu potest aliâer de Deo quà m vt ipse est de se testatus intelligi we may not vnderstand otherwise concerning God then as he himselfe hath witnessed of himselfe M. Bishop therefore doth amisse to make Iacob as blind as he himselfe is that he should go about to worship God with deuotions of his own deuice He receiued instruction of the will of God from the fathers that were before him he had also immediate reuelation illumination from God himself We see that God afterwards in the law giueth commandement of the same things of building altars and paying tithes and vndoubtedly God gaue not commaundements of things which he had learned of Iacob but which Iacob had bene taught by him Yea and because the Apostle S. Paul condemneth h Col. 2.23 will worship or voluntary religion that is all such deuotions as men vndertake of their owne deuice thereby giuing to vnderstand that God neuer approueth any such surely we may wel resolue that Iacob would not be guilty of any such presumption but would first open his eare to learne of God what to do before he would put forth the hand to do any thing vnto God But saith M. Bishop S. Paul when he seemeth to disallow voluntary worship must be vnderstood to speake either of erronious or of friuolous and foolish things promised to God which do not properly serue for the setting forth of his glory Where we see the very patterne of an erroneous and friuolous and foolish answer The Apostle simply taxeth will worship as erroneous and friuolous and foolish and M. Bishop telleth vs that he meaneth that will worship that is erroneous or friuolous and foolish He must be vnderstood of friuolous and foolish things saith M. Bishop and the Apostle telleth vs that he speaketh of such things as i Ibid. haue a shew of wisedome and therefore not to sight but onely to spirituall iudgement are friuolous and foolish And therfore doth the Apostle make them erroneous and affirme that k Ver. 24. they perish in the vsing because they are after the doctrines and commandements of men alluding to that which our Sauiour in the Gospel citeth out of the Prophet l Mat. 15.9 In vaine do they worship me teaching for doctrines the precepts of men but M. Bishop will haue vs thinke that the Apostles meaning is not to reproue generally the doctrines and commandements of men but onely some that be erroneous In a word set them one against another and hearken well what they say The Apostle saith voluntary religion or worship is erroneous because it is after the doctrines and commandements of men Maister Bishop saith all voluntary worship is not erroneous but onely that that is erroneous But here we must thinke that when he thus tooke exception against promising to God friuolous and foolish things he was quite out of the remembrance of the vowes of their religious orders We must in charity be perswaded that he thought not of them because he would haue considered that in condemning the vowing of friuolous and foolish things he should condemne them as in which there are so many fantasticall and friuolous toies as touching their apparell and other vsage as that we may wonder that euer such drunken deuices could come from sober men if at least they were sober that were the deuisers of them And if he had remembred them or when he doth remember them I meruaile what qualification or distinction he would haue vsed or will vse to salue the matter that so ridiculous fooleries should be thought as properly seruing to the setting foorth of the honour of God Albeit it may be that though being subtile and wise hee afterwards pro forma disputeth in the behalfe of those vowes that hee may not walke too openly yet carying still a splene to the Iesuites and for their sakes to all the rest hee would first giue vs to vnderstand that in his mind he accounteth all those vowes as superstitions and wholy condemned by the sentence of the Apostle We are very desirous to construe his meaning the best way 4. W. BISHOP Now that Vowes should be frequented in the state of the Gospell besides the euidence of Saint Paules Vowe * Act. 18. and diuerse other such like the Prophet Esay did foretell in these words * Esa 19.18 They shall worship him with sacrifice and gifts and they shall vow vowes vnto our Lord and performe them To which Maister Perkins answereth first that by such ceremoniall worship as then was in vse the Prophet doth expresse the spirituall worship of the new Testament This exposition is voluntarie and nothing proper For what is more vild and absurd then to declare that Christians shall make no Vowes to say that they shall make Vowes as though one contrarie were fit or would serue to expresse the other This exposition being very vnmeete Maister Perkins adioyneth a second that in the new Testament wee haue vowes of Morall and Euangelicall duties but such are not any part of Gods worship so that first you shall haue no vowes at all Secondly the winde being changed you shall haue them but as no parts of Gods worship as though Morall and Euangelicall duties vndertaken and performed to Gods greater glory be not the very sinewes and substance of his seruice and worship R. ABBOT By the euidence of a Act. 18.18 S. Pauls vow it
turne to trifles and idlenesse Thus Ambrose also saith c Ambros in 1. Tim. cap. 5. Quoniam quae supra dixit de huiusmodi viduis contraria illicita perducent eas ad mortem idcirco consilium dat praecipit ea fieri quae licita sunt Melius est enim domus suae curam gerere quà m in aliena domo adulari Et mulium expedit nubere quà m sub bona pâae professione notabiliter ìncedere Because those contrary and vnlawfull things which he hath spoken of such widowes shall bring them to death therefore he giueth counsell and chargeth that those things be done which are lawfull For it is better that they take charge of their owne house then to vse flatterie in the houses of others More expedient is it to marrie then vnder a good and godly profession to walke so as to be subiect to publike note Now then if M. Bishop will not beleeue vs yet he will not gainesay the assertion of these auncient fathers that the Apostle here for auoiding those mischiefes and inconueniences that he speaketh of giueth liberty of mariage to them who notwithstanding had bene receiued into the number of Church widowes with profession and promise not to marry any more Yea and that it may yet further appeare how farre the auncient Church was from the beastly and lewd conceipt of Romish hypocrites before expressed Cyprian speaking of virgins which had vowed virginitie saith thus d Cyprian lib. 1. epist. 11. Sise ex fide Christo dicauerunt pudicè castè sine vlla fabula perseuerent ita fortes stabiles praemium virginitatis expectent Si autem perseuerare nolunt vel non possunt melius est vt nubant quà m vt mignem suis delicijs cadant If by their faith they haue dedicated themselues to Christ let them continue purely and chastly without any euill report so let them firmely and stedfastly looke for the reward of virginitie But if they will not or cannot perseuere it is better that they marrie then that by their wantonnesse they fall into the fire M. Bishops maister Bellarmine being pitifully distressed with this testimonie that he might finde a way and meanes to answer it treacherously suppresseth the first part of the sentence faith that Cyprian spake not of those e Bellarm. iudic de lib. concord Luther art 16. Cyprianum non de ijs loqui quae coÌtinentiam vouerunt sed de ijs quae adhuc deliberant quid sint factura which had vowed continencie but of them who were yet in deliberation what to do whereas the very words of Cyprian as we see do mention them who by their faith haue dedicated themselues to Christ Of virgins already vowed S. Austin also saith f Aug. de sanct virginit cap. 34. Hae quae nubere volunt et ideò noÌ nuhunt quia impunè noÌ possunt meliùs nuberent quaÌ vrereÌtur id est quà m occulta concupiscentiae flamma in ipsa concupiscentia vastarentur They which would marrie and therefore do not marrie because they cannot freely do it were better to marrie then to be burned that is then by the secret flame of concupiscence to be consumed in lust S. Hierome in like sort complaining of some by whom g Hieron epist. ad Demetriadem Sanctum virginum propositum quarundam non benè se agentium nomen infamat quibus apertè dicendum est vt aut nubant si continere non possunt aut contineant si nalunt nubere the holy profession of virgins was disgraced whilest they miscaried themselues addeth who are openly to be warned either to marrie if they cannot containe or else to containe if they will not marrie To conclude Epiphanius saith that h Epiphan haer 61. Apostolic Melius est lapsuÌ Ã cursu palà m sibi vxoreÌ sumere secundum legem à virginitate multo teÌpore paenitentiam agere sic rursus ad ecclesiam induci c. et non quotidiè occultis iaculis sauciari ab improbitate quae ipsi à diabolo infertur Sic nouit ecclesia praedicare haec sunt sanationis medicamenta better it is for a man that is fallen from his course of virginitie and single life openly to take a wife according to the law and long to be penitent for his fall from virginitie and so to be brought into the Church againe and not daily to be wounded with the wickednesse which by the diuell is brought vpon him Thus saith he the Church was learned to teach these are her medicines wherewith to heale This was the conceipt of the auncient Church though too much addicted to that vowing of virginity yet in the defect therof giuing place to mariage rather then to vncleane and filthy life But the Church of Rome now is become a desperate Surgeon a Surgeon did I say nay a cruell butcher and a slaughterer of the consciences of men not healing wounds but poisoning them and forsalues and medicines giuing them cords and halters to hang themselues Albeit their singular hypocrisie and impudencie in this behalfe notably appeareth when telling vs that the Apostle denounceth damnation to them that marrie after a vow of single life they notwithstanding giue to the Pope a power to dispence where he list for the breaking of this vow and to giue liberty of mariage Thus Mathew of Paris mentioneth that he dispenced with i Math. Parisân Heâr 3. anno 1237. Elnor the daughter of King Iohn and sister to King Henry the third that hauing solemnly vowed widowhood yet shee might marrie to Simon Mounfort Earle of Leicester So doth Platina record that k Plat. de vit Pontif. in Coelâstin 3. Celestinus the third did by voluntarie dispensation giue Constantia the daughter of Roger King of Sicilia being professed a virgin to the Emperour Henry the sixt vpon a condition of a benefit to come to himselfe thereby Many other examples are there of the like by which they teach vs lightly to esteeme of that they say as touching this matter being in their owne account a thing wholy subiect to the Popes will As for vs we are perswaded that if the Pope herein can dispense wee may much more securely presume of that dispensation which God by his word hath giuen commaunding them to marrie that cannot containe Maister Bishop then may see that the text alledged was not a furlong from the marke but hee himselfe was gone a furlong or rather a mile from his owne wits that would go about to perswade vs that it is better for votaries to burne that is to be defiled with incontinencie then to marrie when the Apostle absolutely saith It is better to marrie then to burne yea that they are all beasts and men of seared consciences who by a vow intend to tye men more strongly from mariage then from beastly and filthy lust 8 W. BISHOP The second is much like * 1. Tim. 4. It is a doctrine of
diuels to forbid to marrie truth if one should hold mariage in it selfe to be wicked and therefore condemne it in all sorts of persons as Montanus and the Manichees did But we haue a more reuerend opinion of mariage than the Protestants themselues For we with the Apostle * Ephes 3. hold it to be a great Sacrament they that it is a morall contract only Notwithstanding we maintaine that such persons who being of ripe yeeres haue aduisedly vowed chastity may not marrie not because mariage is not honourable but for that they haue solemnly promised to God the contrary which we also hold to be better than if he had maried And so to vse S. Austines words He forbiddeth to marrie who saith it to be euill but not he who before this good thing preferreth a better And a little after you see saith he that there is great difference betweene perswasion to virginity by preferring the greater good before the lesser forbidding to marrie by accusing lying together for issue The first is the doctrine of the Apostles which we teach the latter only of deuils * Lib. 3. cont Faust Manich. cap. 6. R. ABBOT Because the second is like the first we presume it to carie sufficient waight and strength of argument against M. Bishops answer The Apostle reckoneth it for one of a 1. Tim. 4.1.3 the doctrines of diuels to forbid to marrie M. Bishop answereth Truth if one should hold mariage in it selfe to be wicked and therefore condemne it in all sorts of persons as Montanus and the Manichees did But if he had vnderstood what he had said he would not here haue named Montanus for Montanus in this point was outright a Papist and condemned the Marcionites and Manichees for that opinion with which M. Bishop here chargeth him Tertullian being become by his fall the champion of Montanus and being vrged by the catholike Church with the words of the Apostle in the place here cited against b Ibid. commanding to abstaine from meates answereth the place coÌcerning meates as Maister Bishop here doth concerning mariage that the holy Ghost in those words c Tertull. de Ieian Praedamnant iaÌ haereticos perpetuam abstinentiam praecepturos ad destruenda et despicieÌda opera creatoris quales inueniam apud MarcioneÌ apud Tatiantum c. non apud paraecletum condemneth heretikes that should commaund perpetuall abstinence to destroy and disgrace the workes of the Creator Such saith he as we finde with Marcion and Tatian with whom the Manichees therein consented not with Montanus his paracletus As therefore in meates so in mariage Montanus condemned them who dishonoured the worke of Gods creation and tooke it to be a thing in it selfe vncleane and wholy to be condemned Therefore Tertullian writing againe in behalfe of Montanus concerning mariage setting the Church on the one side vnder the name of Naturalists or Carnalists and heretikes on the other side saith d Tertull. de Monogam Haeretici nuptias auferuÌt Psychici ingerunttilli nec semel isti noÌ semel nubuÌt c. Neque continentia eiusmodi laudanda est quia haeretica est neque licentia defendenda quia Psychica est illa blasphemat ista luxuriat illa destruit nuptiarum Deum ista confiuidit Heretikes take away mariage Carnalists vrge it they marry not so much as once these marry more then once their continency is not to be commended because it is hereticall nor the licence of the other to be defended because it is carnall the one blasphemeth the other exceedeth the one destroieth God from being the author of mariage the other shameth him Anone after he saith that e Jbid. Christum Paracletus contestabitur qualeÌ credimus cuÌ toto ordine creatoris their Paracletus did testifie Christ according to the faith with the whole order or ordinance of the Creator In the same place he alledgeth their soundnesse in the rule of faith namely that which summarily we professe in the articles of our Creede as an argument that those things which they taught were not of the euill spirit f Ibid. Aduersarius spiritus ex diuersitate praedicationis apparet primò regulaÌ adulterans fidei ita ordinem adulterans disciplinae c. Fidem dicit pro eis integritas praedicationis c. Ante quis de Deo haereticus sit necesse est tunc de instituto c. Paracletus nouae disciplinae institutor c. who would first haue corrupted them in faith and then haue peruerted them in order of conuersation whereas now their integrity in preaching the faith did giue assurance or warrant for them A man saith he must first be an heretike concerning God and then as touching institution of behauiour but Montanus their Paracletus was as he saith an instructour or teacher not of any new faith but of new order and conuersation to which purpose he saith in another place hauing set downe a briefe of the articles of our beliefe g Tertull. de veland virgin Hac lege fidei maneÌte caetera iam disciplinae conuersationis admittuÌt nouitatem correctionis c. Propterea ParacletuÌ misit vt ad perfectuÌ perduceretur disciplina This law or rule of faith abiding other matters of discipline and conuersation do admit newnesse of correction and maketh the end of the sending of their Paracletus to be this that discipline or conuersation might be brought to perfection Montanus then denied not mariage according to the rule of faith to be Gods institution but professeth of their continencie that it h Idem de Monog Continentia religiosa legem nuptiarum honorat honoured the law of mariage and therefore M. Bishop did him great wrong to couple him in that sort with the Manichees who wholy blasphemed mariage as vncleane and hauing originall from the diuell and power of darknesse But yet he will say that Montanus taught somewhat against mariage and we acknowledge the same yet not as to condemne mariage but i Jbid. Saluo inquis iure nubeÌdi Planè saluo c. nihilominus tamen ex ea parte destructo qua continentiam praefert c. Praelatione continentiae imposita to preferre continency as Tertullian saith It is true that albeit he acknowledged mariage to be Gods institution yet he held the liberty thereof to be permitted but onely once and that once to be yeelded onely to the infirmity of the flesh euen as M. Bishop said before that to common Christians the Apostle said If they cannot abstaine let them marry but it is plaine by Tertullian that all this was but to commend a state of greater perfection k De veland virgin Quae Paracleti administratio nisi haec c. quòd ad meliora proficitur the ministerie of their Paracletus being that men should profit to better things and l De Monog Secundum sanctitatem caruis admonuit incedere should walke according to the holinesse
pollutam nec in malè blandiâ mortiferis huius mundi voluptatibus vsque ad exitum vitae suae absque remedio poenitentiae infoelici perseuerantia colligatam not such only as are chast in body but rather or specially euery Church which keepeth or holdeth pure faith not polluted with the adulterous commixtion of heretickes nor vnhappily continuing to the end without repentance in the dangerously flattering and deadly pleasures of this world and citeth the place before mentioned to the Corinthians for declaration therof Thus we dissent then froÌ Austin as touching the application of those places of Scripture which he alledgeth to his purpose the reader may perceiue that it is not without cause that we so do Another thing wherein we cannot accord with him is that he assigneth vnto virgins a speciall glory peculiar to themselues and eminent aboue all others which vnder correction of so learned a father we hold to be a very fabulous and vaine conceipt For although virginitie and single life do yeeld the oportunitie of greater reward by giuing liberty of greater worke yet it followeth not that they haue any thing so appropriated vnto theÌ but that in married estate they that do the like worke may rest in expectation of the like reward The portion of all that Å¿ Gal. 3.9 are of the faith is to be blessed with faithfull Abraham t Luk 16.22 to be caried by the Angels into Abrahams bosome u Mat. 8.11 to sit downe with Abraham and Isaac and Iacob in the kingdome of God Abraham and Isaac and Iacob were maried men and therefore virgins shall haue their place all one with those that haue bene married Our Sauiour Christ told his Apostles who all saue Iohn were married that x Mat. 19.28 they should sit vpon twelue seates to iudge the twelue tribes of Israel He gaue them seates indifferently he gaue not Iohn a speciall seate higher then all the rest and shall we thinke that other virgins shall haue seates aboue all them They are mentioned as hauing y Reâ 21.14 their names written alike vpon the twelue foundations of the Church and shall we say that one of their names was written in letters of gold and all the rest with inke Moses a married man and Elias a virgin z Luk. 9.31 appeared with Christ not in any diuerse but both in the same glorie Therfore Ignatius a virgin also saith of himselfe a Ignat. ad Philadelph Opio dignus Deo inueÌtus ad vestigia eorum qui nuptijs operam dederunt in regno mutuirit stiut Abraham Jsaac Iacob Ioseph Esatae alioruÌ Prophetarum siâut Petri Pauli alicruÌ Apostolorum qui nuptijs operaÌ dederunt I wish being found worthy of God to be found in Gods kingdome at the feet of them that were maried as of Abraham Isaac Iacob Ioseph Esay and the other Prophets as of Peter and Paul marke that he reckoneth Paul for a married man and other the Apostles who were maried men In a word it was but S. Austins too great opinion of virginitie in the flesh that made him without any good grounds to entertaine that conceipt of some different and speciall glory in name thereof to be assigned vnto virgins Truth saith the wisedome of God saith that they who of religious purpose do forbeare mariage and vse the gift of continencie do make themselues chast for the kingdom of heauen but truth doth not say neither doth the wisdome of God say that in name of virginity or continency they haue greater reward then others but only as they vse the same more earnestly to seeke the kingdome of heauen which if the married do alike as they they shall haue reward alike But saith M. Bishop the Apostle assureth that single life is better for the seruice of God And what had not M. Perkins said so much to him do not we say the same but we adde that it is better and more commodious where the gift of continencie is but where the gift of continencie is not there marriage is much better for the seruice of God Againe we say it is most commonly not alwaies so for b Chrysost in 1. Tim. hom 10. Ita assum possunt nuptiae vt perfectiori vitae impedimento non sint mariage saith Chrysostome may be so taken as that it shall be no hinderance to perfect life euen as the Ecclesiasticall historie saith of Spiridion a bishop that c Soz omen li 1. cap. 11. Vxorem habebat liberos non tamen propterea res diuinas negligeÌtiùs obijt ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã he had wife and children and was thereby no whit the worse about things pertaining to God As for the words which he citeth out of the book of Wisdom beside that they are no canonical Scripture they make nothing for him They are an allusion to the words of Esay only signifie that to the Eunuch that worketh righteousnes shal be giuen that excellent gift that belongeth vnto faith a portioÌ or state in the Lords temple which is a thing acceptable and blessed aboue all things and that d Psal 27.4 one thing aboue all things to be desired but as touching comparison of portions in the house of God it intendeth nothing 14. W. BISHOP Secondly all the Protestants doctrine for mariage against vowes is notably confuted by S. Paul * 1. Tim. 5. where he saith That there were then certaine widowes who when they waxed wanton against Christ would marrie hauing damnation saith he because they made void and cast away their first faith which was as S. Augustin * De sanct vir cap. 23. and the rest of the Fathers expound it they had vowed continencie but would not performe it Now these young widowes if the Protestants doctrine were true not hauing the gift of continencie did very well to marry and were in no sort bound to keepe their vowes which was not in their power but the Apostle doth not acquit them of their vow but teacheth that they were bound to keepe it in that he pronounceth damnation to them if they marrie R. ABBOT To all that is here said I haue fully answered before in the 7. SectioÌ The ProtestaÌts indeed say they make it good that those yoÌg widowes not hauing the gift of continency did well to marry and were by the Apostle willed to marrie lest haply any of them should by waxing wanton against Christ fall into the like damnation as some other had done An impious and diuellish tyrannie it is when any haue vowed rashly that that is not in their power to tye them to their vow and so to cause them by filthy lust and vncleannesse to runne into damnation who by repentance of their vnaduised rashnesse and vsing the remedy ordained by God should keepe themselues in purenesse and peace of conscience to saluation 15. W. BISHOP Thirdly the example of our heauenly Sauior who
all Christians but voluntarily to be followed as a matter of speciall perfection by such as will so as that without this a man may be saued and come to eternall life but by the doing of it he meriteth a release of his owne and other mens sins and an eminent and more then ordinary degree of glory in euerlasting life But the text plainly sheweth that this cannot be there meant and that the lesson that Christ taught him did concerne a dutie necessary for the obtaining of eternall life The question that he moueth to Christ is l Mat. 19.16 Good master what shall I do to obtaine eternall life Our Sauiour answereth If thou wilt enter into lift keepe the commaundements He professeth himselfe so to haue done from his youth and addeth what lacke I yet What is it whereto he supposeth somewhat yet to be lacking Euery man seeth whereto it is to be referred What lacke I yet to the obtaining of eternal life Accordingly then the answer of Christ is to be construed If thou wilt be perfect that is lacking nothing to the obtaining of eternall life go sell all that thou hast and giue to the poore and thou shalt haue treasure in heauen and come and follow me That this is the meaning of the perfection here spoken of appeareth by the two other Euangelists who thus set downe the answer of Christ m Mark 10.21 One thing is lacking vnto thee n Luke 18.22 Yet lackest thou one thing sel all that thou hast c. Wherto did he lacke one thing but to that whereof he made the question to the obtaining of eternal life Christs words then in effect are Thou hast not yet all that is needfull to the obtaining of eternall life but if thou wilt be perfect lacking nothing thereto go sel all that thou hast c. Now if we vnderstand it as M. Bishop would haue vs then there was no cause why the man should go away so sorowful at that that Christ said For the thing that he desired was to haue eternal life and if he might haue had eternall life without the forgoing of his riches it would haue fully satisfied him But by M. Bishops doctrine it might be said to him that he troubled himselfe in vaine for the words of Christ were but a counsell and not a commaundement and that there was not any necessitie of doing that that was sayd vnto him They that wold be of a high degree of perfection aboue others must so do but if he would rest in a lower degree he might continue as he was and yet obtaine eternall life But the yong man conceiued not so he knew that Christs words imported a conditioÌ of obtaining eternal life according to the question that he had moued to him and therefore was very sorowfull And hereto accord the words of Christ ensuing Verily I say vnto you that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdome of heauen It is easier for a camell to go through the eie of a needle then for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God Why doth Christ vse these words but that the yong mans respect of his riches did hinder him not from a state of perfection aboue others as M. Bishop dreameth but wholly from entring into the kingdome of God Furthermore it is to be considered how improbable a thing it is that to a man who knew as yet only the Iewish religion had no knowledge of the faith of Christ our Sauior wold giue at first a direction of perfection aboue others in Christian profession He was as yet no disciple of Christ he beleeued not in him and is it credible that he would teach him at the first dash of a ruler according to M. Bishops vnderstanding to become a Monke Nay it appeareth plainly that whereas the man had a zeale of God and no doubt in true meaning did walk according to the Law so farre as he had the true vnderstanding thereof our Sauior Christ wold instruct him that that was not sufficient for the obtaining of eternal life but he must be content vpoÌ his calling and commandement to renounce all that he had to cast off al vaine loue and confidence of worldly things and to become one of his disciples and followers In a word he teacheth him to be of the same mind that the Apostle S. Paul professeth as touching himself o Philip. 36.8 As touching the righteousnes of the law I was vnrebukable but I think all things but losse for the excellent knowledge sake of Christ Iesus my Lord for whom I haue counted all things losse and do iudge them to be dung that I might win Christ. For so it is that morall workes whether of Iewes or of Gentiles are not auailable in the sight of God they want their forme and life and perfection vntill the same be giuen vnto them by the faith of Christ p Ambr. in psal 1 Virtutes sine fide folia sunt videntur virere sed ãâã non ãâã Vertues without faith are buâ leaues saith S. Ambrose they shew greene but they cannot profite vs. Therefore the faith of Christ teacheth vs to renounce all trust and confidence thereof and to trust onely vpon him This is the perfection whereto Christ calleth this yong man as if he should haue said vnto him Thou doest well in that which thou doest but that is not enough if thou wilt haue good of it become my disciple and to that end be content to forgo all that thou hast and come and follow me Where to know how these words do belong to vs it must be considered that this man was called to a corporall and outward following of Christ according to the flesh by meanes whereof he must necessarily forgo the vse of those great possessions that he had Thus the Apostles had partly done already and were afterwards fully and wholly to do being to be corporally employed to preach the Gospell through the world thus Christ calleth this yong rich man to do the same But our following of Christ now coÌsisteth not in changing of our places but in giuing him our affections neither is performed by the foote but by the heart neither is it a matter of speciall dutie belonging onely to some but vniuersally concerneth all that belong to him As is then our following of Christ so is our selling of all that we haue a matter of the heart and affection whilest in the midst of all that we haue we haue our minds so vntied free from the loue and respect of worldly things as that we are ready to forgo all when the cause of Christ and his Gospell shall require vs so to do And this M. Bishop out of their owne grounds must be forced to confesse whether he will or not For by Bellarmine we vnderstand that to be a Monk is q Bellar. de Monach cap. 2. Status Episcoporum est status perfectionis adeptae status religiosorum est status
tieth theÌ to euen to a number of mad witlesse fancies such as that a man may well think theÌ to be bewitched of Satan in that they place deuotion holinesse in such toies We leaue their obedience to theÌ not only of these absurdities but of those other matters which carie some better shew of sobriety grauity we say as S. Ambrose hath said m Ambros de Virg. lib. 3. Nos nouâ omnia quae Christus noÌ docuit iure daÌnamus quia via fidelibus Christuâ est Siergo Christus non docuit quod docemus nos illud detestabile iudicamus We iustly condemne all new things which Christ hath not taught because Christ is the way for faithfull men If Christ haue not taught what we teach we hold it worthy to be detested Now therefore let them magnifie their three vowes whilest they wil but because Christ neuer knew them for his we coÌdemne them as superstitiously deuised blasphemously maintained to the iniury and wrong of the crosse We magnifie the vow of baptisme as the onely Christian vow approuing no other vowes but what are implied contained therein because therein for the whole course of our life we vow dedicate our selues wholy vnto God M. Bishop saith that that is no vow but a full and assured promise and yet in the former section he hath told vs that to promise to God is a vow We vow our selues therein to the keeping of Gods commandements and we endeauour to keepe them and by the grace of God we attaine to the keeping of theÌ but yet so as that we know it to be one of Christes commandements to say daily vnto God n Aug. cont 2. epist Pelag. lib. 3 ca. 7. Ita dixerim mandata fâcerunt vt ipsa mandata memi nerimus pertinere ad orationeÌ in quâ veraciâor quotidie dicunt sancti fiâuÌ promissimis fiat voluntas tua Dâmitiâ nobis c. Forgiue vs our trespasses because we do not so keepe his other coÌmandements nor can so keepe them in the infirmity of this flesh but that o Iam. 3.2 in many things we offend all This we teach and this is so true as that M. Bishop himselfe in his owne conscience is forced to subscribe it and yet by a wilfull spirit of contradiction bendeth himselfe to dispute against it The vow of baptisme we alwaies renew in receiuing the Lords supper because therein we professe our selues to be of his retinue and renew the promise of being holy vnto him As for that which Maister Perkins saith of a vow made in our creation as touching our obedience to God in what meaning he spake it I cannot determine There may be nouelty in the word but p 1. Tim. 6.20 prophanenesse which is the thing that the Apostle condemneth there is none He might suppose Adams promise thereof before his fall or the bond and duty arising of our creation whereby we are no lesse tied then by a vow Of his termes of rauing and decaied wits we will leaue him to consider further presuming that one day he will thinke that in all this matter he hath but raued and that his wits were not right in taking vpon him the defence of so bad a cause CHAPTER 9. OF IMAGES OVr consents We acknowledge the ciuill vse of Images M. Perkinâ as freely truly as the Church of Rome doth By ciuill vse I vnderstand that which is made of theÌ in the coÌmon societie of men out of the appointed places of the solemne worship of God And this to be lawfull appeareth because the arts of painting and grauing are the ordinances of God and to be skilful in them is the gift of God as the example of Bezaleel and Aholiab declare * Exod. 35. This vse of Images may be in sundry things First in adorning and setting forth of buildings so the Lord coÌmanded his Temple to be adorned with Images of Palme-trees and Pomegranates of Buls Cherubs and such like Secondly they serue for distinction of coyns Thirdly Images serue to keepe in memory friends departed whoÌ we reuerence therfore in the daies after the Apostles Christians vsed priuatly to keepe the pictures of their friends departed which afterward saith he by abuse came to be set in Churches and worshipped of which hereafter Second conclusion We hold the historicall vse of Images to be good and lawfull that is to represent to the eie the acts of Histories whether they be humane or diuine and thus we think that the histories of the Bible may be painted in priuate places Third conclusion In one case it is lawfull to make an Image to testifie the presence or effects of the maiestie of God namely when God himselfe commands it so was the brazen Serpent made to represent Christ crucified * Iohn 3. and the Cherubs ouer the Mercie seate to represent the maiestie of God whom the Angels adore And therefore it is said Thou shalt not make to thy selfe that is vpon thine owne head any grauen Image This by the way is a very wilfull peruerting of those words to thy selfe which cannot signifie but to thine owne vse that is to adore them as is plainly declared in the text following The fourth conclusion The right Images of the new Testament are the doctrine and preaching of the Gospel wherin Christ and his benefites are liuely represented vnto vs but these be metaphoricall Pictures not belonging to this purpose for it is one thing to describe in words another to expresse in liuely colours and lineaments 1. W. BISHOP These conclusions containe as M. Perkins affirmeth the doctrine of the Church of England which I would beleeue if I did not see the Magistrates publikely to take away Pictures from Catholikes to teare and burne them which were kept but in priuate places yea their more feruent disciples cannot abide a Crosse standing by the high-way-side or in any neuer so prophane a place but either they beat and hale them down or most despitefully deface them bewraying indeede vnto all moderate men their cankred stomakes against him that died on the Crosse who will one day when he pleaseth confound them But to couer this their malice they cast ouer it the mantle of zeale saying that the Papists make them their Gods and that therefore they are to be abolished O men blinded with spite against true deuotion We Catholikes are a thousand times more zealous of the true honour of the liuing God than any Protestants euer were or will be And that small reuerence which we yeeld vnto Images is more different from the honour and obedience due vnto Almighty God than the cope of heauen is distant from the center of the earth R. ABBOT They say the diuell neuer goes away but he leaues a stinke behind him M. Bishop as it appeareth had giuen ouer this worke at the question of satisfaction but better remembring himselfe he tooke the matter in hand againe and then would by no
meanes giue ouer till he had left vs this stinke of Images This is one of the grosse and palpable abhominations of the kingdome of Antichrist the filth whereof there is no man but seeth saue onely they a 2. Cor. 4.4 in whom being vnbeleeuers the god of this world hath blinded their mindes that the light of the glorious Gospell of Iesus Christ which is the Image of God should not shine vnto them By this the Church of Rome hath matched all the idolatries of the heathen and brought all their iugling deuices into the Church abusing the ignorance and simplicity of the people as grossely and damnably as euer they did But in this field I haue walked at large before in b Sect. 12. answer of the Epistle to the King and therefore I will here tye my selfe to those things which Master Bishop giueth vs occasion to consider of M. Perkins in his third conclusion affirmeth a lawfulnesse of making Images to testifie the presence and effects of the maiestie of God when God himselfe hath so commanded as he exemplifieth in Moses his making of the brazen serpent in figure of Christ crucified the Cherubin set ouer the mercy seate God there promising his presence and signifying the attendance of Angels to do him seruice Concerning this point Tertullian being vrged by idol-makers with the example of the brasen serpent answereth very rightly c Tertul. de Idol Benè quod idem Deus lege vetuit similitudinem fieri extraordinario praecepto serpentis similitudinem interdixit Si eundem Deum obserues habes legem eius Ne feceris similitudinem Si praeceptum factae posteà similitudinis respicis tu imitare Mosen Ne feceris aduersus legem similitudinem nisi tibi Deus iusserit It is wel that the same God both did forbid by law that any likenesse should be made and by extraordinarie commandement did appoint the likenesse of a serpent If thou worship the same God thou hast his law Thou shalt not make the similitude or likenesse of any thing if thou looke to the coÌmandement of making a similitude afterward do thou imitate Moses do not against the law make an image vnlesse God command thee also God giueth not lawes to himselfe but to vs what he commandeth to the contrarie by his owne authoritie is no iustification of our presumption For this cause M. Perkins obserueth that in the commandement it is said Thou shalt not make TO THY SELFE any grauen image to thy selfe that is saith he vpon thine owne head or vpon thine owne will and pleasure M. Bishop saith that this is a wilfull peruerting of the words which cannot signifie but to thine owne vse that is to adore Thus he cannot abide that they should be restrained from doing somewhat of their owne heads and at their owne will it is death to them to be hedged from that walke Yet Moses gaue it for a lesson from God d Deut. 12.8.32 vulg Hoc tantuÌ facito Domino Ye shall not do euery man what seemeth good in his owne eyes What I command thee that onely do to the Lord thou shalt put nothing to nor take ought therefrom Whereby it appeareth that M. Perkins exposition containeth a truth that to the Lord or by way of seruice to God no image might be made but what God himselfe commaunded neither doth the text declare any thing to the contrarie but that that is the true meaning of the words which he expoundeth In his fourth conclusion he saith that the right Images of the new Testament are the doctrine and preaching of the Gospell and all things that by the word of God do thereto appertaine whereby e Gal. 3 1â Iesus Christ is described before our eyes as the Apostle saith euen as crucified amongst vs. This saith he is an excellent picture whereby Christ with his benefites is liuely represented vnto vs. These are Metaphoricall pictures saith M. Bishop not belonging to this purpose But why doth he admit that which M. Perkins citeth out of Origen affirming that Christians haue no other f Origen contra Celsum lib. 8. Simulachra Deo dicanda sunt non fabrorum opera sed à verbo Dei dedolata formataque in nobis videlicet virtutu ad imitationem primogeniti totius ereaturae in quo sunt iustitiae temperantiae fertitudinis sapientiae pietatis caeterarumque virtutuÌ exempla Hae sunt statuae Deo dicata in animuÌ virtutes exertentium quibus deceÌtèr honorari credimus omniuÌ huiusmodi statuarum archetypum primuÌ c. The images to be dedicated to God are not the workâs of Carpenters but hewed by the word of God and framed in vs namely vertues to the imitation of him who is the first borne before all creatures in whom are the examples of iustice fortitude temperancie wisedome pietie and other vertues These are Images dedicated to God in the minds of them that exercise such vertues wherewith we beleeue the principall of all such Images the image of the inuisible God who is God the onely begotten to be conueniently honoured He knew no other images lawfull amongst Christians but onely such as wherein we beare the image of God and of his Son Iesus Christ but this M. Bishop thought not good to take knowledge of As for that which he saith that he beleeueth not our doctrine to be as M. Perkins hath set downe because the Magistrates publikely take away pictures from Catholikes and teare them downe and burne them he must vnderstand that it is nothing to vs what he beleeueth Our Magistrates know how to put difference betwixt the lawfull vse of things the vnlawfull abuse they know well how such pictures and images are by Papists turned to Idols and therefore to shew the detestation of the dishonor that thereby is done to God they burne them and teare them and deface them being found with them that they may no more be abused to such idolatrie Where otherwise they are found and are not subiect to their superstitious and false deuotions our Magistrates do nothing against them because they are not offended at the hauing but at the abusing of them By reason of those idolatrous fancies it is that our more feruent disciples as he calleth theÌ cannot abide a Crosse staÌding by the high way side or in any other place They carie therein a true zeale to God though not alwaies so aduisedly managed as it ought to be But if any of priuate fancie proceed to the demolishing and destroying of such publike monuments we approue it not and they that do it deseruedly receiue their check We are well enough perswaded that they who first began the erecting of those Crosses did it meerely in the honour of the name of Christ that where before had stood the ensignes of false and idoll Gods g Ezec. 16.25 at the head of euery way there might be lifted vp a trophee and standard as a monument and token of the exaltation
vident et audiuÌt vniuersa supernacua ergo sunt simulachra illis vbique praesentibus cuÌ satis sit audientiuÌ nomina precibus aduocare To what end are images which are the tokens either of them that are dead or of them that are absent Now if the Gods cannot be absent who because they are Gods or of diuine nature in whatsoeuer part of the world they be do heare and see all things then are their images vaine they being euery where because it is sufficient in their hearing to pray vnto them by their names And to this purpose do they obiect vnto them out of their owne bookes the sentences of their owne writers condemning the worshipping of their Gods by images as Austin bringeth in Varro acknowledging that l Aug de ciuit Dei lib. 4 ca. 31. Dicit Varro antiquos Romanos plusquam annot centum septuaginia Deos sine simulachro coluisse quod si adhuc inquit mansisset castius dij obseruarentur c Dicit qui primi simulachra Deorum populis posuerunt meâuÌ dempsisse errorem addidisse prudenter existimanâ Deos facilè posse in simulachrorum stoliâitate contemnâ the Romanes for aboue a hundred and seuenty yeares worshipped their Gods without images and that if they had still so done the Gods should haue bene more holily and purely serued or regarded and that they who first set vp the images of the Gods for the people did both take away feare and added error wisely esteeming saith S. Austine that the Gods in that blockish senselesnesse of images might easily be contemned Much more might be said to like effect out of Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Cyprian Athanasius and others in their tracts against the Pagans but by these it is sufficiently to be vnderstood that the coÌdeÌnation of their idols ariseth not only of being the images of false Gods but of that being images they were worshipped howsoeuer the Gods might be supposed to be true Gods which they worshipped therby And who wold doubt but that the CarpocratiaÌ heretiks m Epiphan haer 27 Carpocrat Habent imagines Pythagorae Platânis Aristotelis c cum quibus etiam imagines Iesu collocant collocatasque adorant gentium mysteria perficiunt c. sacrificium atque alia c. August de haeres Colobant adorando incensumque ponendo Iren. li. 1 ca. 24. setting vp the images of Iesus and Paul withall of Pythagoras Homer Plato Aristotle and doing worship offering sacrifice burning incense vnto theÌ did coÌmit idolatry make idols of these images albeit they were so far froÌ taking theÌ to be Gods or images of Gods as that it was one part of that heresie to deny n August ibid. Iesum hominem tantummodo putasse perhibetur the godhead of Christ Thus the name of Idols and Idolatry are sometimes metaphorically applied to those creatures which are vnlawfully worshipped albeit they be either not supposed or expresly denied to be Gods In which sort the Councell of Laodicea o Theodoret. in Col cap. 2 Laodicenae synodus lege cauit ne precarentur Angelos forbidding to pray to Angels as Theodoret briefly expresseth the effect of that Canon addeth p Laodic Concil ca. 35. Quicunque autem inuentus fuerit occultè huic idololatriae vacanâ anathema sit quoniam derelinqueÌs Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum filium Dei accessit ad idola Whosoeuer shall be found giuing himselfe secretly to this idolatry accursed be he because forsaking our Lord Iesus Christ the Son of God he hath made accesse to Idols By which words it is plain that by praying to Angels men make Idols of theÌ though they do not think theÌ to be Gods because praier is a deuotion that belongeth only to God The like M. Bishop must confesse according to the opinion of Arius euen of Christ himselfe For if the first commandement forbid onely Idols as M. Bishop will haue it and Arius in impugning the diuinitie of Christ and yet acknowledging to worship him did breake the first coÌmandement then it cannot be denied but that by the doctrine of Arius Christ must become an Idol That Arius therin brake the first commandement appeareth by Theodoret q Theodoret. in Exod. q 37. Qui Trinitatis vnam substantiam coÌfitentur diuinae vocis legem obseruant nihil enim aliud pro Deo coli permittunt excepta diuina naturae Qui vero erroreÌ sequuntur Arij atque Eunomij manifestè in diuinam legem committunt confitentes quidem vnum filium sed creatum esse asserentes à diuina substantia alienuÌ CuÌ auteÌ Deus dicat Non erunt tibi dâ alij praeter me isti profectò Deum aliuÌ introducuÌt They saith he who confesse one substance of the Trinitie do obserue the law of the word of God for they permit nothing to be worshipped for God saue only the nature of God But they which follow the error of Arius and Eunomius do manifestly trespasse against the law of God coÌfessing that the Son is one but affirming him to be created a straÌger froÌ the substance of God Whereas God then saith Thou shalt haue no other Gods but me these verily bring in another God M. Bishop therfore must necessarily graunt that Arius made an Idoll of Christ whom notwithstanding he denied to be God and therefore that the name of an Idoll may belong to that which yet is not taken to be a God Therfore doth Athanasius say of them that by their opinion r Athan. cont Arian orat 4. Cur sese non adnumerant gentilibus siquidem ambo Creatore omisso creaturae inseruiant they were to be reckoned with the Gentiles because together with them in steed of the Creator they worshipped the treasure which as it was idolatry in the Gentiles so it must be in them also The like we haue heard before of the Nestorian heresie condemned of idolatry for worshipping the manhood of Christ without acknowledging the personall vniting thereof to the Godhead To be short S. Austine saith of the works of the flesh reckoned vp by the Apostle fornication vncleannesse c. Å¿ Aug. de verb. Apost ser 3. ista in nobis taÌquam idela frangenda sunt These are we to breake in our selues as Idols again telleth the Manichees t IdeÌ cont Faust lib. 14. ca. 11 In phantasmatibus fabularuÌ suaruÌ idola colunt that in their fabulous fancies they worship Idols and Hierome generally saith of heretikes that u Hieron in Zachar. ca 13. HaereticeruÌ peruersa doctrina quodcunque simulauerit vertit in Idolum whatsoeuer they deuise or feigne they turne it to an Idoll not for that men haue any opinion of Godhead in their lusts and fancies but because they yeeld them that affection and seruice which they owe to God By all this then it appeareth that because the name of Idols is metaphorically applied to things for being worshipped or deuoutly and affectionately embraced
established by cruell destruction into the Turkes hands The Church of Rome hath seene it and it is verified in her which Saint Iohn prophecied a Reuel 9.20 The remnant of the men which were not killed with these plagues repented not of the workes of their hands that they might not worship diuels and idols of gold and of siluer and of brasse and of wood and of stone which neither can see nor heare nor goe Therefore God hath giuen ouer that filthy whore to all abhomination and vncleannesse both spirituall and corporall and will in due time performe that which he hath foretold concerning a perpetuall desolation to befall vnto her As for Xenaias or Xenias the Persian if he were otherwise faultie he was iustly for that to beare his iudgement but in oppugning the worshipping of Images if he did so he did the part of a iust and faithfull man I referre the Reader to that before hath bene said concerning him in b Sect. 12. answer of the Epistle to the King But now that Maister Bishop hath thus brought in by way of contempt Turkes and Iewes and a barbarous Persian waging warre against Images we would looke that he should bring vs glorious troupes of the auncient Fathers speaking in fauour of them Behold gentle Reader the wretchednesse of a damnable and wicked defence He hath here offered vs the verse of a Poet the fact of a woman and a counterfeit sentence not found in Basils workes but fathered vpon him most impudently foure hundred yeares after his decease Surely if Poperie had bene the religion that was professed of old there could not haue wanted many and most pregnant testimonies for that which they now practise But there are none they are put to a miserable shift to get any thing that may giue but some shew of grace to that which they defend But such as they are let vs examine what they say First Lactantius by a Poeticall fiction bringeth in our Sauiour Christ hanging in ruefull plight vpon the crosse and there calling to man to behold and consider him in that state c Lactan. carm de pass Christi En aspice crines sanguine còcretos sanguinolenta sub iâsis Colla comis spinisque caput crudelibus haustum Vndique diua pluens vinum super ora cruorem CoÌpressos speculare oculos et luce careÌtes Afflictasque genas arentem suspice linguam Felle venenatam pallentes funere vultus Cerne manus clauis sixas tractosque lacertos Atque ingens lateri vulnus cerne inde fluorem Sanguineum fâssosque pedes artusque cruentos Flecte genu lignumque crucis venerabile adora Flebilis innocuo terramque cruore madenteÌ Ore petens humili lachrymis sâffunde subortis c. To behold his haire and his necke all imbrued with bloud his head all rent with thornes and shedding or distilling the warme bloud vpon his sacred face his eies closed together and warning light his cheekes buffeted his tongue dry and poisoned with gall his countenance pale like death Behold saith he my hands pierced with nailes my ioints racked and drawne foorth a great wound in my side and a streame of bloud issuing from thence my feete bored through my members all bloudie Hereupon follow the words which Maister Bishop citeth Kneele downe and with weeping adore the worthy wood or tree of the crosse and humbly kissing the ground bedewed with innocent blould wash it with thy teares Where we see all framed to Poeticall manner of speaking and may easily perceiue that the Author intendeth no more but that beholding by the spirituall contemplation and meditation of faith the bitternesse of the passion of Christ for our sakes wee should in heart and affection euen fall prostrate before him as hanging vpon the Crosse and kisse the ground bedewed with his most sacred and innocent bloud Wee can no more suppose now the reall adoring of the Crosse whereof hee speaketh then wee can suppose the ground now really moisted with the bloud of Christ and therefore can no otherwise take it but that hee referreth our meditation to the Gospell where d Gal 3 1. hauing Christ described before our eies as crucified amongst vs we should in minde and deuotion as it were kneeling before his crosse humble our selues to him But that Lactantius was very farre from worshipping spiritually the very wood of the crosse he plainly enough sheweth when he resolueth it e Lactano institut lib. 5. cap. 9. Nesciunt quaeÌtuÌ sit nefas adorare aliud praeterquaÌ Dâum to be a thing vnlawfull to worship any thing beside God Yea and we haue heard before out of Ambrose concerning the crosse of Christ euen the very crosse whereon hee was crucified that to worship it were f Supra Sect. 1. Ex Ambros heathenish errour and the vanity of wicked men Whereby wee learne to esteeme of that which Maister Bishop further citeth of Paula a noble gentlewoman of Rome of whom Hierome reporteth that trauailing to Hierusalem and comming to the place where Christ was crucified g Hieron in Epitaph Paulae Prostrata ante crucem quasi peÌdentem hominuÌ cerneret adorabat falling prostrate before the crosse shee worshipped as if she had seene the Lord there hanging before her He telleth vs that she worshipped but he doth not tell vs that she worshipped the crosse The present conceipt of the place was a motiue vnto her there to fall downe to worship Christ in heauen but of worshipping the crosse there is nothing said there much lesse of any thing that should induce vs to the worshipping of Maister Bishops Images Nay Hierome saith h Hieron ad Ripar âdu Vigilant Ne soleÌ quidem lunam non Angelos noÌ Archangelos noÌ Cherubim omne nomen quod nominatur in praesenti seculo in futuro colimus et adoramus We worship neither Sunne nor Moone nor Angels nor Archangels nor Cherubim nor Seraphim nor any name that is named in this world or in the world to come The words cited vnder the name of Basil can haue no more credit then they haue who are the reporters of them which is none at all They are alledged out of the second Nicene Councell and the Councell it selfe is brought as a witnesse of the worshipping of Images but how base account is to be made of that Councell I haue before giuen to vnderstand in answer of the Epistle Albeit that thou maiest gentle Reader more particularly vnderstand the truth of that censure it shall not be amisse somewhat further to note the originall and processe of the said Councell It hath beene before shewed that in the time of Gregorie Magnus Bishop of Rome which was about sixe hundred yeares after Christ Serenus the Bishop of Massilia seeing the people to worship the Images in the Church in great zeale brake the Images in peeces and threw them out of the Church that there might be no occasion there left of any such abhomination Gregorie
hereupon wrote to Serenus and though he disliked his breaking of them yet commended him in that he could not endure the worshiping of them This was then the doctrine of the Church of Rome that howsoeuer Images might be vsed historically for remembrance yet by no meanes might men performe deuotion or worship to them But whilst vnder pretence of that historicall vse they attained to high and honourable place in the Church and were gloriously set foorth as great ornaments thereof Satan hereby tickled the fancie of the people and bred in them an itching humour of damnable superstition which grew more and more till Idolatry was openly practised by the worshippe of them and the Bishop of Rome who before had giuen sentence to the contrary became the maine champion to fight for the maintenance of this abuse This we find to haue come to passe about an hundred yeares or very little more after the time of Gregory at which time the Emperors of ConstaÌtinople with the most of their Bishopâ mightily opposed themselues against this new deuotion and by their edicts caused Images wholly to be defaced and abandoned out of the Churches The pursuit of which cause when i Sigebert ChroÌ anno 725. Paulus Diacon de gest Longo li. 6 cap. 49. Leo Isaurus verie earnestly followed Gregory the second swaruing froÌ the steps of the former Gregory tooke vpon him k Zonar Anna. tom 3. Synodico anathemate obstrinxit c. to excommunicate the Emperor and all that tooke part with him in destroying of Images Gregory the third his successour went further and assembled a Councell at Rome and there decreed the worshipping of Images and hauing so done renewed the former excommunication and added thereto a sentence of depriuation and by rebellion and treason found the meanes to alienate from the Emperour whatsoeuer there was then in Italy remaining to him Against that Romane councell l Zonar ibid. et Sigebert an 755 Constantinus Copronymus the son of Leo about the yeare of our Lord 755. assembled at Constantinople a Councell of the Easterne Bishops to the number of three hundred and thirtie which wholly determined against the worshipping of Images thinking also the vse of them in any sort to be not onely vnnecessary but altogether vnlawfull and contrary to the word of God The detestation that they had conceiued of the impious and wicked abuse made them for the auoiding thereof to prohibite that vse which was lawfull as a man desirous to make a crooked rod straight bendeth it too farre the other way But this determination of that Councell appeased not that contention the humour of superstition being restlesse and endlesse neuer ceasing if it be able to stirre till it gaine strength for the vpholding of it selfe So it was that to Leo the sonne of Constantinus Copronymus was maried Irene a proud and wicked woman who vpon the death of her husband abusing the minority of her sonne tooke vpon her selfe the gouernement of the Empire and being of a womanish affection delighted with babies about foure and thirtie yeares after that Councell of Constantinople that generation of Bishops being in a manner quite worne out m Func commeÌ in Chronel anno 787. 788. she commaundeth another Councell in the same place the Bishops by that time being well fitted for the doing of that which she desired to haue effected The cause of their assembly being publikely knowen namely that it was for the bringing in againe of the worshipping of Images the people of Constantinople gathered themselues together and threatned to do some violence to them it they should conclude any such matter This feare hindered them from proceeding according to that they had purposed and hereupon Irene dissolued that meeting for that time and the next yeare after caused the same to be renewed at Nice in Bithynia where the first great and famous Councell was holden against Arius the hereticke vnder Constantine the great But we may here easily conceiue a great difference in course of proceeding betwixt that former and this latter Councell The former Councell continued for the space of three yeares and more long time and deliberation being taken for debating and discussing to the full the points of question that should be decided in it This latter continued but onely twentie dayes being begun 8. kalend Octob. and being ended 3. Id. Octob. so that they seeme to haue before determined what to conclude and for no other cause met together but onely to say what they had determined The President of this Councell who managed the whole busines thereof was one Tharasius who of a courtier and a souldiour contrarie to the canons of the Church was made Bishop and Patriarch of Constantinople a man verie vnfit and vnwoorthie for such a place According to the weakenesse of the head was the proceeding and behauiour of the whole bodie wickedly abusing the Scriptures wresting and peruerting the sentences of the fathers no reason so foolish but they admire it no lye so grosse but they applaude it nothing there read vnder the name of any famous author but it is certainly true no man may speake against it The first action being spent in receiuing of penitents who were a remainder of the former Councell and now for keeping of their places recanted what they had there said they come in the second to the reading of the letters of Adrian Bishop of Rome which being done they all professe their consent to that which he wrote and so an end In those letters he singularly abuseth Constantine the great fathering vpon him a tale of a leprosie and that wheÌ he had appointed the murthering of infants that he might haue their bloud to bathe himself in for the curing of it Peter and Paul appeared to him in his sleepe and recommended vnto him the baptisme and faith of Christ and that by meanes thereof he should obtaine his health that to this end they willed him to send for Siluester the Bishop of Rome who lurked in secret for feare of falling into the persecutors hands to whom wheÌ he was come he declared this whole matter asked him if we wil belieue this notable cosiner what kind of gods he thought those two to be namely Peter and Paule that had appeared to him that Syluester telling him they wereâ no gods but seruants and Disciples of Christ caused their Images to be brought foorth which when he saw he saied these are they whom I saw in that vision an excellent skill in the Image-maker that he could light so iust vpon the visages of them that were dead almost three hundred yeares before that hereupon Constantine was baptized at Rome and restored to his health and did set vp many goodly Images of Christ and his Saints in the Churches there With this most impudent and shamelesse forgerie so plainely contradicted by a Euseb de vita Constant. lib. 4. cap. 62. Eusebius his storie of the life of Constantine by b Ambros dâ
of the points in question laying open the absurditie of Poperie and clearing the doctrine on our part from those lies and slaunders wherewith in corners you labour to depraue it might seeme verie likely to drawe many to the knowledge and approbation of the truth It should seeme there was some sore for that both you and your friend were so carefull to apply a plaister but your plaister by the grace of God wil make your sore a great deale worse when men shall further see how sincerely he hath dealt to deliuer truth out of the word of God and doctrine of the ancient Church and what base geere you haue brought as the marrow and pith of many large volumes for the contradicting and oppugning of it The more and greater the points are of difference betwixt the Church of Rome and vs the more doth it concerne your Catholikes if they tender their owne saluation to looke into them which if they doe they will cease to thinke basely of our religion and will begin to honour it and imbrace it as the truth of God They will see that there is in it a true reformation indeed a iust departure from the horrible idolatries and superstitions of the Romish Sinagogue and it shall grieue them that they haue so long dishonoured God by holding fellowship with him who hath no true fellowship with Iesus Christ That you thinke basely thereof M. Bishop we wonder not He that doateth vpon a harlot is wont to scorne and thinke basely of honest matrons The Scribes and Pharisees thought basely of our Sauiour Christ no maruell if you doe the like of the Gospell of Christ who liue and thriue by traditions as they did As for old rotten condemned heresies how silly a man you haue shewed your selfe in the obiecting thereof it hath appeared partly alreadie in the answer of your Epistle and shall appeare further God willing in the answer of your booke and wee will expect hereafter that you learne more wit then to babble and prate of heresies you know not your selfe what THE THEAME OF M. PERKINS Prologue And I heard another voyce from heauen say Go out of her my people that you be not partakers of her sinnes and receiue not of her plagues Reuel 18.3 M. BISHOPS ANSWER TO M. Perkins Prologue Sect. 1. THe learned know it to be a fault Exordium Coâmune to make that the entrie vnto our discourse which may as properly fit him that pleadeth against vs but to vse that for our proeme which in true sence hath nothing for vs nay rather beareth strongly for our aduersarie must needs argue great want of iudgement Such is the sentence aboue cited out of S. Iohn by M. Perkins for it being truly vnderstood is so farre off from terrifying any one from the Catholike Roman Church as it doth vehemently exhort all to flie vnto it by forsaking their wicked companie that are banded against it For by the purple Harlot in that place is signified as shall be proued presently the Roman Empire as then it was the slaue of Idols and with most bloudie slaughter persecuting Christs Saints Those of the Church of Rome being as nearest vnto it so most subiect to that sacrilegious butcherie Wherefore that voyce which S. Iohn heard say Go out of her my people that you be not partakers of her sinnes c. can haue none other meaning then that all they who desire to be Gods people must separate themselues in faith and manners from them who hate and persecute the Roman Church as did then the Heathen Emperours and now do all Heretikes Vnlesse they will be partakers of their sinnes and consequently of their plagues This shall yet appeare more plainely in the examination of this Chapter Where I will deale friendly with my aduersarie and aduantage him all that I can that all being giuen him which is any way probable it may appeare more euidently how little he hath to any purpose out of this place of the Apocalipse whereof all Protestants vaunt and bragge so much both in their bookes and pulpits Well then I will admit that in the 17. and 18. Chapters of the Reuelation by the whore of Babylon is vnderstood the Roman state and regiment which in lawfull disputations they are not able to proue the most iuditious Doctor S. Augustine and diuerse others of the ancient fathers with the learned troupe of later interpreters expounding it of the whole corps and societie of the wicked And as for the seuen hils on the which they lay their foundation they are not to be taken literally the Angell of God in the very text it selfe interpreting the seuen heads of the beast to bee aswell seuen Kings as seuen hils But this notwithstanding to helpe you forward I will grant it you because some good writers haue so taken it and therefore omit as impertinent that which you say in proofe of it What can you inferre hereunto Marry that the Roman Church is that whore of Babylon Faire and soft good Sir how proue you that Thus. The whoore of Babylon is a state of the Roman regiment ergo the Roman Church is the whoore of Babylon What forme of arguing call you me this By the like sophistication you may proue that Romulus and Remus were the purple Harlot which to affirme were ridiculous or which is impious that the most Christian Emperours Constantine and Theodosius were the whoore of Babylon because these held also the state of the Roman Empire and regiment To make short the feeble force of this reason lieth in this that they who hold the state and gouerne in the same kingdome must needs bee of like affection in religion which if it were necessarie then did Queene Marie of blessed memorie and her sister Elizabeth carrie the same minds towards the true Catholike faith because they sate in the same chaire of estate and ruled in the same kingdome See I pray you what a shamefull cauill this is to raise such outcries vpon A simple Logician would blush to argue in the parââies so loafty and yet they that take vpon them to controle the learnedst in the world often fall into such open fallacies Well then admitting the purple Harlot to signifie the Roman state we do say that the state of Rome must bee taken as it was then when these words were spoken of it that is Pagan Idolatrous and a hot persecutor of Christians Such it had bene a little before vnder that bloudie tyrant Nero and then was vnder Domitian which we confirme by the authoritie of them who expound this passage of the Roman state The commentarie on the Apocalipse vnder S. Ambrose name saith The great whoore sometime doth signifie Rome specially which at that time when the Apostle wrote this did persecute the Church of God ãâã Cap. 178. but otherwise doth signifie the whole citie of the Diuell And S. Ierome who applieth the place to Rome affirmeth Libr. 2. cont Jââân that she had before his dayes