glory of his grace And what of that Marry then hath charitie the principall part therein saith he for the directing of all to the honour and glory of God is the proper office and action of charity But therein he deceiueth himselfe for the Apostle hath expressed it as the very proper office and act of faith y Rom. 4.20 to giue glory vnto God and therefore Moses and Aaron at the waters of strife are said z Num. 20 12. not to haue sanctified the Lord that is to say not to haue giuen him glory because they beleeued him not For a 1. Iohn 5.10 not to beleeue God is to make him a liar which is the reproch and dishonour of God but to beleeue God is to ascribe vnto him truth and power and wisedome and iustice and mercy and whatsoeuer else belongeth vnto him Therefore Arnobius saith that b Arno in Psal 129 Bene facere ad gloriam hominis benè credere ad gloriam Dei pertinet to do well belongeth to the glory of man but to beleeue well concerneth the glory of God c Chrysost ad Rom. hom 8. Qui mandata illius implet obedit ei hic autem qui credit conuenienteÌ„ de eo opinioneÌ„ accipit cumque glorificat atque admiâ—atur nuâ—lo magis quà m operuÌ„ demonstratio Jlla ergò gloriatio eius est qui rectâ— factuÌ„ aliquod praeâ—titeriâ— haec autem Deum ipsum glorificat ac quâ—â—ta est tota ipsius est Gloriatur enim ob hoc quòd magna quaedam de eo concipiat quae ad gloriam eius redundant By works saith Chrysostome we obey God but faith entertaineth a meete opinion concerning God and glorifieth and admireth him much more then the shewing forth of workes Workes commend the doer but faith commendeth God onely and what it is it is wholy his For it reioyceth in this that it conceiueth of him great things which do redound to his glory And whereas our Sauiour in the Gospell teacheth vs that our good works do glorifie God saying Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorifie your Father which is in heauen he saith that it is of faith that our good works do glorifie God d Jbid Ecce hoc fidei esse apparuit Behold saith he it appeareth that this commeth of faith M. Bishops argument therefore maketh against himselfe and proueth that we are iustified rather by faith then by charity because it is faith principally that yeeldeth honour vnto God The last place alledged out of Austine is nothing against vs for although we defend that a man is iustified by faith alone yet we say that both faith hope and charity must concurre to accomplish the perfection of a Christian man whereof anone we shall see further 23 W. BISHOP The third of these trifling reasons is peruersly propounded by M. Perkins thus Faith is neuer alone therefore it doth not iustifie alone That this argument is fondly framed appeareth plainly in that that Catholikes do not deny but affirme that faith may be without charity as it is in all sinfull Catholikes we then forme the reason thus If faith alone be the whole cause of iustification then if both hope and charity were remoued from faith at least by thought and in conceipt faith would neuerthelesse iustifie But faith considered without hope and charity will not iustifie ergo it is not the whole cause of iustification The first proposition cannot be denied of them who know the nature propriety of causes for the entire and totall cause of any thing being as the Philosophers say in act the effect must needs follow and very sense teacheth the simple that if any thing be set to worke and if it do not act that which it is set too then there wanted some thing requisite And consequently that was not the whole cause of that worke Now to the second proposition But their imagined faith cannot apply to themselues Christes righteousnesse without the presence of hope and charity For else he might be iustified without any hope of heauen and without any loue towards God and estimation of his honour which are things most absurd in themselues but yet very well fitting the Protestants iustification which is nothing else but the plaine vice of presumption as hath bene before declared Yet to auoid this inconuenience which is so great M. Perkins graunteth that both hope and charity must needs be present at the iustification but do nothing in it but faith doth all as the head is present to the eie wheÌ„ it seeth yet it is the eie alone that seeth Here is a worthy peece of Philosophy that the eie alone doth see wheras in truth it is but the instrument of seeing the soule being the principall cause of sight as it is of all other actions of life sense reason and it is not to purpose here where we require the presence of the whole cause and not onely of the instrumentall cause And to returne your similitude vpon your selfe as the eie cannot see without the head because it receiueth influence from it before it can see so cannot faith iustifie without charity because it necessarily receiueth spirit of life from it before it can do any thing acceptable in Gods sight R. ABBOT He may indeede very iustly call them trifling reasons if at least trifles may carie the name of reasons As for this reason it is not peruersely propounded by Maister Perkins but in such sort as some of Maister Bishops part haue propounded it vpon supposall of our assertion that faith can neuer be alone But as he propoundeth it himselfe the termes of his argument being declared the answer will be plaine and he shall be found a Sophister onely and no sound disputer It is therefore to be vnderstood that remouing or separating of things one from the other is either reall in the subiect or mentall in the vnderstanding Reall separation of faith and charity we wholy denie so as that true faith can no where be found but it hath charitie infallibly conioyned with it Separation mentall in vnderstanding and consideration is either negatiue or priuatiue Negatiue when in the vnderstanding there is an affirming of one and denying of another and the one is considered as to be without the other which vnderstanding in things that cannot be really and indeed separated in the subiect is false vnderstanding and not to be admitted Separation priuatiue in vnderstanding is wheÌ„ of things that cannot be separated indeed yet a man vnderstandeth the one and omitteth to vnderstand the other considereth the one and considereth not the other Thus though light and heate cannot be separated in the fire yet a man may consider the light and not consider the heate though in the reasonable soule vnderstanding reason memory and will and in the sensitiue part the faculties of seeing hearing smelling c. cannot be remoued or separated one from the other yet a man
and how much would it haue renowned the bountie of Christ Well M. Bishop we wish you to consider throughly of the matter we cannot see in the Gospell but that you may as well take vpon you to be a Pope as he that is Pope and you may as stoutly alledge for your selfe that your Popedome doth highly recommend the bountie of Christ But it seemeth to vs that you do too much abridge the Popes vsing of his faculties when you mention the employing of them onely in Christs seruice and to his honor and glorie Let him M. Bishop first serue himselfe let him enlarge S. Peters patrimonie and aduance the glorie of his owne seate let him proclaime Iubiliees and Pardons that he may gather gold and treasure let him claw them that claw him and wreake his anger vpon them that resist him as for Christ he is but a poore man let him attend for the reuersion a little will serue him This deuice of theirs is wholy to be derided their words are the words of shamelesse hypocrites not blushing to auouch the bounty of Christ in an authority which though there were from time to time after fiue or sixe hundred yeares diuers degrees and steppes vnto it yet in that sort as they now defend it was not knowne in the world for the space of eight or nine hundred yeares after the time of Christ which hath no warrant of the Gospell of Christ nor fauoreth at all of the kingdome of Christ which the auncient Fathers neuer dreamed of and could not haue gone without most illustrious and cleare testimony witnesse amongst theÌ„ if euer it had bene practised in their times Let them in all antiquitie parallell the Pope and we will neuer open mouth further to speake against them but because they cannot so do let them confesse themselues to be false wretches and him to be a Pseudochrist a false and counterfeit Christ in truth very Antichrist himselfe who by hypocrisie hath intruded himselfe to sit in the place of Iesus Christ But M. Bishop telleth vs that their Vicar cannot change any one of Gods Commandements nor adde any contrary vnto them Where we see that the Pope apparantly doth that which they are ashamed to defend They well know that he setteth nothing at all by the lawes of God and that whilest he taketh vpon him to be the expounder thereof he maketh what meaning he list thereof and there by giueth himselfe libertie to do what he list and yet to say he doth nothing against the law of God It hath bene holden for a rule amongst them as Bodin mentioneth k Bodin de republ lib 1. cap 8. Qui a pontâ—si e maxime diuinis legibus salutus sic huis apud deuÌ„ immortalem satis cautum esse Canonic regula That he is safe enough with God who by the Pope is freed from the lawes of God Thus they haue told vs and according to that they haue told vs they haue practised that l Decret Greg. de concess prebend ca 4 Proposuit secundum plenitudinem pocestatis de iure possumus supra in dispensare the Pope aboue law can dispense of law by the fulnesse of his power that m Ibid. in glossa Papaâ—dispe sas contra ApostoluÌ„ contra Canones Ap stoli contra vetus Testamentum he can dispense against the Apostle against the Canons of the Apostle and against the old Testament that n 25. Sunt quidam in glossa satis potest sustineri quod Papa contra Apostolum dispensat it may well be maintained that he doth dispense against the Apostle Shall we not thinke that he changeth and thwarteth the commandement of Christ who with a Non obstante taketh that away which Christ hath sayd Drinke ye all of this o Concil Constamiens sess 13. Hoc non obstante This notwithstanding the Church doth thus and thus Doth not he contrary Gods commandement who requireth vs to worship Idols and Images when God hath forbidden so to do When God hath charged subiects to be obedient to their Princes and Gouernours doth he not crosse the commandement of God who taketh vpon him to dispense with them p 15.7.6 Authoritatem ibid. Alius for their oaths of allegiance and giueth them licence to rebell Doth not he make the law of God of no effect who giueth licence of mariage in those degrees of affinitie and bloud in which God hath forbidden any mariage to be accounted lawfull as was here done in England to king Henry the eight for the mariage of his brothers wife and to Philip the late king of Spaine for the mariage of his owne sisters-daughter Many such other matters are there wherein this Vicar of Rome grosly and palpably bendeth himselfe against God and yet these hypocrites are so impudent as that either by expositions they will seeme to defend them or else if they can find no meanes for defence they vtterly deny them Thus M. Bishop will here make vs beleeue that the Pope maketh lawes onely conformable to Gods lawes when as by that which he himselfe addeth he proueth him therein presumptuously and arrogantly to put himselfe into the place of God For to make lawes and publish doctrines to bind the conscience belongeth onely to Christ who in that respect is called the q Iam. 4.12 one Lawgiuer r Ephes 4.5 one Lord Å¿ Mat 23 8.10 one Doctor and maister Yet M. Bishop maketh this a thing common to euery Soueraigne gouernour and taketh vpon him to proue it by S. Paul saying t Rom. 13.1.5 Let euery soule be subiect to the higher powers and that for conscience sake But he abuseth the words of the Apostle which haue no intendment concerning their Vicar but are spoken of the higher powers that is of the temporall and ciuill gouernours either u 1. Pet. 2.13 the king as the superior or other rulers that are sent by him as S. Peter giueth vs to vnderstand the meaning thereof Therefore Chrysostome expoundeth the words thus Let euery soule be subiect x Chrysost 14 Rom. hom 23. though thou be an Apostle though thou be an Euangelist though thou be a Prophet thereby informing vs that Apostles Euangelists Prophets are of the soules that are to bee subiect and not the higher powers to which the subiection there spoken off is required The Apostle did not write it to chalenge thereby a subiection to S. Peter or to himselfe but to acknowledge a subiection due to be performed by them and others to the ciuill power Againe the Apostle teacheth vs for conscience sake to be subiect to the higher powers he teacheth vs not that the conscience is bound as touching the things themselues wherein we are to shew our subiection to the higher powers Lawes are sayd to bind the conscience when they tie the conscience to the things themselues which they command as to be perswaded of a religious and necessary duty and seruice therein immediatly
performed vnto God the transgressing whereof to be a sinne against God not onely mediatly by not yeelding subiection to the Law-giuer but immediatly in the very thing it selfe which it hath done or left vndone It is the prerogatiue of God onely to tie the conscience in this sort and whosoeuer else taketh vpon him thus to do he is an vsurper against God And thus doth the Pope bind mens consciences he maketh his lawes matters of religion and of the worship of God and will haue men beleeue that in the very doing of the things which he commandeth they immediatly please God merit at the hands of God make satisfaction to him for their sinnes and purchase eternall life On the other side that in the trespasse thereof not onely in respect of disobedience to the higher powers but for the very not doing of the things themselues there is sinne against God a breach and wound of conscience and the guilt of euerlasting death This is one speciall matter for which we iustly detest that Romish idol and do chalenge him not onely for sitting in the Temple of God by vsurping an outward superioritie in the visible state of the Church but also for y 2. Thes 2.4 sitting as God in the temple of God by chalenging to himselfe and possessing in such sort as hath beene sayd the consciences of men in which God onely ought to raigne As for Princes and temporall gouernours if they keepe them within their bounds they make no lawes in that kind for causes seeming good vnto them they require outward conformity and obedience to their lawes for conscience sake of the authority committed vnto them of God but they leaue the conscience free from any inward opinion or perswasion of the things themselues wherein they require to be obeyed Here therefore a man is outwardly bound and seruant to the law but inwardly he still continueth free to God being perswaded that the doing or not doing of such or such a thing in and for it selfe maketh him to God neither the better nor the worse and therefore the thing in it selfe being either way indifferent to God he yeeldeth himselfe in the outward man vpon conscience of giuing obedience to the power seruiceable and comformable to the law And this is that Christian libertie which the Scripture teacheth which is not as some men would haue it a licentious immunity in outward things to do euery man what we list but a freedome of the heart from any seruile opinion of any thing that we do The doctrine whereof Luther very excellently propounded in two paradoxes as they seemed to them that vnderstood them not as touching conuersation in outward things that z Luther de libert Christiana a Christian man is free from all men a Lord and subiect to no man And again that a Christian man is a diligent seruant and vassall to all men and subiect to all Inwardly in conscience he is free and bound to nothing but saith a 1. Cor 10.23 All things are lawfull for me Outwardly in conuersation he is bound to that that is expedient and serueth for edification whereby he may yeeld obedience to gouernours loue to neighbours instruction to the ignorant strengthening to the weake comfort to the strong good example to them that are without auoiding all scandall whereby he should cause the libertie whereof he is inwardly perswaded to be blasphemed and slandered Now therefore Princes in their lawes are to be obeyed vpon conscience of their authoritie being from God but this hindereth not but that the Pope is iustly accused for thrusting Christ out of his place by requiring obedience vpon conscience of the things themselues which he commandeth As for the opening and shutting of heauen we doubt not but that the Pope if he be the minister of Christ may chalenge the office and function thereof according to the tenor of the commission wherewith Christ hath left it to his Church But he not contented with that authoritie which Christ hath left indifferently to the ministery of the Church immediatly from Christ himselfe deriued in common to the whole body of the Church vsurpeth vnto himselfe a singularity in this behalfe making himselfe in Christs steed the head from whence the power of binding and loosing is deriued to all the rest and in that respect at his owne pleasure reseruing to himselfe a prerogatiue of speciall cases and causes which are most for his aduantage wherein no man may meddle but himselfe It is true that the master by appointing afterward ouer his houshold or a porter at his gates doth not diuest himselfe of his supreme authoritie but sith it is the peculiar honour of the Lord to giue that power and to determine the offices and places of his seruants surely he who being left but afterward of a house will lift vp himselfe to be a Lieutenant generall of a Realme and of a porter will make himselfe a Potentate and take vpon him to be euen as the Lord himself he is to be taken for no other but a traytor to his Lord and therefore is by his fellow seruants to be resisted in his course This is the Popes case He had the keyes of heauen committed vnto him in common with his fellow seruants to euery man for his part and portion of the Lords house and to the great disturbance and disorder of the house he hath chalenged vnto himselfe the soueraigntie and Lordship of the whole He hath made himselfe master of the Church and all the rest seruants vnto him By this extrauagant and exorbitant power he handleth all things as he list and abuseth the keyes to shut them out of heauen so farre as he can who in the behalfe of their maister do seeke to hinder his wicked and vngodly proceedings What then shall we adiudge him but a traytor to his Lord and maister Iesus Christ vsurping that which is proper to Christ alone In a word M. Bishop must vnderstand that though the Popedome were drowned in Tiber and Babylon were cast as a milstone into the sea yet Christ needeth not to be maister and man to but without the Pope hath seruants enough to attend him in his seruice W. BISHOP Come we now to the second It is that we make Christ an Idoll for albeit we call him a Sauiour yet in vs in that he giues his grace to vs that by our merits we may be our owne sauiours c. I maruell in whom he should be a sauiour if not in vs What is he the Sauiour of Angels or of any other creatures I hope not but the mischiefe is that he giues grace to vs that thereby we may merit and so become our owne sauiors This is a phrase vnheard off among Catholikes that any man is his owne sauiour neither doth it follow of that position that good workes are meritorious but well that we apply vnto vs the saluation which is in Christ Iesus by good wo kes as the Protestants auouch they do
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 poâ—â—â— 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 obiectioÌ„s 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 extriâ—fecus Aâ—equm etiamsi Deus ipse vtens creatura sibi sub ect vinaeâ—qua specie humanâ— sensus alloquatur humanos c. nec interiore gratia mentem regat atque agat nihil prodest homini omnâ—s 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 faith In which words he plainely confesseth that Free will to righteousnesse is wholy the gift of grace and no more of our selues then it was at first to create our selues The place of Irenaeus auaileth him as little who disputing in like sort against them that held that men by an immutable necessitie of created nature are some good and some euill proueth that good and euill consist in election and will and that this appeareth l Iren. lib. 4. cap. 72. Si non in nobis esset facere haec aut non facereq uam causam habebat Apostolus multo prius ipse Dominus consilium dare by that the Apostle and before him our Sauiour Christ did giue counsell to do some things and from some other things to abstaine Afterwards he sheweth that not in workes onely but also in faith our Sauiour reserued to man libertie and freedome of will meaning that it is * Non de violentia cogens not by any compelling violence that a man either beleeueth or worketh but m August de Praedest sanct cap. 5. Posse habere fidem sicut posse habere charitatem naturae est hominum hahere autem fidem sicut habere charitatem gratiae est fidelium Vid. Prospide vocat Gen. lib. 2. cap. 2. by condition of nature he is such as may either beleeue or not beleeue and when he beleeueth it is by his will that beleeueth and by a power of the will that he hath to beleeue yet so as that we must say with S. Austine n August Retract lib. 1. ca. 22 Sedea potestas nulla est nisi à Deo detur but that power is none except it be giueÌ„ of God We may not take Irenaeus to be so grosse as to thinke faith to be of our owne power which the Scripture so plainely telleth vs is o Ephes 2.8 the gift of God And as the places that he alledgeth are far from any such purpose p Mat. 8 13. According to thy faith be it vnto thee q Mar. 9.23 All things are possible to the beleeuer so he himselfe elsewhere out of the words of the Apostle r Rom. 7.18 I know that in me that is in my flesh dwelleth no good thing plainely affirmeth Å¿ Iren. lib 3. cap. 22. Signâ—ficans quoniam non à nobis sed à Deo est bonum salutis nostrae Et iteruÌ„ Miser ego homo c. Deinde insert liberatorem Gratia Dei c. that the good which belongeth to our saluation is not of our selues but of God and that the grace of our Lord Iesus Christ is our deliuerer that is the thing whereby we are made free Therefore he prayeth for the Heretikes against whom he wrote that t Ibid. cap. 46. Nos precamur non perseuerare eos in fouâ—a quaÌ„ ipsi foderunt sed segregari ab nutusmodi matre c. legitimè eos generari coÌ„uerses ad Ecclesiam Dei formari Christum in eis cognoscere eos fabricaetorem huius vniuersitatu c. they might not continue in the pit which they had digged but might be conuerted to the Church and that Christ might be formed in them and that they might know the onely true God and Lord of all Wherby it appeareth that he did not take repentance and faith and conuersion to God to be matters of our Free will and power but the mercifull gifts of God and therefore by prayer to be begged at his hands The place of Cyprian soundeth very harshly but yet being taken in that sence wherein the Fathers commonly spake before the Pelagian heresie namely to affirme against the Manichees an act of mans will both in good and euill so that by his will and election it is that either he is good or euill it importeth nothing against vs because we deny not the act and election of mans will but onely teach that this act and election of the will is nothing at all of it selfe as touching righteousnesse but onely what it is by being corrected rectified by the grace of God Our Sauiour saith to his disciples Will ye also go away u Lib. 1. Epist 3 Seruans legem qua homo libertati suae relictus in preprio arbitrio constitutus fiâ—â—mâ—tipsi vel â—â—â—rtem appetit vel salutem He obserueth the law saith Cyprian whereby man left to his libertie and put to his owne will not deserueth as M. Bishop falsly translateth but desireth to himselfe either death or saluation importing hereby that man freely and by his owne will maketh choice to continue with Christ vnto saluation but not affirming that mans owne will is herein free of it selfe or hath of it owne whereby to make this choice And that he was of farre other mind then so to thinke appeareth by his owne words x Aug. contra 2. Epist Pelag lib. 4 cap. 9. de Praedest sanct cap. 3. de bono perse cap 19. c. often cited by Austin against the Pelagians y Cypr. ad Quir. lib. 3. cap. 5. In nulla gloriandum quando nostrum nihil sit We are to glorie of nothing namely as touching righteousnesse because therin nothing is our own z Lib. 2. Epist 2. Dei est Dei est omne quod possumuâ—â— inde vâ—â—â—mus inde pollemus It is of God saith he all that we can do of him it is that we liue of him it is that we haue any power But most direct to this purpose is it which he noteth as touching the petition of the Lords prayer Leade vs not into temptation that we are thereby a Cyprian in Orat Dominic Admonemur infirmitatu imbecillitatis nostrae dum siâ— rogamâ—s ne quis se insolenter extollat ne quis sibi superbè atque arroganter aliquid assumatâ— ne quis aut confessionis aut passionis gloriam suam dicat c. vt dum praecedit submissi confessio datur â—â—â—um Domino quâ—quid suppliâ—â—ter petitur iâ—stâ—s pictate praestâ—tur put in mind of our own frailtie and weaknesse and that for perseuering and continuing with Christ to the glorie of confessing him and suffering for his sake it is wholy to be ascribed vnto God and we are not to assume any thing proudly to our selues Whereof S. Austin collecteth as before against the Pelagian heresie that b Aug de bono perseuer cap. â—7 Nihil nobiâ— reliquâ—t in quâ— taâ—quam in nostro gloriemuâ— Siquâ—dem vt 〈◊〉 discedâ—mus à Dâ—o nâ—n estendâ—t daâ—dum esse nisi à Deo cùm pascendum estendat à Deo Qui enivi non in errur in tentationem non discâ—dit à Deo Non est hoc omnino in viribus Liberi arbiâ—râ— quales nunc sunt fueraâ—us 〈◊〉 antequam caderet c. Post casum autem hominis nonnisi ad gratiam suam Deus voluit pertinere vt homâ— accedat ad etiâ—â— neque nisi ad gratiam suam pertinere
at Caluin when he in the mean time going like a stately Lion shaketh them off like curres and dasheth them against the walles If Caluin were so poore a man alas what shal we thinke of M. Bishop what shall we make of him but a begger outright Yet he taketh vpon him to proue and that out of those workes which S. Austin wrote after the Pelagian heresie was a foote that the same Austin taught Free will And we deny not but that he did so and in that meaning wherein he taught it we are readie to affirme it Yea let him remeÌ„ber that Caluin professeth that c Ibid. Sect. 8. if any man will vse the name of Free will without the corrupt meaning of it he will not gainesay him onely because it cannot be retained without danger of euill vnderstanding he wisheth it to be forborne and in that respect we for the most part do forbeare it But this Free will in true meaning is no facultie of nature as M. Bishop will needs haue it but d Aug de pecca mei remiss lib. 2 ca. 6 Ipsum liberum arbitriuÌ„ ad gratiam Dei hoc est ad dona Dei pertinere noÌ„ ambâ—go nec soluÌ„ vt sit sed etiam vt bonum sit hoc est ad facienda Domini mandata conuertatur it belongeth to the grace of God to the gifts of God not onely the being of it but the conuerting of it vnto God And very truly doth the same S. Austin argue that e Ibid cap. 18. Si nobis libera quaedam voluntas ex Deo est quae adhuc potest esse vel bona vel mala bona verò voluntas ex nobis est melius est id quod à nobis quam quod ab illo est if we haue of God by nature a Free will which may be either good or euill and haue of our selues a good will by consenting or applying it when God calleth to that that is good then better is that that we haue of our selues then that that we haue of God Which because it is absurd we must needes acknowledge that a good will that is to say Free will to faith and righteousnesse is not of our selues but of God onely But M. Bishop alledgeth Austin affirming that f De spirit lit cap. 34. to consent to Gods calling or not to consent propriae voluntatis est belongeth to mans owne will But rather he should say propriè voluntatis est that is it concerneth properly the will the place by changing of a letter being vndoubtedly corrupted S. Austins purpose there being onely to note the will to be the subiect not the cause of this consenting To consent he meaneth is an act of the will which howsoeuer God worketh in the will to do yet the will it is that doth it but that the will consenteth by a power of it own he meaneth not yea he himselfe plainly euicteth the contrarie in the words immediatly going before For what is it to consent but velle credere to be willing to beleeue And g Ipsum velle credere Deus operatur in homine God it is saith he that worketh in vs to be willing to beleeue Therefore it must needes be that God worketh in man to giue consent Mans will consenteth it is true h Contra duas Epist Pelag. lib. 1 cap. 18 lib. 2. cap 8. de Praedest sanct ca. 5. sed praeparatur voluntas à Domino but the will is framed or prepared of the Lord. Faith is in the power of man i De spir lit cap. 31. sed nulla est potestas nisi à Deo but there is no power but of God It is in mans will when God hath giuen him to will it is in mans power when God hath giuen him power And more then this howsoeuer we reade the words S. Austin intended not For full and certaine assurance whereof M. Bishop should haue remembred that S. Austin himselfe reporteth it as an error which he had sometimes holden k De Praedest sanct cap. 3. Vt praedicato nobis Euangelio consentiremus nostruÌ„ esse nobis ex nobis esse arbitrabar Quem meum errorem nonnulla opuscula mea satis indicam ante Episcopatum meum scripta that to consent to the Gospell when it is preached is of our owne will and that we haue that of our selues From which error he professeth he was reclaimed by those words of the Apostle l 1. Cor. 4.7 What hast thou that thou hast not receiued For if it be of our own will that we consent then somwhat we haue of our selues which we haue not receiued He should further haue remembred that S. Austin noteth it as the error of the PelagiaÌ„s that m Epist 107 CoÌ„sentire vel non consentire ita nostrum est vt si velimus to consent or not to consent is in our selues and of our selues so that if we will we do so or if we will not we cause that the worke of God nought auaileth in vs. M. Bishop therefore doth amisse to make Austin a patron of that opinion which he reformed as an error in himselfe and condemned as an error in other men The second place that he alledgeth in Austins true meaning is altogether against him n Contra Pelag. Celest lib 1. cap. 14 Quis noÌ„ videat venire quenquam noÌ„ venire arbitrio voluntatis sed hoc arbitrium potest esse solum si non venit non potest autem nisi aediutum esse si venit Who doth not see saith he that euery man cometh or cometh not arbitrio voluntatis by his will Let it be as M. Bishop saith by Free will But this will may be alone saith he if he come not but it caÌ„not be but helped if he do come Where shewing that our coming or not coming to Christ is acted by our will he giueth to vnderstand that our will is of it selfe free to refuse to come but that the Free will whereby we do come is the gift of God euen as our Sauiour Christ teacheth vs saying o Ioh. 6.65 No man can come vnto me except it be giuen him of my Father And therfore the same S. Austin elsewhere reasoneth with a man in this sort p August Quomodo venisti c Veni â—â—quis libero arbitrio voluntate propria venâ— Quid turgescu vâ— nosse quod hoc praestitum est tibi Ipsum audi vocantem Nemo venit ad me c. Thou sayest vnto me I am come to Christ by my Free will I am come by mine owne will Why art thou proud of this Wilt thou know that euen this also was giuen thee Heare him that called thee No man cometh vnto me except my Father draw him For q De Praedest sanct cap. 20. supra Sect 6. when God will haue a man do that which is not to be done but by the will he in
one poore circumstance to that purpose I would haue him to examine these First that by the law the Apostle saith he knew concupiscence to be sinne For it is sinne properly whatsoeuer by the law is conuicted to be sinne Secondly that it wrought death vnto him and nothing but sinne could make him to find himselfe thereby in case of death Thirdly that he saith sinne that it might appeare sinne wrought death in me thereby affirming that by working death it did appeare to be that indeed which in name it is called as Oecumenius expresseth those words q Oecumen in Rom. cap 7. vt quod est totum in toto fiat manifestum that all in all it might be made manifest to be that that it is Fourthly he saith that r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this sinne was exceedingly a sinner by the commandement for so the words are according to the originall and so saith Irenaeus by allusion to that place that Å¿ Iren. lib. 3. cap. 20. Lex testificans de peccato quoniam peccator est the law did testifie of sinne that it was a sinner Now sinne is not a person in it selfe that it should be sayd to be a sinner but hereby is signified what man is by this sinne namely of concupiscence and that is exceedingly a sinner But a man cannot be a sinner but by that that is properly sinne therefore concupiscence making a man a sinner by the first motions thereof euen without consent is properly a sinne And thus much for circumstances of the place 4. W. BISHOP Now to M. Perkins Argument in forme as he proposeth it That which was once sinne properly and still remaining in man maketh him to sinne and intangleth him in the punishment of sinne and makes him miserable that is sinne properly But Originall sinne doth all these Ergo. The Maior which as the learned know should consist of three words containes foure seuerall points and which is worst of all not one of them true To the first that which remaineth in man after Baptisme commonly called Concupiscence was neuer a sinne properly but onely the materiall part of sinne the formall and principall part of it consisting in the depriuation of Originall iustice and a voluntarie auersion from the law of God the which is cured by the Grace of God giuen to the baptised and so that which was principall in Originall sinne doth not remaine in the regenerate neither doth that which remaineth make the person to sinne which was the second point vnlesse he willingly consent vnto it as hath bene proued heretofore it allureth and intiseth him to sinne but hath not power to constraine him to it as M. Perkins also himselfe before confessed Now to the third and intangleth him in the punishment of sinne how doth Originall sinne intangle the regenerate in the punishment of sinne if all the guiltinesse of it be remoued from his person as you taught before in our Consent Mendacem memorem esse oportet Either confesse that the guilt of Originall sinne is not taken away from the regenerate or else you must vnsay this that it intangleth him in the punishment of sinne Now to the last clause that the reliques of Originall sinne make a man miserable a man may be called wretched and miserable in that he is in disgrace with God and so subiect to his heauie displeasure that which maketh him miserable in this sence is sinne but S. Paul taketh not the word so here but for an vnhappie man exposed to the danger of sinne and to all the miseries of this world from which we should haue bene exempted had it not bene for Originall sinne after which sort he vseth the same word â— Cor. 15. If in this life onely we were hoping in Christ we were more miserable then all men not that the good Christians were farthest out of Gods fauour and more sinfull then other men but that they had fewest wordly comforts and the greatest crosses and thus much in confutation of that formall argument R. ABBOT M. Perkins his proposition consisteth of foure points M. Bishop saith that of those foure points there is not one true Which if it be so it was M. Perkins good hap to light vpon such an aduersarie as of foure seuerall points all as he saith vntrue is not able to disproue one The first point is that Concupiscence was once properly sinne which M. Perkins presumed as agreed and granted because the question betwixt vs and them is of Concupiscence after baptisme as if in the vnbaptised there were no question but that concupiscence is sinne But M. Bishop here altereth the state of the question telling vs that Concupiscence was neuer properly sinne and thereby shewing that he doth but colorably alledge and meerely abuse S. Austin who before Baptisme in no sence denieth but that Concupiscence is truly sinne and continually affirmeth it to be so And thus he maketh the Apostle wholy to dally in naming sinne sinne where there is no sinne indeed neither after Baptisme nor before But that which hath bene sayd both of the nature of sinne and of the circumstances of the Apostles text to proue that Concupiscence after Baptisme is sinne doth much more proue that the same is sinne before Baptisme and it shall yet further appeare if God will in that that followeth In the meane time here we are to obserue how M. Bishop falsly charging M. Perkins with foure vntruths in his argument in declaring the first of those foure doth himselfe deliuer foure vntruths indeed Concupiscence saith he was neuer properly sinne but onely the materiall part of sinne the formall and principall part of it consisting in the depriuation of Originall iustice and a voluntarie auersion from the law of God Where first he erreth in that he maketh Originall iustice to consist onely in the integritie of the will and the forme of sinne to stand onely in the auersion of the will from God by the losse of the same Originall iustice whereas Originall iustice was in truth the integritie of all the parts of man not subiecting the flesh to the mind and the mind to God but the whole man to God the image whereof is set forth vnto vs in the commandement a Mat. 12.30 Luk. 10 27. Thou shalt loue the Lord thy God with all thy heart with all thy mind with all thy soule with all thy thought and strength The forme of sinne therefore is not onely in the auersion of the will but in the auersion of any part or power or facultie of the soule if in any of these there be a declining from the law of God it is the sinne of man Now because b August de perfect iustis Rat. 17. Cùm est aliquid concupiscentiae carnalis quod velcoÌ„tinendo fraenâ—tur non omnimodo ex tota anima diligitur Deus so long as there is any matter of concupiscence to be yet bridled and restrained God cannot be loued with all the
shall be performed and that God will make it appeare that he hath not spoken in vaine Therefore he abhorreth the courses of the wicked and walketh not in their wayes but labouring in righteousnesse standeth fully resolued that God will saue him from that destruction that he hath prouided for them Neither doth he dread the sentence of God onely in respect of eternall destruction but also in respect of temporall plagues and iudgements wherewith he chasteneth his owne children when they behaue themselues wantonly and vndutifully towards him In the inflicting whereof God hath regard to make them by the smart thereof much more to dread his eternall wrath that they may cease and shunne the wayes whereby they should be in danger to incurre the same Now in this sence doth the Apostle in the first place recommend feare to the Churches of the Gentiles and specially to the Church of Rome that whereas God had reiected the Iewes because of their f Act. 13.46 reiecting the word of God and they now by faith did stand that is by obedience to the faith and preaching of the Gospell had receiued the calling and state of the people of God his Church they should learne by the example of the Iewes to be wise and warie for themselues trembling at the fearefull wrath that was befallen vpon them and therefore not flattering themselues in the opinion of their outward calling as the other before had done but labouring to do those things which might be correspondent to the grace and mercie which God had vouchsafed vnto them Which if they did neglect God would g Mat. 21.43 take away his kingdome from them as he did from the Iewes and they should lose that glorie wherein now they tooke vpon them to reioyce To the verie same purpose doth he admonish the Corinthians that the Israelites had the same calling in effect the same Sacraments that we haue and yet when they behaued themselues vnthankfully and wickedly God did not forbeare to punish them whereof he had made record in holy Scriptures for example vnto vs and hereupon concludeth h 1. Cor. 10.12 Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed least he fall Whereby he giueth to vnderstand that outward standing and professing of the faith without inward grace and feare of God issuing into a godly life and conuersation is not standing indeed but seeming to stand and therefore that he that glorifieth therein if he be afraid to fall must lay a better foundation for himselfe to stand vpon These aduertisements true faith heareth and apprehendeth the same to make vse thereof it is afraid to fall and therefore shunneth that securitie and reioycing in outward state wherein they that applaud themselues without correspondencie of inward affection and godly conuersation do meerely delude themselues Whereby it commeth to passe that in the publicke desolations of Churches for the contempt of dutie towards God yet whosoeuer hath beleeued the word of God and feared his iudgement though lapped in the folds of outward calamities yet is saued from that damnation which he was fearefull by contempt to runne into To be short as a man vpon the top of a high tower is afraid to fall and trembleth to thinke thereof when notwithstanding being enuironed with the battlements he is without danger of falling and not afraid that he shall fall so the true beleeuer trembleth with the horrour of the conceipt of falling away from God knowing the end of them to he most vnhappie that so do when yet he reposeth assured trust in God that being compassed about with his protection and dwelling vnder his defence he himselfe shall be preserued for euer Vnder whose defence that we may dwell there is another feare necessarie whereby we are drawn away from presuming of our own strength that we may be i Ephes 6.10 strong in the Lord only and in the power of his might And of this feare are we to vnderstand the latter place cited by M. Bishop k Phil. 2.12 Worke your Saluation in feare and trembling In feare and trembling that is in humilitie in due acknowledgement of your owne frailtie in fearing to be left to your owne selues in depending wholy vpon God For saith he it is God that worketh in you both to will and to doe the adding of which reason plainely sheweth that feare and trembling is to be taken in that meaning as I haue expressed And in that sort S. Austin doth expound it l August de grat lib. arbit cap. 9. Ideo cum timore tremore ne sibi tribuendo quod bene operantur de bonis tanquā suis extollantur operibus Tanquā ergo interrogitur Apostolus diceretur et Quare dixisti cum timore tremore horum verborum rationem reddidit dicens Deus est enim c. Therefore doth S. Paul say with feare and trembling least attributing to themselues that they worke well they should be proud of their good workes as if they were their owne therefore as if one had asked him why doest thou say with feare and trembling he giueth reason of those words saying For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do In sundrie m De nat grat cap. 27. De Corrept grat cap. 9. in Psal 65. 118. conc 31. other places doth he expound those words to the same effect So doth Prosper also say that the Apostle by those words n Prosper apud Ambros epist 84. Vigilant tētatoris iusidiae vt vbi proficit deuotio subrepat elatio vt homo de bono opere in se potiùs quà m in Domino glorietur Sed solicundo nos Apostoli contra hoc periculum monet dicentis Cum timore tremore c. doth admonish vs against the danger of that pride whereby a man of a good worke reioyceth in himselfe rather then in the Lord. Here is nothing then that the faithfull should stand in feare of their owne Saluation but only that they should feare to commit themselues to themselues in working to the accomplishment of the Saluation to which God hath called them and should remember that all is to be expected of Gods mercie whence onely it is that either we will or do any thing that is good Which feare is so farre from giuing vs cause to doubt of Saluation as that it much rather serueth to strengthen the assurance thereof whilest it maketh vs to rest onely vpon God and not vpon our selues knowing that our Saluation dependeth not vpon any thing which we can do for our selues but vpon him o Esa 26.12 who hath wrought and so will worke all our workes for vs and will not leaue that vnperfect which he hath begun And when sometimes we forget this feare and incline to trust in our selues and say with Dauid p Psal 30.6 I shall neuer be remoued he leaueth vs to the triall of our owne strength so as that wanting his support we
is little worth but sure I am howsoeuer little worth it be it is more worth then his answer He setteth downe the words of S. Iohn according to his vulgar Latin but according to the true text they are thus f Ioh. 6.64 But there are some of you that beleeue not for Iesus knew from the beginning which they were that beleeued not and who should betray him Where when the Euangelist setting downe Christs words There are some of you which beleeue not inferreth as a reason of his speech for he knew who should betray him as if it had bene ioyntly There are some of you which beleeue not for one of you shall betray me doth he not plainly demonstrate that the betraying of him could not stand with beleeuing that he could not be a beleeuer that was to be the traitor For what reason were it to say he beleeued not for he was to betray him if he might beleeue yet betray him Whereas M. Bishop saith that faith hath not always fidelitie and loue ioyned with it he beggeth the question but that which he addeth of falling away from the faith as if Iudas hauing before beleeued were now relinquishing his faith beside that it is the begging of another point in question also it is excluded by the Euangelist in that he noted that Iesus knew from the beginning that Iudas beleeued not Which words from the beginning M. Bishop knowing that in the true reading of the text noted also in the margin of his vulgar Latin they would be preiudiciall to him thought it a point of wisedome to conceale But to speake of that faith which Iudas had he was not yet falling away from it he was yet an Apostle and a preacher of the faith and we see that others departing from Christ he still continued with him and gaue no outward token of vnbeleefe and without doubt little thought now of doing that which afterwards he did which the Euangelist expresly noteth that g Ioh. 13.2 the diuell did afterwards put into his heart But yet there is a truth of faith concerning which our Sauiour saith intending his speech specially of him There are some of you which beleeue not which is not incident to any child of perdition because it is Gods gift as our Sauiour at large in that chapter expresseth to them that h Ioh. 6.64.65 come vnto him by the same gift whom being come he neuer i Ver. 37. casteth away againe and therefore they neuer lose that which they haue receiued Thirdly he citeth for vs the words of Saint Iohn k 1. Ioh. 2.4 He that saith I know him and keepeth not his commaundements is a lyer and the truth is not in him From which place we argue that because faith alwayes implieth knowledge of that we beleeue so as that where there is no knowledge there is no faith nor can be it must needs follow that sith there is no knowledge of God where there is no keeping of the commaundements therefore where there is no keeping of the commaundements there is no faith Now by knowledge we vnderstand a true acknowledgement of that which we beleeue which is not a matter of bare l Thom. Aquâ—n 21. art 2. ad 2. Duplex est cognitio diuinae bonitatis vel voliitatis vna qâ—idem speculatiua c. Alta est affectiua siue experimentalis dum quis experitur in seipso gustum diuinae dulcedinis complecentiaÌ„ diuinae voluntatis c. speculation by verball apprehension such as wherby blind men talk of colours and home-dwellers discourse of forrein countries where they neuer came but an experimentall and approuing knowledge an effectuall and feeling knowledge to which because it is the knowledge of faith our Sauiour attributeth eternal life when he saith * Ioh. 17.3 This is life eternal to know thee the only true God and Iesus Christ whom thou hast sent m Col. 3.10 by which the Apostle saith that the new man is renewed according to the image of him that created him In which latter place we are to obserue that it is one thing to which we are renewed and another thing by which The thing whereto we are renewed is the image of God which consisteth in charitie the thing wherby we are renewed is knowledge Thus the Apostle S. Peter teacheth vs that n 2. Pet. 1.23 grace and peace is multiplied vnto vs by the knowledge of God and of Iesus Christ our Lord that the diuine power giueth vs all things pertaining to life and godlinesse through the knowledge of him that hath called vs. Seeing then that knowledge here is the thing whereby charitie and all things pertaining to godlinesse are ministred vnto vs it shal be absurd to expound knowledge to be charitie it selfe albeit true it is that of this knowledge of God euen as of faith there ensueth alwayes charitie and loue This true and liuely and effectuall knowledge it is of which Saint Iohn here speaketh giuing to vnderstand that barren and idle and fruitlesse knowledge is indeed no knowledge and that howsoeuer a man seeme able to say much yet that he talketh but as by hearesay not knowing what he saith if his knowledge be not such as season his heart to the loue and keeping of the commandments of God Because then true faith cannot be without this true knowledge and this true knowledge cannot be where there is not the keeping of Gods commaundements it must follow as I said before that there is no faith where there is no keeping of the commaundements of God Now although M. Bishop alledge a place or two where there is a necessitie of expounding Gods knowledge towards vs in other sort then the word seemeth to import yet he bringeth none to import any necessitie of making the same construction of our knowledge towards God Let it be granted him that Gods knowledge may import his loue yet I suppose he cannot shew vs any where that to know God is to be expounded simply to loue God As for the lyer let him keepe it to himselfe because he best deserueth it he hath taken paines for it and no reason that any man should bereaue him of his right We professe the knowledge of God and we professe and teach the keeping of Gods commandements although we also teach that by reason of our corruption and weaknesse it is vnpossible for vs so long as we liue here to keepe them perfectly and in such fort as thereby to be iustified in the sight of God If M. Bishop will say that he keepeth them I am sure that he is a lier and as Hierome did the Pelagian heretike so do I put him o Hieron ad Cresiphonâ— Profer â—uis impleuerit to bring in example of any other that hath so done The last place he draweth in backwards and by force there being no man of vs that alledgeth it to the purpose here in hand He maketh his choise as we see to serue his own
b Gal. 6.5 Euery man shall beare his owne burden it had bene his part to make it plaine first that the burden there spoken of is to be vnderstood of temporall afflictions Secondly if it be so to be vnderstood he should againe haue told vs how it followeth that those afflictions must necessarily be taken to be satisfactions Thirdly if they be satisfactions it would haue bene considered how this place standeth with the doctrine and practise of the Church of Rome which the Apostle saying Euery man shall beare his owne burden that is if we beleeue M. Bishop shall satisfie for himselfe doth notwithstanding appoint one man to beare the burden and satisfactions of another If euery man beare his owne burden why doth the Pope pretend by his Pardons to impart to one man the satisfactions of another or if the Pope doe thereby impart the satisfactions of Saints and Martyrs to the helpe of those that want why doth Maister Bishop tell vs that of temporall satisfactions it is said that euery man shall beare his owne burden But thus he is wont to cite texts at all aduenture be they with him or against him all is one they helpe to fill vp a booke and that is enough for his purpose But the meaning of those words plainely appeareth out of the circumstance of the place The Apostle labouring to withdraw men from iudging and condemning others and from iustifying themselues by measuring comparing themselues to them whom they condemned wisheth euery man to consider himselfe in himselfe to make triall of his owne worke not to content himselfe for that he seemeth to himself to be preferred before another but to endeuour without comparison to others to be approued in himselfe To this meaning are these words c 〈◊〉 ◠Let euery man proue his own worke then shall he haue reioycing in himselfe and not in another For reason hereof he addeth for euery man shall beare his owne burden as if he should say It concerneth not one man what another is the burdening of another shall be no disburdening of thee what is amisse in him he shall answer for himselfe but looke thou to thine owne burden for whatsoeuer it is thou shalt answer to God for it The burden then which the Apostle speaketh of is as Thomas Aquinas saith d Tho. Aquin. in Gal. cap. 6. lect 1. Onus reddendae rationis c. in die iudicij the burden of our reckoning account to be made vnto God at the day of iudgment and his words are to the very same meaning as elsewhere he saith e Rom. 14.12 Euery one of vs shall giue accounts of himselfe to God So that M. Bishops argument falleth out in the end to be this Euery man at the day of iudgement must giue reckoning to God for himselfe Therefore Christ hath left vs to make temporal satisfaction to God for our owne sinnes Thou must take it as it is gentle Reader for he can make it no better then it will be denie his argument and he hath no more to say 3 W. BISHOP Nay saith M. Perkins we must then be new Christes and Redeemers and Priests of the same order with himselfe Nothing so but hauing grace from him we may in vertue thereof satisfie not for the crime it selfe or euerlasting punishment which is linked with it because that would require an infinite vertue but for the tēporall pain of it one indued with grace may satisfie for the measure of stripes must not exceede the rate of the fault the punishment then resting vnsatisfied being limited a creature may pay it And that the Reader may better perceiue what we meane by the temporall paine let him consider that in sin are two things the one is the turning away from God whom we offend the other is the turning vnto the thing for the loue of which we offend as for glory lust lucre or such like the sinner transgresseth now when he is by the grace of God conuerted his turning away from God both the sin and the eternall paine due vnto it are freely through Christ pardoned but for the pleasure which he tooke in the sin the man himselfe is to satisfie and so according vnto the greatnesse of that his pleasure he is to do pennance R. ABBOT M. Perkins gaue argument and reason of that which he said but M. Bishop like a reasonlesse man without giuing any reason affirmeth that againe against which M. Perkins argued He rightly alledgeth that no part of the Priesthood of Christ can be said to haue passed from him to vs that to make satisfaction for sinnes whether temporally or eternally is a part of the Priesthood of Christ and therefore that it is not a thing passed from him to vs to make satisfaction for our sinnes Againe to attribute that to vs for which and by which Christ is Christ our Redeemer high Priest is to make vs Christes Redeemers and Priests for our selues But to attribute to vs to make fatisfaction for sinnes either temporally or eternally is to attribute that to vs for which and by which Christ is Christ our Redeemer and high Priest It is therfore the same as to affirme vs to be Christes Redeemers and Priests for our selues M. Bishop answereth ridiculously and childishly Not so but Christ hath satisfied for the eternall punishment which required an infinite vertue as for the temporall paine it may be satisfied by vs. But what is here for exception to our collection that sith the name office of Christ of a Redeemer and Priest standeth in satisfying for sinne therefore if we be said to satisfie temporally for our selues then as Christ is our Christ Redeemer and Priest in respect of satisfying for the eternall punishment of our sinnes so we are Christs Redeemers and Priests for our selues in respect of making temporally an attonement for our selues But that it belongeth to the Priesthood of Christ to make attonement for temporall punishments is plaine in the law where we reade that the plague being begun the high Priest in figure of our high Priest Iesus Christ maketh attonement for the staying of it a Numb 16.46 Take the censer saith Moses to Aaron and put fire therein of the Altar and put therein Incense and go quickly to the Cōgregation and make an attonement for thē for there is wrath gone out frō the Lord the plague is begun He did so the plague was staid The like we see in the plague that followed vpō Dauids numbring of the people b 2. Sam. 24.25 he offered burnt offerings peace offerings and the Lord was appeased towards the land and the plague ceased frō Israel And hereby we vnderstād that all the sacrifices of the law wherin c August Enchirid cap. 33. Singulare sacrificium Christi cuius erant vmbrae omnia sacrificia legis prophetarum Christ was alwaies set before them had a respect of appeasing the wrath of God not onely for euerlasting
one that carieth any shew or semblance to that for which he citeth them Such is the notable imposturage and cosinage of these false harlots in laying together huge companies of the places of the Fathers to blind the eyes of simple men who are not able to discerne whether they be applied right or wrong I haue pointed at this matter before but it commeth here more fully to be declared M. Bishop in the beginning telleth vs thus We are not here to treate of that publike penance which for notorious crimes is done openly but of such priuate penance which is either enioyned by the Confessor or voluntarily vndertaken by the penitent or else sent by Gods visitation to purge vs from that temporall paine which for sins past and pardoned we are to endure either in this life or in Purgatory c. Mark that which he saith gentle Reader that satisfaction is not here meant of publike penance for notorious offences but only of priuat penance and that for sinnes past and already pardoned That thou mayst the better vnderstaÌ„d this secret of theirs thou art to obserue that in sin they affirme two things a Bellar. de paen lib. 4. cap. 1. Cum homines in DeuÌ„ peccant amicitiaÌ„ simul iustitiaÌ„ violant Ac pro amicitia reformanda noÌ„ potest homo Deo satisfaceremam satisfactio hominis erga Deum acceptatione ipsius Dei necessariâ— indiâ—â—get acceptatio autem amicitiaÌ„ praesupponit Et praeterea vt satisfactio sit aliquo modo ad aequaeâ—â—tatem oportet vt sicut offensio habuit infinitatem quandaÌ„ ex parte obiecti sic habeat satisfactio infinitateÌ„ aliquam ex parte principij satisfacientis Proinde requiritur vt opera satisfactoriae fiant à spiritu Dei homineÌ„ inhabitante siue ab ipso homine vt membro Christi ac filio Det iam per gratiam charitateÌ„ effecto c. the violation of amitie betwixt God and vs and the violation of iustice For the renewing of amitie they say that a man cannot satisfie because satisfaction must haue acceptance with God and acceptance presupposeth amitie and friendship Againe satisfaction must haue some kind of equalitie in respect of the offence for which the satisfaction is made That there may be such an equalitie it is necessary that as the offence hath a kind of infinitie in respect of the obiect which is God so the satisfaction haue a kind of infinitie in respect of the originall whence it hath beginning It must therefore proceed from the spirit of God dwelling in man or from man made by grace and charitie the member of Christ and child of God When therefore a man by mortall sinne hath expulsed from himselfe grace and charitie he must first vpon his contrition and confession be reconciled and haue his sinne forgiuen and afterwards must make satisfaction for the same sinne For they will haue vs thinke that though God be content to be friends with vs and in that respect to forgiue the sinne yet he will haue satisfaction made to his iustice for the wrong and trespasse that we haue done him Thou mayst not wonder that they be very earnest in the assertion of this matter because vpon this ground Purgatory standeth and consequently the whole reuenue of the Popes pardons and of all their obsequies and deuotions for the dead Now this being the point of their defence that God hauing forgiuen and pardoned the sinne there remaineth a satisfaction to be made by temporall punishment which of all the Fathers by him alledged speaketh any thing to that effect He hath taken them all out of Bellarmine but therin see the honesty and fidelity both of Bellarmine and him peruse them and consider of them again again and what doest thou find sounding to the proofe of their assertion The Fathers speake of a satisfaction for the obtaining of the forgiuenes of sins but of a satisfaction to be made when the sin is forgiuen they say neuer a word yea they neuer imagined any such thing The church of Rome denieth that to be properly a satisfactioÌ„ which the Fathers call by the name of satisfaction and knew no other but that yet that satisfaction they alledge for the proofe of their new deuised satisfaction Yea Bellarmine himselfe confesseth that b Bellar. de poen lib 4. ca. 1. Si veteres Patres interduÌ„ actionibus humanis tribuere id videntur vt DeuÌ„ ex inimico amicum reddant atque adeò pro expianda culpa satisfaciant interpretandi sunt dâ— satisfactione ex congruo non ex condigno where the Fathers do seeme to attribute to the actions of men to restore amitie with God and to satisfie for the remission of the sinne they must be expounded of satisfaction ex congruo not ex condigno So had he said before that with the Fathers in that case the words of c Ibid. lib. 2. cap. 12. Vbi poenitentia dicitur meritum pretium satiâ—factio redemptio pro peccato de merito c. ex congruo accipienda sunt merit price satisfaction redemption must be taken in that sort And yet whereas all these Fathers alledged speake of price satisfaction redemption for the remission of the sin he himselfe bringeth them to proue d Lib 4. cap. 9. satisfaction de condigno after the remission of the sinne To speake of them briefly in order as he reporteth them the first testimonie out of Tertullian concerneth publike penance the whole book being written thereof as e Beat. Rhen. in argum lib. Tert. de poenit Beatus Rhenanus sheweth in the argument of the same booke and as by the author himselfe appeareth in that he speaketh of such a repentance as is f Tertul de poen Quicquid mediocritas nostra ad poenitentiaÌ„ semel capessendam perpetuò continendaÌ„ suggerere conata est omnes deditos Domino spectat but once to be had after baptisme which was so ordered by the Church in publike penitencie but in priuate neuer neither wold M. Bishop pleade so hard for it if it were so Now publike penitency was a satisfaction to obtaine forgiuenes and so here Tertullian plainly expresseth calling it g Ibidem Quà m stultuÌ„ poenitentiam non adimplere veniam delictorum sustinere hoc est pretiuÌ„ non exhibere ad merceÌ„ manuÌ„ emittere Hoc enim pretio Dominus veniam addicere instituit c. a folly not to fulfill penance and yet to expect pardoÌ„ affirming the one to be the price for the other and that God hath set the pardon at this price This then being a price for the pardon cometh not within the compasse of our question which is of a satisfaction when the sin is pardoned Origens purpose in the same place alledged is by the example of the deliuerance of the Israelites when they called vpon the Lord to shew that the Lord deliuereth a man to aduersary powers h Origen in lib. Iudic. hom 3. Vt
Church nor Councell can define any thing but as shall be pleasing to the Pope The Church cannot erre the Councell cannot erre but the reason is because the Pope cannot erre Set aside the Pope and the Church may erre and the Councell may erre but the Pope onely cannot erre This is a drunken fancie witlesse senslesse such as the auncient Fathers neuer imagined or dreamed of nay vnworthy whereof there shold be any question whether those godly Fathers approued it or not If we would argue froÌ„ the temporall state as M. Bishop doth what state is there or hath bene that maketh one man Iudge and interpreter of all lawes He nameth it to haue bene so in the old Testament amongst the Iewes but either he knoweth not or impudently falsifieth the storie in that behalfe For the law of Moses did not make the high Priest alone a Iudge but onely as elsewhere it is expounded l 2. Chro. 19.11 the chiefe of them that were appointed Iudges for al matters of the Lord. There was a whole Councell to which those causes were referred and by common consultation and iudgement things were agreed vpon and the sentence accordingly pronounced by the Priest He had not to say I determine thus or thus but as we haue example in the Gospell he said m Mat. 26.66 What thinke ye as being to haue consent of the rest before he could giue a sentence Therefore Moses setteth all downe in the plurall number as of many n Deut. 17.8.9 If there arise a matter too hard for thee c. thou shalt come to the Priests of the Leuites and to the Iudge that shall be in those dayes and aske and they shall shew thee the sentence of iudgement and thou shalt do according to all that they of that place shall shew thee According to the law which they shall teach thee thou shalt do c. Onely because the sentence in common agreed vpon was pronounced by the Priest as the chiefe therefore it is added o Ver. 12. And the man that shall do presumptuously not hearkening to the Priest as touching matters of the Lord or to the Iudge as touching ciuill causes for we see these two plainely distinguished each from other that man shal die Now if God would not in that small kingdome haue all to depend vpon the iudgement of any one how improbable is it that to one should be committed a iudgement of all matters of the Lord throughout the whole world And how do they make it good that any such power or authoritie should belong vnto him They tell vs much of Peter but we find not that attributed to Peter which they ascribe to the Pope neither do they giue vs any warrant froÌ„ Christ that that is descended to the Pope which is attributed to Peter Surely if Christ would haue had the Pope to succeed in Peters place the Popes should haue bene qualified as Peter was But we see the contrarie for amongst all the generations of men since the world was it cannot be shewed that euer there was such a succession of rake-hels and hel-hounds such monsters and incarnate diuels as haue bene amongst them men that haue giuen themselues wholy to the diuell as their owne stories do report Heretikes Apostaties Atheists dogges most vnworthy of all other to haue the Sunne shine vpon them or the earth to beare them Alphonsus de Castro said once though afterwards he was made to vnsay it p Alphâ—nsâ—â—e Castro lib. 1 ca 4 contra haeres CuÌ„ consâ—â—t plâ—â—res corâ—â—â— adâ—â—â—sse illâ—teratos vt Graâ—â—â—atram penitùs ignoraÌ„t qui fit vt sicras literas interpretari pâ—â—sâ—â—t Thus it was printed twice at first but after for thâ— Popes credit he was instructed to leaue it out When as it is certaine that many Popes are so vnlearned as that they are vtterly ignorant of their very Grammer how can it be that they should be able to expound the Scriptures Surely very vnlikely it is and who doth not see it to be the most certaine and ineuitable danger of the Church that the moderation thereof and the detennining of the faith should be committed to one but specially to such a one Gregorie Bishop of Rome saw it well when the Patriarch of Constantinople making claime to be vniuersall Bishop he gaue this for one reason against that vniuersalitie for that q Gregor lib. 4. Ep. 32. Vniuersa Ecclâ—sia quod absit à statu suo corruâ—t quando is qui appellâ—tur vâ—â—uersaelis cadit Et lib. 6 Epâ— 24. if there be one to be vniuersall Bishop in his fall must be the fall of the whole Church And that God by the multitude of the ouerseers of his church hath prouided for the safetie thereof Cyprian well obserueth who one where affirming that r Cipria de simp Praelat Episcopatus vâ—â—â—â— est câ—â—â—â—â— a singulis in sâ—â—â—dum pâ—â—â— tâ—â—â—tur the office of Bishopricke is but one whereof euery Bishop fully hath his part and therefore signifying that none hath therein to challenge prerogatiue aboue another addeth further in another place that Å¿ Idâ—â—â— lib. 3. Ep. 13 〈…〉 erâ—â—runt c. vt si quis ex hoc coâ—â—â—â—io haereâ—â—◠〈◊〉 gregeÌ„ Christ â—â—cerare vâ—stare tâ—â—â—rit saâ—ueni 〈◊〉 caererâ— quasi pâ—â—teres vtilâ—s 〈◊〉 Sâ—â—cordâ—s 〈◊〉 Dominicâ—s 〈…〉 therefore the corporation of Bishops consisteth of many that if any one of this Colledge or company shall assay to bring in heresie and to rend and waste the flocke of Christ the rest shold helpe and as good and compassionate Pastors should gather the Lordes sheepe into his fold This prouision of God Antichrist the man of sinne the Bishop of Rome being to bring the abhomination of desolation into the church of Christ hath defeated and made voide challenging to himselfe alone an vniuersall power and authoritie of iudgement ouer the whole Church and vnder pretence thereof deuising and establishing in the Church whatsoeuer he list to the dishonour of God to the peruerting of the faith of Christ and to the destruction of infinite soules making a meaning of the word of God to serue his turne that nothing which he saith or doth may seeme to be controlled or checked thereby To this purpose they haue bewitched the world to entertaine this paradoxe which in the old Christian world was neuer heard of that t Hosius de expresso Dei verbo Siquis habeat interpretationem Ecclesiae Romanae de aliquo loco Scripturae etiaÌ„si nec sciat nec intelligat an quomodo cum Scripturae verbis conueniat tamen habet ipsissimum verbuÌ„ Dei if a man haue the interpretation of the Church of Rome of any place of Scripture albeit he neither know nor vnderstand whether and how it agreeth with the words of the Scripture yet he hath the very word of God And in like sort do our Rhemish impostors labour to perswade their Reader that u Rhem. Testam Argument of
Lords Supper but also the Sacrament of Baptisme So doth Ambrose say that u Ambros de ijs qui imitantur mysterijs cap. 8. Melchisedec protulit ea quae AbrahaÌ„ veneratus accepit Abraham gaue veneration to the bread and wine which Melchisedec brought foorth and we suppose Master Bishop is not so farre gone as to say that we worship the Sacrament of Baptisme or that Abraham worshipped the bread and wine Thus therefore Hierome saith that the Iewes had a reuerend regard of the Sancta sanctorum but of religious worship as done to it he saith nothing and much lesse dreamed of any religious worship to be done to idols and images which haue no institution from God as the Sancta sanctorum had But to helpe this argument Master Bishop further alledgeth that Saint Paule saith that Iacob by faith adored the toppe of his sonne Iosephs rod. So doth the Greeke text of Saint Paule say saith he as Erasmus also translateth it And further he addeth The Protestants pitifully mangle the text to auoide the place But I answer him that the Protestants doe see them to be in a pitifull case who hazard their soules vpon a religion that is faine to vse such pitifull arguments for the defence of it For howsoeuer it were graunted that Iacob foreseeing by faith the kingdome that should befall to Ioseph in his sonne Ephraim did in token thereof make an obeisance to the rod or scepter that was in Iosephs hand or that he yeelded that obeisance or adoration in respect of Iosephs present authoritie vnder Pharao yet what should this be to the worshipping of images We know that adoration or worship ciuilly vnderstood is giuen to Princes Abraham x Gen. 23.7 adored the Princes of the Hittites The Israelites are said y 1. Chr. 29.10 to haue adored or worshipped the Lord and then the king namely king Dauid If Iacob yeelded the like adoration as to the kingdome and power of his sonne Ioseph either present or to come as some Greeke Writers expound it what is this I say to the worshipping of images But as touching this matter Hierome saith vpon the place in Genesis whence those words seeme to be taken z Hieron quaest â—iâ—â—r in Genes Jn hoc loco quidaâ— frustra si â—â—â—am adoâ—asse Iacob summitateÌ„ sceptri Ioseph quòd videlicet honorans filium potestatem eius adorauerit cùm in Hebraeo multo aliter legatur Et adorauit inquit Israel ad caput lectuli quòd scilicet post quam et iurauerat filius securus de petitionè quaÌ„ rogauerat adorauerit Deum contra caput lectuli sui Sanctus quippe Deo deditus vir oppressus senectute sic habebat lectulum positum vt ipse tacentis habitus absque difficultate vlla ad crationem esset paratus In this place some vainely imagine that Iacob adored or worshipped the top of Iosephs scepter to wit that honouring his sonne he adored or worshipped his power or authoritie whereas in the Hebrew it is read farre otherwise And Israel worshipped towards the beds head meaning that after his sonne had sworne vnto him being now secure as touching the request that he had made vnto him he worshipped God towards the beds head For the holy deuout man being now oppressed with old age had his bed so set as that the fashion of his lying might without difficultie yeeld him readinesse to pray Thus howsoeuer M. Bishop cauill and wrangle yet Hierome plainely resolueth that it was God onely and nothing else that Iacob worshipped and therefore readeth in his translation thus that when Ioseph a Gen. 47.31 Vulgat Quo iurante adorauit Israel DominuÌ„ conuersus ad lectuli caput had sworne Israel worshipped the Lord turning himselfe to the beds head Now the Hebrew text being manifestly against him he taketh vpon him to vrge the Greeke text of S. Paule affirming it to be said there that Iacob worshipped the toppe of Iosephs rod not caring for his owne aduantage to set the holy Ghost at variance with himselfe and to make him destroy in one place what he affirmeth in another But that which he affirmeth is vntrue and false S. Paul doth not say that Iacob worshipped the top of Iosephs rod neither do the Protestants pitifully mangle the text to auoide the place but the Papists pitifully follow a translation apparently false that the text may seeme to make for theÌ„ The words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he worshipped vpon the top of his staffe or as we more plainely expresse it leaning vpon his staffe By which words the Septuagint translated the words of Moses before mentioned Israel worshipped vpon or towards the beds head their translation in Grammer construction fully answering the words of the Hebrew but that for mittah a bed or couch they seeme to haue translated matteh which signifieth a staffe or a rod making it by addition of a Pronoune his staffe or his rod or for some speciall reason thereto moouing them thought good in stead of the one to take the signification of the other being of the same deriuation no difference betwixt them in writing but onely by the vowels thereby to expresse that Iacob being very aged and weake and keeping his bed vsed the helpe of a staffe to stay himselfe as he worshipped vpon his bed or towards his beds head Thus they translated vpon what consideration we know not but so as that they nothing preiudice that which Moses saith because both may well stand together that he vsed a staffe to rest vpon and that so doing he worshipped towards the beds head And that they therin expressed a truth though not set downe in Moses words yet otherwise receiued or coniectured we fully and certainely beleeue because the holy Ghost hath thus cited the words according to their translation obseruing the same course as commonly we see the Apostles and Euangelists doe in their citations from the old Testament who so long as the place retaineth from the originall that for which they cite it and containeth no vntruth forbeare not to vse the translation which was coÌ„monly receiued and vsed though haply otherwise it do not exactly accord with the same originall Hebrew text Now the matter for which the Apostle citeth those wordes standeth in that that it is said that Iacob worshipped he giuing thereby to vnderstand that Iacob by faith so fully rested assured of that which vpon the promise of God he had beleeued as that he worshipped and praysed God as if he had then seene and enioyed the performance and accomplishment therof This therefore being expresly deliuered in the text as the Septuagint haue translated it he maketh no question of the other words though they be not exactly sorting with that which Moses hath set downe But here the matter of question is coÌ„cerning the translating of that translation M. Bishop telleth vs that we should translate thus And he Iacob worshipped the top of his that is of Iosephs rod