one that walketh before him and therefore that of him and his fellowes that deride them the words following haue their iust construction But you witches children come hither the seede of the adulterer and of the whoore On whom haue yee iested vpon whom haue yee gaped and thrust out your tongues are yee not all rebellious children and a false seed But from these he goeth to some of the learnedst amongst vs citing Caluin and Beza Christ truely and properly merited for vs by Caluins doctrine I truely confesse saith Caluin that if a man will set Christ singly by himselfe against the iudgement of God there will be roome for merit Where that thou maiest see gentle Reader that it was not without cause that I suspected him for the former citation I pray thee first to obserue that the very argument of the chapter whence he alleageth these words is thus set dowee h Caluin Instit. l. 2. c. 2. Rectè et proprtè dici Christum nobis promeritum esse gratiam dei salutem That it is rightly and properly said that Christ hath deserued for vs the grace of God and saluation which he purposely disputeth against some i Sect. 1. sunt quidam perperam arguti qui etsi fatentur salutem nos per Christum consequi nomen tamen meriti audire non sustinent quo putant obscurari deâ— gratiam who although they confesse that we attaine saluation by Christ yet cannot endure to heare the name of merit because they thinke the grace of God to be obscured thereby Secondly albeit he set downe Caluins tearmes of qualification k Ibid. EquideÌ„ fateor siquis Christum simpliciter per se opponere vellet iudicio dei non fore merito locum quia non reperietur in homine dignitas quae possit deum promereri simply and by himselfe yet very treacherously he leaueth out the end of the sentence whereby those tearmes are to be vnderstood which is this because there can bee found no worthinesse in man that can deserue at Gods handes For heereby it is manifest that Caluin in those wordes respecteth Christ as man and onely in that respect denieth merit if Christ meerely as man be opposed against the iudgement of God And this further appeareth by that which he addeth to his purpose out of Austin which M. Bishop dissembleth because hee thought he could not so honestly cauill against Austin as he might against Caluin l August de praedest sanct cap. 15. Est etraÌ„ praeclarissimum lumen praedestinationis gratiae ipse saluator ipse mediator dei hominâ—â— homo Christus Iesus qui vt hoc esset quibus tandem suis vel operum vel fidei praecedentibus meritis natura humana quae in illo est comparauit Respendeatur quaeso ille honâ—oâ—t à verbe patri coaeterno in vnitatem personae assumptus filius dei vnigenitus esset vnde hee meruerit There is saith Austin a most notable and cleere light of Predestination and grace euen the man Christ Iesus the Sauiour the Mediatour betwixt God and men who to bee so by what former merits of his either of workes or of faith did the nature of man in him atteine vnto Tell mee I pray saith he that that man taken into vnitie of person with the word coeternall to the Father should be the onely begotten Sonne of God whereby did he merit or deserue it By which words S. Austin giueth vs plainly to vnderstand that the man Christ Iesus did not by merits atteine to become our Sauiour to become the Mediatour betwixt God and man but it was by Gods predestination and grace by his decree and ordinance that it so came to passe Heereupon then Caluin inferreth that m Calu. vt supr Cùm ergò de Christi merito agitur non statuitur in eo principium sed conscendimus ad dei ordinationeÌ„ quae prima causa est quia mero beneplacito modiatorem statuit qui nobis salutem acquireret when we speake of the merit of Christ we are not to place it as the first beginning but we ascend to the ordinance of God which is the first cause because he meerely of his owne good pleasure appointed him the Mediatour to purchase saluation for vs. In which words he acknowledgeth that Christ did verily and indeed purchase saluation for vs but yet that it came of the good pleasure of God and his meere grace and mercy to giue him vnto vs for a Mediatour to merit and purchase our saluation His drift is not in any sort to impeach the merit of Christ but onely to shew that the merit of Christ is no impeachment of the free mercy of God because of that free mercy it is that we haue him to merit for vs. And to that purpose it is that he saith n Ibid. Nam Christus nonnisi ex dei beneplacito quicquam mereri potuit sed quia ad hoc destinatus erat vt iram dei sacrificio suo placaret suaque obedientia deleret transgressiones nostras that Christ could not merit any thing but by the good pleasure of God because but by the good pleasure of God he could not be Christ he could not be man he could not bee the Mediatour betwixt God and man In a word hence it came that he merited for vs as it is added in the next words because hee was destinated and appointed that by his sacrifie he should appease the wrath of God and blot out our transgressions by his obedience To the same effect it is also added which M. Bishop thirdly mentioneth o Ibid. Ex sola dei gratia quae hunc nobis constituit salutis modum dependet meritum Christi that the merit of Christ dependeth vpon the onely grace of God which saith he hath appointed for vs this means of saluation Not so then but that Christ did indeed merit saluation for vs but it was the grace of God that gaue him to merit for vs and so to bee the meanes of our saluation which is the thing that Beza also defendeth against Heshushius And what is there in all this for M. Bishop to dislike He will not say that Christ as a meere man could haue merited at Gods hands because he hath before confessed that the value and dignitie of Christs works arose from the dignitie of his person in that hee was the Sonne of God Hee will not denie that it was the good pleasure and grace of God that gaue Christ to merit in our behalfe for that the texts of Scripture cited by Caluin for proofe thereof doe manifestly shew p Ioh 3.16 God so loued the world that hee gaue his onely begotten Sonne to the end that euery one that beleeueth in him should not perish but haue euerlasting life q 1. Ioh. 4.10 Not that we loued God but that hee loued vs first and sent his Sonne to be the attonement for our sinnes by which it
sake what euidence I shall deliuer in against the Protestants touching this point of Atheisme and following the same method that M. PER. obserueth I will first touch their errors against the most blessed Trinitie and Deitie secondly such as are against our Lord Iesus God and man lastly I will speake one word or two about their seruice and worshipping of God All which shall be performed in a much more temperate maner then the grauity of such a matter requireth that it may be lesse offensiue Concerning the sacred Trinitie it is by the doctrine of certaine principall pillars of their new Gospell brought into great question Lib. 1. In stit ca. 13. ss 23.25 Con. rationes Camp p. 152. For Iohn Caluin in diuers places teacheth that the second and third persons of the Trinitie doe not receiue the God-head from the first but haue it of themselues euen as the first person hath And in this he is defended by M. Whitaker and preferred before all the learned Fathers of the first Counsell of Nice Out of which position it followeth that there is neither Father nor Sonne in the Godhead for according vnto common sense and the vniforme consent of all the learned he onely is a true naturall Sonne that by generation doth receiue his nature and substance from his Father We are called the Sonnes of God but that is by adoption and grace but he onely is the true naturall Sonne of God that by eternall generation receiued his substance that is the Godhead from him If therfore the second person did not receiue the Godhead from the first but had it of himselfe as they do affirm then certainly he is no true Son of the first consequently the first person is no true Father For as al men coÌ„fesse Father Son be correlatiues so that the one caÌ„not be without the other Thus their doctrine is found to be faultie in the highest degree of Atheisme For it ouerthroweth both Father and Sonne in the Trinitie And further if it were true then doth the holy Ghost proceed neither from the Father nor from the Son for it receiueth not the Godhead from them at all as they hold but hath it of himselfe and so proceedeth no more from them then they doe from him and consequently is not the third person Wherefore finally they doe euerthrow the whole Trinitie the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost R. ABBOT We are now come to the beginning of M. Bishops libell for introduction whereof he telleth his Reader a goodly smooth tale of the important weight of the true opinion of the Godhead and the true worship thereof Caluin truely teacheth the Godhead of Christ and what a motiue it is to like of that religion that deliuereth sacred and sound doctrine concerning the same faring as if he had bloody enditements in this behalfe against vs calling the Iurie putting in his euidence and in the end all commeth to nothing Parturit Oceanus prodit de gurgite squilla In the very first accusation he sheweth abundance of malice but great want of wit for that he is found a liar euen in the very place which he himselfe citeth He chargeth Caluin to haue taught that the second and third persons of the Trinity doe not receiue the Godhead from the first but haue it of themselues as the first person hath He citeth Caluin Instit l. 1. c. 13. ss 23.25 which no man would thinke that he would so precisely set downe but that hee read the place Now in the latter of those two sections Caluin saith thus a Caluin Instit. lib. 1. c. 13. sect 25. Deitatem ergò absolute ex seipsa esse dicimus Vndc filium quatenus deus est fatemur ex seipso esse sublato personae respectu quatenus verò filius est dicimus esse ex patre ita essentia eius principio caret personae verò principium est ipse deus we say then that the Godhead absolutely is of it selfe and therefore that the Sonne as he is God setting a side the respect of the person is of himselfe but as he is the Sonne we say that he is of the Father So then the essence of the Sonne is without beginning but the beginning of his person is God the Father which he sheweth in the other section alleaged to be b Ibid. sect 23. Cum filio essentiam communicauit Râ—sâ—at vt tota in soâ—idum patris filij sit coÌ„munis by the Fathers communicating his whole essence to the Sonne What can be more plainely or more truly spoken He affirmeth that the Godhead whereby Christ is God is of it selfe that is to say not of any other but yet that Christ as he is the second person in Trinity is not God of himselfe but of the Father In the former meaning he termeth Christ to be God of himselfe vnderstanding the name of God absolutely that is that he is that one God who is God of himselfe and not of any other but that the second person in Trinity receiueth not the Godhead from the first Caluin neuer wrot it neuer thought it and most lewdly doth M. Bishop deale so falsely to charge him with it Yea Bellarmine himselfe though he will seeme to condemne Caluin for the maner of his speech in stiling Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God of himselfe yet indeed fully and wholly doth acquit him for he telleth vs that c Bell de Christo l. 2. c. 19. Causa fuit quia Valentinus Gentilis perpetuo iaes abat soium patrem esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per hoc nomen intelligebat solum patrem habere essentiam verè diuinam increatam silium autem sp sanctum habere aliam essentiam productam à patre ideo quoad essentiam eos non esse autotheos Calu. igitur occurrere volens Valentino contrarium asseruit nempe filium esse autotheon quoad essentiam id est in eo sensu quo id à Valentino negabatur the cause which mooued Caluin so to write was because Valentinus Gentilis a new Arian heretike was still prating that the Father only was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and meant thereby that the Father only had the essence truly diuine and vncreated and that the Sonne and the holy Ghost had another essence produced of the Father and therefore that as touching essence neither of them was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Caluin therefore willing saith he to meete with Valentine auoucheth the contrary namely that the Sonne is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God of himselfe as touching the essence that is in that sense wherein Valentine denied the same Accordingly of his arguments he saith d Idem Respondeo hoc argumeÌ„tum benè concludere contrà Gentilem c. This argument concludeth well against Gentilis this argument also concludeth well against Gentilis How grossly then are these men blinded with malice who acknowledging Caluins words to be spoken only in a certain
yeeld himselfe to be sent and imploied by the rest without derogation to his equality with the rest As Peter and Iohn were n Acts â— 14 sent by the Apostles to Samaria and yet M. Bishop will not admit that therfore Peter was inferior to the rest of the Apostles And if he will not grant that the Son of God the second person in Trinity did in some sort submit himselfe to doe seruice to the Father let him tell vs how he is called in Scripture according to his diuine nature o Gen. 6.7.13 Iâ—d 13.3.22 The Angell of the Lord. Surely to be an Angell that is to say a Messenger is in some sort to be a subiect or minister Seeing Christ therfore the second person of the Godhead hath taken vpon him to be the Lords Angell to declare the messages of God to men let him shew vs how it may be auoided but that he hath in some sort taken vpon him subiection or seruice to the Father Nay let him tell vs how it standeth that the Syrmian Councel saith that p Hâ—lar desynod ex contil syrmiens st quis Christum filium dei obsecutum patrâ—m creatione omnium non confitetur anaâ—â—em â—sit Et pauio post Non exaequamus patri filium sed subiâ—ctum inteâ—iginius the Sonne in the creating of all things did obey the Father and that we doe not equall the Sinne to the Father but vnderstand him to bee subiect and that Hiâ—arie saith q Hila. ibid Non coaequatur filius patridum suâ—ditus per obedientiae obsequelam est that by yeelding obedience he is subiect to the Father who notwithstanding spake these things amidst their definitions and resolutions against the Arian Heretikes Yea let him tell vs how Christ saith r Ioh. 6.38 I came downe from Heauen not to doe mine own will but the will of the Father that hath sent me not speaking as in the nature of man as Å¿ Tertul. de Tri. Descendit dei verbum quod ihi fuit c. veniendo inde vnde homo venire non potuit deum se ostendit venisse Tertullian rightly argueth but as in the person of the sonne of God according to which it was that he was sent came down from heauen and abased himselfe to doe his Fathers will in taking vpon him the nature of man And heereupon Maldonatus the Iesuit aforesaid truly obserueth t Maldonat in Mat cap. 6. fecit quidem Christus non suam sed patris voluntatem sed idipsum sponte volunt 〈◊〉 sua fecit itaque non sequitur eum esse â—â—norem patre that Christ indeed did not his own will but the will of his Father but he did it voluntarily and willingly not by constraint and therefore that it followeth not that he was inferior to the Father As he did his Fathers will so and no otherwise was he subiect and obedient to the Father But that doing of his Fathers will being voluntarily vndertaken argueth no essentiall minority or subiection in the Son Therefore neither doth the same follow of his being so far foorth subiect and obedient to the Father And so Hilary briefly resolueth u Hilar. dâ— syn pietatis subiectâ—o non est essentiae diminutioneâ— religionis officium degenerem facit naturam patri obsequio subiectus nomine ita tamen vt subiectio nominis proprietatem naturalis atque indisserentis testetur essentiae subiection of piety is no diminution of essence neither doth office of deuotion put nature out of kinde He is subiect to the Father both by seruice and by name but yet so as that subiection of name testifieth a propriety of naturall and no way different essence And this point the Apostle S. Paul manifesteth when he saith that x Phil 2 6. Christ being in the forme of God and thinking it no robbery to be equall with God yet abased himselfe and tooke on him the forme of a seruant and was made like vnto men Where when he thus expresseth who it was that abased himselfe he that was in the forme of God and whereto hee abased himselfe to take vpon him the forme of a seruant he signifieth plainely that in the forme of God he as it were y Tert. de Trin. Authoritas diuâ—m verbi ad susâ—piendum hâ—minem interim conquiescens neâ— se suis viril us exercens deijcit se ad tempus atque deponit duâ—a hominem sert quem suscepit stooped downe voluntarily to take the nature of man thereby to doe the office of mediation betwixt God and man not forgoing or impeaching the forme of God but content in that wherein hee owed no seruice to become a seruant and to doe that seruice vnto God And to this purpose Cyrill vrgeth those other words of the same Apostle that z 2. Cor. 8.9 Christ being rich for our sakes became poore for how shall we vnderstand it that Christ became poore Shal we say of Christ as man that of rich he became poore That cannot be because the manhood of Christ was rather enriched and infinitely dignified and honoured by being ioined vnto God Shall we say that the Godhead of Christ became poore simply in it selfe Neither may we say so because the Godhead in it selfe is immutable and not subiect to any change It remaineth therefore as Cyril concludeth that a Cyril resp ad Theodoret. anathem 10. Quoinodo pauper factus est Quia cùm esset deus natura filius deâ—ac patris sactus est homo c. seruilemque mensuram subijt hoc est humanam is qui in forma dei patris est Christ as God the Sonne of the Father became poore in being made man and vndergoing the condition of a seruant that is of a man Now then as Christ according to his Godhead became poore not simply as God but as God incarnate and made man so he became also subiect and obedient a minister and seruant to the Father as God in man the body and manhood of Christ being b Athana apud Cyril vt supra anat 11. si videamus eum quasi per instrumentum sut corporis diuino modo operantem vel dicentem cognoscamus quòd deus existens omnia operetur the instrument as Athanasius calleth it wherein and whereby God the Sonne of God wrought whatsoeuer was needfull to reconcile vs vnto God And thus doth the Apostle say that c Act. 20.28 God purchased the Church with his owne blood that d 2. Cor. 5.19 God was in Christ reconciling the world to himselfe not as by communication of proprieties to affirme of one nature that which simply belongeth to the other but to note the act of the whole person in the offering of that sacred blood for the redemption of mankind Therefore M. Iewel and M. Fulke and we all doe rightly affirme that Christ neither as God only nor as man only but as God and man offered sacrifice both to
articles of the Creed to beleeue the remission of his owne sinnes vnto euerlasting life The first as he alleageth is thus p August de bono perseuer cap. 22. De vita aeterna quam filijs promissionu promi sit non mendax deus ante tempora a terna nemo potest esse secuâ—usmisicum â—oÌ„summata fuerit ista vita quae tentatio est super terram sed faciet nos perseuerare in se vsque in huius vitae â—nem cui quotidie dicin us Ne nos inferas in tentationem Of life euerlasting which God that cannot lie hath from euerlasting promised to the children of promise no man can be secure before his life be ended which is a temptation vpon earth But what M. Bishop did your breath faile you that you could goe no further did you not thinke the end of the sentence as woorthy to be repeated as the beginning Goe on man tell out your tale for Saint Austin addeth further But he wil make vs to perseuere in him vnto the end of this life to whom we daily say Lead vs not into temptation What could Saint Austin deuise to speake more agreable to our assertion than this is We say that respecting our selues we haue no security wee are continually beset with danger and feare many occasions we haue of distrust and despaire and with these temptations we haue to wrastle the whole course of this life but amidst all our distractions and feares this is stil the support of our faith that he wil make vs to perseuere in him to the end of our life to whom we daily say Lead vs not into temptation q 1. Thess 5.24 Faithfull is he saith the Apostle who hath called you who will also doe it In the other place Saint Austin saith that r â—e corrept gratia cap 13. CredenauÌ„ est quâ—sdam de filijs perditionis non accepto do no perseuerantiae vsque in finem in fide quae per dilectionem operatur incipe re viuere aliquandiu fideliter aciustè viuere postea cadere c. we are to beleeue that some of the children of perdition not hauing receiued the gift of perseuering to the end doe begin to liue in faith that worketh by loue and for a while doe liue faithfully and iustly and afterwards doefall away But this Saint Austin speaketh according to men and as seemeth to the eies of men and of that profession of faith which by outward fruits carieth for the time the semblance of true faith For to the eies of God I haue Å¿ Of the certainty of saluation sect 10. before shewed out of Austin that reprobates are neuer effectually called neuer iustified neuer partakers of that healthfull and spirituall repentance whereby man in Christ is reconciled vnto God Therefore Gregory Bishop of Rome faith that t Gregor Moral l. 25. c. 8. Specie tenus credunt quotquot certum est electorum numerum summamque transire Ad fidem specie tenus regni veniunt qui a numero regnicaelestis excluduntur they who are not of the number of the elect doe beleeue but only in shew do in shew onely come to the faith of the kingdome u Ibid. lib. 34. cap. 13. Aurum quod prauis eius persuasionibus quasi lutum sternipotuerit aurum ante dei oculos nunquam fuâ—t Qui enim seduci quandoque non reuersuri possunt quasi habitam sanctitatem ante oculos hominum videntor amittere sed eam ante oculos dei nunquam habuerunt that the gold which by Satans wicked suggestions commeth to be troden vnder feete like dirt was neuer gold in Gods sight that they who can be seduced neuer to returne againe seeme to lose the holinesse which they had after a sort before the eies of men but indeed they neuer had it in the sight of God Behold heere M. Bishop one of your owne Bishops of Rome either a correctour if you will so haue it or as we will rather say an expounder of Saint Austins words but wholly aduerse and contrary to you denying vnto reprobates that faith and holinesse which you so confidently attribute vnto them So that in fine we see that M. PERK not by forced exposition or vaine illations but directly and according to truth hath charged you with impious violation of the first principles of the faith 8. W. BISHOP Hence he proceedeth to the tenne Commandements But before I follow him thither I may not omit heere to declare how the Protestant Doctors doe foully mangle and in manner ouerturne the greatest part of the Creed Obserue first that according to their common doctrine it is not necessary to beleeue this Creed at all because it is no part of the written word secondly that Caluin doubteth whether it were made by the Apostles or no being then no part of the written word Cal. lib. 2. Instit cap. 16. sess 18. not made by the Apostles it must by their doctrine be wholly reiected Now to the particulars 1. Concerning the first article I beleeue in God the Father almighty maker of heauen and earth they doe erre many waies First they doe destroy the most simple vnity of the God-head Confess fidei gener by teaching the diuine essence to be really distinguished into three persons If the diuine nature be really distinguished into three there must needes be three diuine essences or natures ergo three Gods Caluin also saith In actis Serueti pag. 872. that the Sonne of God hath a distinct substance from his Father Melancthon that there be aswell three diuine natures as three persons in locis de Christo Secondly they ouerthrow the Father in the God-head by denying the Sonne of God to haue receiued the diuine nature from his Father as Caluin Beza and Whitakers doe See the Preface Thirdly how is God almighty if he cannot do all things that haue no manifest repugnance in them But he cannot after the opinion of diuers of them make a body to be without locall circumscription or to bee in two places at once which notwithstanding some others of them hold to be possible In colloq Marpurg art 29. Li. 1. cont Scargum cap. 14. Dialog de corpore Christi pag. 94. De consil part 2.276 as Zwinglius Oecolampadius Andreas Volanus c. Fourthly though we beleeue God to be maker of heauen and earth yet neuer none but blasphemous Heretikes held him to be true authour and proper worker of all euill done vpon earth by men Such neuerthelesse bee Bucer Zwinglius Caluin and others of greatest estimation among the Protestants See the Preface 2. And in IESVS Christ his onely Sonne our Lord. They must needes hold Christ not to be Gods true naturall Son which denie him to haue receiued the diuine nature from the Father againe thy make him according to his God-head inferiour to his Father See the Preface 3. Borne of the Virgin MARY Many of them teach that Christ was borne as
and the same person onely termed diuersly But if for auoiding thereof he will say as all learned diuines say that the persons of the Trinity are really distinguished then let him vnderstand that hee saith no more than we say nor knoweth more than wee know who know how to speake as well as he Our Diuines doe sometimes indeed say that the one essence of God is distinguished really into three persons but meaning it no otherwise than according to the definition of Thomas Aquinas that c Tho. Aquin. sum p. 1. q. 28. art 3. in corp Oportet quòd sit in deo distinctio realts non secundum rem absolutam quae est essentia in qua est summa vnitas simplicitas sed secunduÌ„ râ—m relatiuam there is in God a reall distinction not according to that that is absolute which is the essence but according to that that is relatiue which is the diuers subsistence of the persons Or rather they meane it according to that which Saint Austin saith d August de fide aâ— Pet. diacon c. 1. Vna est patris filij sp sancti essentia in qua non est aliud pater aliud filus aâ—ad sp sanctus quan â—is personâ—tlitèr sit alius pâ—ter alius filius alius spsanctus There is one essence of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost wherein the Father is not one thing the Sonne another thing and the holy Ghost another thing and yet personally the Father is one the Sonne another and the holy Ghost another What is it but the same to say either that in one essence there are really three persons or that one essence is really distinguished into three persons He saith that if the diuine nature bee really distinguished into three there must needs be three diuine esserces or natures If saith he it be distinguished into three but three what for if he had added as he should into three persons then his folly had appeared to argue in that sort The sonne how vnderstood to haue a distinct substance from the Father that if one essence be really distinguished into three persons there must needs be three essences That which he addeth out of Caluin that the Sonne of God hath a distinct substance from the Father Caluin speaketh not of himselfe but of Tertullian nor by his owne phrase but by Tertullians phrase who though he differ from latter times in manner of speech yet defendeth the truth of the Godhead in three persons as other godly Fathers haue alwaies done Praxeas the heretike denied the Trinity affirming that the Father the Son and the holy Ghost were but onely names giuen in diuers respects to one and the same person Tertullian writeth against him and comming to the word the second person in Trinity he disputeth that the same is e Tertul. adu Praxed Ergo inquis das aliquam substantiam esse sermonem Planè Nouimus enim eum substantiuum habere in re per substantiae proprietatem vt res persona quae dam videri possit c. Nihil dico de deo maene vacuum prodire potuisse c. nec carere substantia quod de tanta substantia processit c. Quod ex ipsius substantia missum est sine substantia non erit Quaecunque ergò substantia sermonis fuit illam dico personam illi filij nomen vindico dum filium agnosco secundum a patre defendo not an empty or idle name but importeth some substantiall thing by propriety of substance that it cannot bee without substance that proceeded from such a substance and was sent of the substance of the Father But yet he presently expoundeth himselfe Whatsoeuer the substance of the word is that I call the person and challenge to it the name of the Sonne and whilest I acknowledge him the Sonne I defend him to be a second to the Father By substance therefore with Tertullian is not meant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the essence but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the personall and indiuiduall existence wherein each person distinctly hath the one true and perfect substance that is essence of one Godhead the word being purposely intended to crosse the hereticall conceit of Praxeas of voide and empty tearmes Euen as Hilary reporteth that a Councell of Antioch against the same heresie challengeth to euery person f Hilar. de Synod adu Arianos His nominibus significantibus diligenter propriam vniuscuiusque nominatorum sul stantiam ordinem gloriam vt sint quidem per substantiam tria per consonantiam verò vnum Exâ—â—cil Antiocheno his proper substance and saith that they are three in substance but in accord one g Ibid. paulo post Tres subst iutias esse dixerunt subsistentium personas per substantias edocentes non substantiam patris fâ—â—ij spiritus sancti diuersitate dissimulu essentiae separantes meaning saith he by substances the persons subsistent not separating the substance of the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost by diuersity of vnlike essence The blasphemy of Praxeas and of the Sabellians was in these latter times reuiued by Seruetus Against him Caluin disputeth and bringeth in Tertullian in his owne language oppugning that damnable fancy and in that whole discourse with all integrity hee maintaineth our beleefe of one substance in three persons and is not M. Bishop ashamed thus by aduantage of anothers words onely by him alleaged and in the authours meaning vsed so ill to requite him and to charge him with that whereto he purposely defendeth the contrary in the same place But why doe I speake of shame for what are those men ashamed of And therfore he sticketh not heere againe very grosly to belie Melancthon also charging him to say that there be as well three diuine natures as there be three persons whereas neither in the place by him quoted nor any otherwhere euer any such matter proceeded from Melancthon Vpon his second point I will not stand because it is before handled in the sixt section of the Preface So is the third point handled there also in the eight section and the fourth in the tenth and that which he saith as touching the second article in the sixt and seuen His obiection as touching the third article is a very leaud and vnhonest slander None of vs affirmeth that Christ was borne with the breach of his Mothers virginity Christ borne without breach of his mothers virginity because her virginity stood in being free from the company of man not in that shee had not her wombe opened when she bare Christ For if the opening of her wombe in her childbirth were the breach of her virginity then the Euangelist shall be said to impeach her virginity in applying to the birth of Christ that saying of the law h Luk. 2.23 Exod. 13.2 Euery man-child that first openeth the wombe shall be called holy to the Lord. Which
The heretike affirmeth saith Athanasius that he that requesteth is inferiour to him that giueth What wilt thou answer then saith hee if God request q Deut. 10.12 And now O Israel saith Moses what doth the Lord thy God * The Hebrew word is the same as Psal 2.8 aske or request of thee but that thou feare him He leaueth it to be vnderstood that God notwithstanding doth not thereby become inferior to vs. Sundry other like examples might be alleaged but in briefe I answer as before that the things which in this behalfe we affirme concerning Christ doe no more bereaue him of equality with God then a King by vouchsafying of his Princely grace to doe some act of speciall office to a subiect doth thereby diuest himselfe of the maiestie of a king And this the ancient Fathers saw well who though they make the manhood of Christ the subiect and matter wherein and whereby this mediation is performed and in that respect doe sometimes referre it onely to the manhood yet doe otherwise acknowledge that the acting and effecting thereof belongeth to the whole person both God and man Therefore Ambrose saith that r Ambros in 1. Tim. ca. 2. vt ex vtroque esset mediator on both parts he is a mediatour that ſ Idem in Heb. 7. In aeternum diuinitate humanitate mediator inter deum homines semper viuens est c. both by his Godhead and by his manhood he is the mediatour betwixt God and man So saieth Austin that t Aug. Orat. cont Iudaeos Pagan Arian c. 8. Nobis mediator sactus est homo totus deus verbum amma cara vnus Christus whole Christ both God and man the word the soule and the flesh being one Christ is made our mediatour Yea and out of the very nature of a Mediatour it followeth that he must be so vnderstood not onely as man but as God also For u Chrysost in 1. Tim. hom 7. Id mediatoris est proprium vtrorumque participem fieri quorum suerit mediator c. Quia duarum naturarum medius suit Christus ambarum oportuit esse participem it belongeth to a Mediatour saith Chrysostome to be partaker of them both betwixt whom hee is a mediatour therefore because Christ was a mediatour betwixt two natures he was to be partaker of them both x Theophylact in 1. Tim. c. 2. Nequaquam purus est deus neque enim homines hunc excepissent qui esset intercessor futurus nec simplex homo quippe qui deum esset allocuturus He is not onely God saith Theophylact for then men could not haue admitted him to be intercessour for them neither is he onely man because hee was to deale with God Hence therefore doth he take an argument to prooue that Christ is God y Ibid. Quòd deus sit filius liquet ex eo quia conciliator fit mediator effectus because hee is made an intercessour or mediatour And in the same sort Theodoret reasoneth against Arius the heretike z Theodoret. in 1. Tim. cap. 2. si vt vult Arius filius patris substantiae non est particeps quomodo est intercessor If Christ be not partaker of the substance of his Father how is he then a mediatour Now if a mediatour as a mediatour must bee God why doth M. Bishop with his fellowes beare vs in hand that Christ as he is God is not a mediatour Why are they so fond to make our assertion an inducement of Arianisme when they see the Fathers to haue made it a ground to dispute against Arius for the auouching of the Godhead of Christ in this person of a mediatour did Melancthon vse those other words if at least he did vse them for I find them not which M. Bishop taxeth There must needs be in him somewhat of the diuine nature Where because he saith somewhat M. Bishop inferreth some other thing then belike was wanting Full wisely I warrant you But I pray let vs aske him when Thomas Aquinas said that a Tho. Aquin. in 1 Tim. cap. 2. lect 2. Christus mediator est similis vtrique extremo scilicet deo homini inquantum deus homo quia medium debet habere aliquid de vtroque extremorum haec sunt homo deus Christ the Mediatour was like to God and man in respect that he was both God and man because the Mediatour must haue somewhat of both the extreames which are God and man did he meane thereby that Christ had a part of the Godhead and wanted a nother part or a part of the nature of man and not the whole If not how little doth M. Bishops head serue him to conceiue there a partition meant of the essence of God where there is only intended a distinction of two natures in one Christ Melancthons meaning is plaine that as Christ had somewhat whereby he was truly man so he had somwhat also wherby he was truly God euen the perfect nature and substance both of God and man As for his last cauill that we expound the texts of Scripture vsed by the Fathers against the Arians in the same sort as the Arians did because it nameth no man it deserueth no answer His maister Bellarmine from whose dunghill it is that he gathereth al his mucke accuseth Erasmus in that respect but I hope M. Bishop will not say that Erasmus was a Protestant Whatsoeuer he was or howsoeuer he faulted therein so little is he approoued or followed by the Protestants as that Beza in b See Beza Annotat. in Coloss 1.15 Philip. 2.6 1. Tim. 3.16 Tit. 2.13 sundry places professedly disputeth against him and rechargeth against the Arians those places from which he seemeth to discharge them 8. W. BISHOP But this shall appeare yet much more perspiciously if we doe well weigh what they teach touching the very nature of the God-head it selfe Whosoeuer denies God to be almighty or presumes to limite the infinite power of God within the compasse of mans weake vnderstanding he in effect makes him no God at all but some meane creature of a limitted strength and power such be all Protestants who affirme that God cannot set a body in the world without a circumscribed place Oecolamp de verbis Domini Beza in Neoph. simil cont And pag. 15. nor any one body in many places at once with such like the which because they cannot out of the dulnesse of their witte or will not of frowardnesse conceiue to be in nature possible they flatly denie God to be able to doe yea some of them were so blind * In a conference at Paris and bold as to auouch God not to be able to conceiue or vnderstand how that is possible which notwithstanding very naturall Philosophie teacheth to haue no repugnance in it selfe as in his place I haue prooued R. ABBOT How some things are affirmed vnpossible to God To say that there are
words diuers of the ancient fathers i Tertull. de carne Christi propè finem Origen in Luc. hom 14. Ambros in Luc. 2. lib. 2. Hierom. cont Pelag. l. 2. Tertullian Origen Ambrose Hierome hold to be most properly verified in the birth of Christ who opened the wombe that was not opened before whereas for all other the wombe is first opened by carnall copulation Heereupon Tertullian saith that k Tertul. vt supra Virgo non virgo virgo quantum à viro non virgo quantum à partu the virgin Mary was both a virgin and not a virgin a virgin as touching man not a virgin as touching child-bearing that is a virgin as free from hauing the wombe opened by man not a virgin as free from hauing the wombe opened by birth of childe So Saint Austin saith that l August de fide cont Manich. cap. 22. Maria non incongruè propter partum dicitur mulier virgo verò quòd virilem nescierit conuentionem neque pariendo virginitas eius corruptasit Christ as God our Mâ—diator yet the God head it selfe suffereth not shee may not vnfitly be called a woman in respect of her child-birth and a virgin for that she know not the company of man neither was her virginity corrupted by bearing child What will M. Bishop now say that all these were heretikes and did deny that the mother of Christ continued a virgin Let him say what he will but we will hold him for a sorry fellow that concludeth breach of virginity of that opening of the wombe As touching the fourth article that Luther affirmed the Godhead it selfe to suffer it is a lie These are but deuices of Gifford and Knogler and such other base hungry staruelings who to gaine fauour make collections and conclusions of their owne and then affirme them of our men That Christ according to his diuine nature also is our Mediatour euen whole Christ both God and man hath beene before iustified in answer to the seuenth section of his preface to the Reader But to inferre that therefore the Godhead it selfe suffereth is as good a reason as to say that because the man dieth therefore the soule is mortall But saith M. Bishop the chiefest act of Christs mediation consisteth in his death True and what then If then saith hee the Godhead of Christ doe not suffer that death it hath no part in the principall act of Christs mediation As if he should say the chiefest act of a faithfull and good subiect is to die for his Prince and country if then the soule it selfe doe not suffer that death it hath no part in the chiefest act of a faithfull and good subiect Would he take it patiently to heare another man to reason in this sort If he would not why doth he himselfe thus play the wiseman and mocke simple men that are not able to perceiue his fraude It is the man that dieth though he die not in the soule but in the body and it is Christ God and man that suffereth though he suffer not in the God head but in the manhood m Vigil cont Eutych lib. 2. Passus est deus in vnione personae non est passus in proprietate naturae siquidem possionis iniurias etiam diuinitas pertulit sed passionem sola etus caro persensit God suffered by vnion of person saith Vigilius but in propriety of nature he suffered not the Godhead did beare the iniuries of the passion but the flesh onely did feele the same Though the soule it selfe die not yet it is the soule that exposeth the body vnto death and though the Godhead suffered not yet it was the Godhead that yeelded the manhood to suffering and death n Heb. 9.14 offering himselfe without spot vnto God by his eternall spirit as the Apostle speaketh The rest of his quarrels being most impudent and shamelesse fictions are already handled in the thirteenth and fourteenth sections of the answer to the preface 9. W. BISHOP 5. Descended into hell the third day hee arose againe from the dead It is worth a mans labour to behold their goodly variety of expositions about Christs descending into hell Beza followed of Corliel our Country-man 2. Apolog. ad Sanct. thinkes this to haue crept into the Creed by negligence and so the French Hugonots and Flemish Gues haue cast it cleane out of their Creed but they are misliked of many others who had rather admit the words because they be found in Athanasius Creed and also in the old Roman Creed expounded by Ruffinus but they doe most peruersly expound them Caluin saith that Christs suffering of the paines of hell on the Crosse is signified by these words but he pleaseth not some others of them because Christs suffering and death also goeth before his descending into hell and the words must be taken orderly as they lie Thirdly diuers of them will haue it to signifie the laying of Christs body in the graue but that is signified plainely by the word buried Wherefore some others of them expound it to signifie the lying of his body in the graue three daies which M. PER. approueth as the best but it is as wide from the proper and literall signification of the words as can be For what likenesse is there betweene lying in the graue and descending into hell Besides Caluin their great Rabbin misliketh this exposition as much as any of the rest Lib. 2. Instit cap. 16. sess 8. and calleth it an Idle fancy Fourthly Luther Smideline and others cited by Beza art 2. doe say that Christs soule after his death went to hell where the Diuels are there to be punished for our sinnes thereby to purchase vs a fuller redemption which is so blasphemous that it needes not any refutation As ridiculous is another receiued of most Protestants that Christs soule went into Paradise which well vnderstood is true For his soule in hell had the ioyes of Paradise but to make that an exposition of Christs descending into hell is to expound a thing by the flat contrary of it All these and some other expositions also the Protestants haue deuised to leads their followers from the ancient and only true interpretation of it to wit that Christ in soule descended vnto those lower parts of the earth where all the soules departed from the beginning of the world were detained by the iust iudgement of God till Christ had paied their ransome and were not admitted into the kingdome of heauen before Christ had opened them the way thither R. ABBOT We hold Of Christs descending into hell that all the articles of our Creed are so to be vnderstood as that our faith may make vse thereof concerning our selues and not onely concerning others It is a very barren and cold construction which M. Bishop maketh of the descending of Christ into hell that his soule descended into the lowest parts of the earth to bring from thence the soules that were detained there by the
Thirdly we make no Images to expresse the nature of God which is a spirit and cannot be represented by lines and colours but onely allow of some such pictures as set out some apparitions of God recorded in the Bible not doubting but that such workes of God may aswell be expressed in colours to our eies as they are by words to our eares and vnderstanding Lastly touching religious worship to bee done to Saints or pictures Analogâ—n the Heretikes cauilling consisteth principally in the diuers taking of the word religious For it is ambiguous and principally signifieth the worship onely due to God in which sense to giue it to any creature were Idolatrie but it is also with the best authors taken some other time to signifie a worship due to creatures for some supernaturall vertue or quality in them and in this sense to tearme it detestable Idolatry is either detestable malice or damnable ignorance And whereas he saith that common reason teacheth that they who adore God in Images do binde God his hearing of vs to certaine things and places I say the contrarie that God may be worshipped in all places but we rather chuse to worship him in Churches and before Images than in other places because the sight of such holy things doe breed more reuerence and deuotion in vs and better keepe our mindes from wandring vpon vaine matters If we taught that God could bee worshipped no where els or by no other meanes then he had not lied so loudly R. ABBOT M. All Images generally forbidden to be worshipped Perkins concludeth indeed that the images of God are forbidden in the commandement but neither saith nor meaneth that only the Images of God are there forbidden and therefore hee vseth no euill conscience in vrging the commandement against the images of Saints but M. Bishop with euill conscience defendeth the images of Saints against the commandement And whereas hee saith that thogh God do forbid to worship images yet he doth not therfore forbid vs to worship God in or at Images hee doth but frame himselfe to the guise and woont of all the masters of idolatry it being the common pretence of them al as hath been a Of Images sect 5. before shewed that they doe not worship the Image it selfe which they know to be but mettall or wood or stone but that in the Image or at the Image they worship the diuine essence which they beleeue to bee immateriall and immortall Yea and by what reason M. Bishop heere defendeth the worshipping of God in or at Images for at God is euery where so may he be worshipped in all places and as well at or before an Image as in the Church or before the communion table by the same did Ieroboam perswade the Israelites to worship God at or before or in his golden Calues at Dan and Bethel b Ioseph Ant. Iudaic. l. 8. c. 3. See of Images sect 5. because no place is void of God neither is he included any where and therefore they might as wel worship him neerer hand before those calues as in the temple and before the sanctuary at Ierusalem But as Ieroboam committed damnable idolatrie in worshipping God before the Calues so doth M. Bishop also in worshipping God in or before an image commit idolatry against God who will not be mocked nor can abide to haue honour done to an idoll by pretence of his name His third exception that they make no Images to expresse the nature of God but onely to set foorth some apparitions of God recorded in the Bible how vaine it is hath beene also fully declared in c Of Images sect 4. 7. the handling of that question And very strange it is that M. Bishop should make those apparitions a colour for their idoll-images of God when God himselfe affirmeth that therefore hee did forbeare in the day when hee gaue the Law d Deu. 4.12.15 to appeere in any image or likenesse because he would not haue them to make any image of him Whereas he saith that such works of God may aswell be expressed in colours to our eies as they are by words to our eares and vnderstanding he should vnderstand that it is one thing to speake of the works of God another thing to speake of the person of God Wee question not the expressing of the workes of God but wee condemne the expressing of the person of God And if the expressing of those apparitions by words to our eares and vnderstanding be a reason why we may expresse the same by pictures to our eies then nothing hindereth but that the nature of God also may bee expressed by colours and pictures to our eies because the same is by words according to our capacitie expressed to our eares and vnderstanding But God hath commanded himselfe to be preached to the eare and vnderstanding he hath not commanded nay hee hath forbidden himselfe to be painted to the eie and therefore the one is lawfull and godly the other wicked and vnlawfull His distinction of religious worship is most ridiculous and absurd The verie name of religion as Austin and Lactantius do deriue it impotteth the e Aug. de vera relig ca. 55. Ad vnum deum tendentes eâ— vni religantes animas nostras vnde religio dicta creditur Lactant. Instit li. 4 cap. 28. Hoc vinculo pietatis obstricti deo religati sumus vnde ipsa religio nomen accepit obliging and tying of our soules to God onely and if to God onely then it cannot be truely called religion that is performed to any other Therefore Lactantius saith againe that f Lactan. Instit l. 1. c. 20. Religio ac veneratio nulla alia nisi vnius dei tenenda est there is no other religion to be holden but towards God onely So saith Austin that g Aug. cont 2. ep Pelag. lib. 3. c. 4. Debent obseruari Christiani vt vni deo religionis obsequio seruiatur Christians are with dutie of religion to serue God only and that h Idem cont Faust Manich. lib. 14. cap. 11. Apostolus creaturam laudat ei tamen cultum religionis exhiberi vetat the Apostle forbiddeth worship of religion to be giuen to any creature Hee telleth vs that l IdeÌ„ de eiu dei l. 5. c. 15. Pietas vera non exhibet seruitutem religionis quam latriam Graeci vocant nisi vni vero deo seruice of religion is that which the Greekes call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which true piety yeeldeth to God onely Therefore hee saith that k Idem de vera relig cap. 55. Non sit nobis religio cultus hominum mortuorum Honorandi sunt propter imitationem non adorandipropter religionem we are not to make a religion of the worship of dead men and that wee are to honour them for imitation not to worship them for religion Now all these so expresse and peremptorie resolutions M. Bishop at once