THE PREFACE TO THE READER, BY DOCTOR BISHOP.
GEntle Reader, I meane not here to entertaine thee with many words: the principall cause that moued me to write, was the honour and glorie of God, in defence of his sacred veritie, then the imploying of his talent bestowed vpon me: as well to fortifie the weaker sort of Catholiks in their faith, as to call backe and leade others (who wander vp and downe like to lost sheepe, after their owne fancies) into the right way.
I tooke in hand particularly the confutation of this booke, not only for that I was thereunto requested by a friend of good intelligence and iudgement, who thought it very expediēt: but also because perusing of it, I found it penned more schollerlike then the Protestants vse to do ordinarily: For first the points in controuersy are set down distinctly, and for the most part truly. Afterward in confirmation of their opinion, the chiefe arguments are produced from both Scriptures, Fathers and reason: Which are not vulgar, but culled out of their Rabbins, Luther, Peter Martyr, Caluin, Kemnitius, and such like, though he name them not. Lastly, he placeth some obiections, made in fauour of the Catholike doctrine, and answereth to them as well as he could. And (which I speake to his commendation) doth performe all this very briefly and clearly. So that (to speake my opinion freely) I haue not seene any booke of like quantitie, published by a Protestant, to contain either more matter, or deliuered in better method. And consequently more apt to deceiue the simple: especially considering, that he withal counterfeiteth to come as neare vnto the Romane Church as his tender conscience will permit him, whereas indeed he walketh as wide from it as any other noueller of this age.
Wherefore I esteemed my spare time best imployed about the discouering [Page 2] of it, being (as it were) an abridgement of the principall controuersies of these times, and do endeuour after the same Scholasticall manner, without all superfluitie of words, no losse to maintaine and defend the Catholike partie, then to confute all such reasons as are by M. Perkins alledged for the contrary.
Reade this short treatise (good Christian) diligently, for thou shalt find in it the marrow and pith of many large volumes, contracted and drawne into a narrow roome. And reade it ouer as it becometh a good Christian, with a desire to find out, and to follow the truth, because it concerneth thy eternall saluation: and then iudge without partialitie, whether Religion hath better grounds in Gods word more euident testimony from the purest antiquitie, and is more conformable vnto all godlinesse, good life, and vpright dealing (the infallible marks of the best Religion) and spedily embrace that. Before I end this short preface, I must intreate thy patience to beare with the faults in printing, which are too too many, but not so much to be blamed if it be courteously considered, that it was printed farre from the Author with a Dutch composer, and ouer seene by an vnskilfull Corrector, the greatest of them shall be amended in the end of the booke.
Before the printing of this part was finished, I heard that M. Perkins was dead. I am sorte that it commeth forth too late to do him any good. Yet his worke liuing to poyson others, a preseruatiue against it, is neuer the lesse necessary.
R. ABBOT.
IF you had respected the glorie of God, M. Bishop, it should haue appeared by your respect to yeeld soueraigne honour and authoritie to the word of God. God is in heauen, and we are vpon the earth: we haue no knowledge of him, no acquaintance or dealing with him but by his word. Therein we seeke him, and find him; therein he speaketh vnto vs, and thereout we learne to speake to him. If we haue the word of God, God is present with vs; if we be without the word of God, God himselfe is absent from vs. Therefore by our honour and obedience to the word of God, it must appeare, that we truly and sincerely intend and seeke for the glorie of God. Hereby it appeareth that you, M. Bishop, in this your booke, haue not fought for the glorie of God, but rather to glorifieExtrauag. Ioan. 12. Cū inter. in glossa Credere dominum Deum nostrum Papam sic non potuisse statuere, &c. haereticum censeretur. your Lord God the Pope, as your Glosse of the Canon law most blasphemously [Page 3] hath stiled him. You haue in this worke of yours vsed all maner of vntruth and falshood, to vphold and iustifie his wicked proceedings against the word of God. Whatsoeuer God hath taught vs, whatsoeuer Christ and his Apostles haue deliuered, all is nothing if your Lord God the Pope, and your master Bellarmine his proctor generall, do say the contrary. Howsoeuer simply and plainly they speake, yet they meane not as they speake, if the Pope and Bellarmine will tell you another meaning. As for your talent, we take it to be greater in your owne opinion and the opinion of your fellowes, then it is indeed. But whatsoeuer it is, you haue abused it to the wrong of him that gaue it, not to edification, but to destruction, not to fortifie any in the faith, but to nourish and harden them that depend vpon you, in error and misbeleefe; not to leade any into the right way, but to intice men toProu. 2.15. crooked wayes and leud paths, whichCh. 7.27. go downe to the chambers of death, and the end whereof is confusion and shame; not to withdraw men from fancies, but to draw them to other fancies, from fancies in conuersation, to fancies in religion; that so being fed wholy with fancies, they may perish in the end for want of true food. And indeed men that wander in fancies, are the subiect for your malice and trechery to work vpon. Many that liue in the oportunitie of the knowledge of Christ, yet neglect and despise the same. The light shineth into their eyes, and they regard it not: God offereth himselfe vnto them, and they say in their hearts, We haue no delight nor pleasure in thee. Therefore being emptie and voide of truth, they lie open to be filled with error and lies; and hauing vnthankfully withholden themselues from God, God by iust iudgement giueth them ouer to the hands of impostors and deceiuers, that it may be verified which the Apostle saith,2. Thess. 2.1 [...] Because they receiued not the loue of the truth that they might be saued, therefore God shall send them strong delusion that they may beleeue lies, that they may be damned which beleeued not the truth, but tooke pleasure in vnrighteousnesse.
Your friend of good intelligence and iudgement, that thought it very expedient that you should take in hand the confutation of M. Perkins booke, spake thereof haply as Caiphas did of the death of Christ, meaning it one way which was to fall out another way. I doubt not but it will fall out to haue bene very expedient which you haue done, because you giue hereby occasion of discouering your [Page 4] false doctrine, and of iustifying the truth of Christ, which M. Perkins was carefull to maintaine. I doubt not but many by this occasion will take knowledge of your corrupt and trecherous dealing, your patching and shifting, your cosening and deluding of men, and will discerne the weaknesse and absurdity of that bad cause, which with glorious and goodly words you labour so highly to aduance.
As for your commendation of M. Perkins booke, it is but the imitation of some vaine-glorious captains, who to grace their owne victories, do set out to the vttermost the aduersaries power and prowesse, thinking their glory to be the greater, by how much the greater men shall conceiue the might and valour of them to haue bene whom they haue ouercome. You dreamed of a victorie here, and you thought it to be much for your commendation, that your aduersary should be deemed of as great strength as any is to be found amongst vs. But we would haue you to vnderstand, that the Church of England neuer tooke M. Perkins booke to be a warriour in complete harnesse, or a chalenger for the field, but onely as a captaine training his souldiers at home, where he wanteth much of that munition and defence wherewith he should endure the brunt of battell. He wrote it very schollerlike indeed, for an introduction onely to the true vnderstanding and iudgement of the controuersies betwixt vs and you, but knew well, that it wanted much that might haue bene added, to giue it ful and perfect strength. You haue taken hereof some aduantage, as you conceiue, and yet how pitifully are you distressed many times both to vphold that which he obiecteth for you, and to answer that which he alledgeth for vs. Now if for the compiling of his booke he bestirred himselfe as the Bee, going into other mens gardens for the gathering of hony into his hiue, yet he made no Rabbines of them, to take any thing for hony, because it grew in the garden of such or such a man, but vsed carefull and aduised consideration of that which he wrote, esteeming the weight of his arguments and of his answers, that he might faithfully performe what he did vndertake. But far otherwise haue you dealt, M. Bishop, in your marrow and pith as you cal it of many large volumes contracted and drawne into a narrow roome. You haue made Bellarmine specially your Rabbine, your magister noster; you take all vpon his, word; if he say it, you will sweare it: if he haue once written it, you will write it againe without any further examination whether [Page 5] it be true or false. We are beholding to you for translating so much of him into English for their sakes that do not vnderstand the Latine tongue. But Bellarmine mocketh and abuseth you M. Bishop, as he doth euery one that giueth him any trust. He was a man of corrupt and euill conscience, wholy prostituted to Antichrist, and sold to his deceits, by which means he maketh you to ly many times when you do not thinke ye lie. For which cause I would aduise you, when you will write any more bookes out of Bellarmine, to make due triall of that which he saith. It may haply doe you good, to make you detest his fraud and falshood, and to hate that profession which cannot be vpholden but by such meanes. There is cause you should so do, who from many large volumes can gather no better marrow, no sounder pith, then that which you haue sent vs for the marrow and pith of many large volumes. Your marrow is but dust, your pith is but rottennesse: there is nothing in your booke fit to satisfie the conscience of a man desirous to be instructed in the truth. It will I hope sufficiently appeare, that you haue neither grounds from the word of God, nor any approued testimonie of antiquitie, to warrant any man to embrace that which you maintaine. He that readeth your booke as it becometh a good Christian to do, and conferreth it with M. Perkins booke and our defence thereof, to iudge without partialitie, I presume he will take you for a leud and naughtie man, impudent and vnshamefast, regarding onely to vphold a side, without any entire regard to learne or to teach the truth. In your postscript you tell vs that you are sorie M. Perkins being dead, that your booke commeth forth too late to do him any good. Whereby we conceiue, that you haue a good opinion of it, but we must tell you as touching doing him good in your sence, he was not a man so weake as to be moued with such a toy. Indeed if he had liued, we need not doubt but it would haue done him much good, and bene great ioy to him, to see that in the marrow and pith of many large volumes there should be so little matter of moment to be said against that which he had written, so little and so bad, as that we hope that your preseruatiue will become your owne poison, and the bane of that which you thought to strengthen thereby.
M. BISHOPS ANSWER TO MAISTER PERKINS HIS EPISTLE DEDICATORY.
MAster Perkins in his Epistle Dedicatory saith, It is a policie of the diuel, to think that our religion & the religion of the present church of Rome, are all one in substance, or that they may be vnited. Before I am to deliuer my opinion concerning this point, I had need to be informed what this Author meaneth by these words our Religion: For there being great diuersities of pretended Religions currant in the world, all contrary to the Church of Rome, how can I certainly know whether of them he professeth? Wherefore (good sir) may it please you to declare what religion you vnderstand when you say our Religion? Is it that which Martin Luther (a licentious Frier) first preached in Germanie? or rather that which the martiall minister Zuinglius contended with sword and shield to set vp in Zwitzerland? or perhaps that which Iohn Caluin by sedition wrought into Geneua, expelling the lawful magistrate thence, and by the ayde of Beza (a dissolute turnecoate) spread into many corners of France? Or if by your Religion you meane onely to comprehend the Religion now practised in England, yet are you farther to shew, whether you vnderstand that established by the State, or the other more refined (as it is thought by many) and embraced by them who are called Puritans, for of their leauen sauoureth that position of yours, That the article of Christs descent into hel crept into the Creed by negligence, and some other such like in this booke. These principall diuisions of the new Gospell (to omit sundry subdiuisions) being famous, and receiued of diuers in England according to each mans fantasie, it is meet you expresse whether of them you speake of, that it may be duly considered how the Romane Religion and it agree, and what vnion may be made betweene them. Now if you meane the hotchpotch and confusion of all these new Religions together, as by the opposition here vnto the Church of Rome, and by the articles following may be gathered, then I am cleare for you in this, that there can be no more concord between these two Religions, then there is between light and darknes faith and infidelitie, Christ and Belial. Notwithstanding I thinke that the reason by you produced to proue the impossibilitie of this [...] is of no value, to wit, that they of [Page 7] the Romane church haue razed the foundation, for though in words they honor Christ, yet in deed they turne him into a PseudoChrist, and an Idoll of their owne braine. A very sufficient cause (no doubt) of eternall breach and diuision, if it could be verified. But how proue you, that we Romane Catholikes, who beleeue Iesus Christ to be perfect God and perfect man, and the onely Redeemer of mankind, make him a false Christ and an idol? or before you go about to proue it, tel me (I pray you) how this can wel stand with your owne definition of a reformed Catholike in your Preface? There you affirme him to be a Catholike reformed to your liking, that holdeth the same necessary heads of Religion with the Romane Church. Now can there be any more necessary head of Religion, then to haue a right faith in Christ? can any other foundation be layd besides Iesus Christ? 1. Cor. 3. If then your reformed Catholike must agree with the Romane Church in necessarie heads of Religion, as you hold he must: either the Romane Church razeth not the foundation, and maketh not Christ a PseudoChrist, as you say here, or else you teach your disciples very perniciously, to hold the same necessary heads of Religion with it. But to leaue you to the reconciliation of these places, let vs examine briefly how you confirme your paradox, that the Church of Rome maketh Christ a false Christ, which you go about to proue by foure instances: The first is, because the seruant of his seruants may change and adde to his commaundements, hauing so great power that he may open and shut heauen to whom he list, and bind the very conscience with his owne lawes, and consequently be partaker of the spirituall kingdome of Christ. Here are diuers reasons hudled vp in one, but all of little moment: for all these eueral faculties which the Pope enioyeth, being receiued by the free gift of Christ, and to be employed in his seruice onely, and to his honour and glorie, are so farre off from making Christ a PseudoChrist, that they do highly recommend his most singular bountie towards his followers, without any derogation to his owne diuine prerogatiues. The particulars shall be more particularly answered in their places hereafter. Now I say in a word, that Christs Vicar cannot change any one of Gods commandements, nor adde any contrary vnto them, but may well enact and establish some other conformable vnto them, which do bind the conscience: for that power is granted of God to euery soueraigne gouernor, as witnesseth S. Paul, saying, Let euery soule be subiect to higher powers,Rom. 13. And that (as it is in the fift verse following) of necessitie, not onely for wrath, but also for conscience sake. So that to attribute power vnto one that is vnder [Page 8] Christ, to bind our consciences, is not to make Christ a PseudoChrist, but to glorifie him, much acknowledging the power which it hath pleased him to giue vnto men. In like maner, what an absurd illation is that, from the power to open and shut heauen gates (which all, both Catholikes and Protestants confesse to haue bin giuen to S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles) to inferre, that Christ is made a PseudoChrist, as who should say, the master spoiled himself of his supreame authority, by appointing a steward ouer his houshold, or a porter at his gates: he must be both master and man to, belike. And thus much of the first instance.
R. ABBOT.
We may well thinke that M. Bishop did not well enioy his wits, that would write a booke, and not know what it is whereof he writeth. He hath written a whole booke, such a one as it is, purposely against our religion, and yet will seeme here in the beginning not to know what our religion is. But he knoweth it well enough, and although by an apish limitation of the foolery of some of his companions, he would make it seeme of many fashions and sorts, by diuersity of names, and by termes of diuisions and subdiuisions, yet he seeth and they all see, and by the harmony of confessions of al the reformed churches it appeares to their exceeding great griefe, that there is amongst them as great vniformitie and consent of religion, as euer was to be found in their confederacie and banding of themselues against religion. Yea there are many more material differences to be found amongst them, then can be reckoned amongst vs. He that would follow M. Bishops veine, might demaund of him, what they meane by the religion of the Church of Rome, whether it be the religion of Pope Iohn the 23. who publikely maintained thatConst [...]tiens. Concil sess 11. Per [...]n [...]cu [...] dixit, asseruit, dogmati zauit & adstruxit vitam aeternam non esse, neque aliam post hanc, &c. there is no eternall life, no resurrection, and that the soule of man perisheth with his body, as doth the soule of the bruite beast: or whether it be the religion of PopeBale de Act. Rom. Pontif. in Leo 10. Quantū nobis ac coetui nostro profuit ista fabula de Iesu Christo. Leo the tenth, that held all the faith of Christ to be but a fable. Whether it be the religion of the Councell ofSess 4. Generali concilio quilibet cuiuscunq, status vel dignitatis, etiamsi Papalis fuerit, [...] tenetur. Constance, maintaining the Councell to be aboue the Pope: or the religion of the Councell of Basill, decreeing the Pope to be aboue the Councell. Whether it be the religion of themErasus. epist. ad oper. Hilar [...] Asseueraus virginem matrē immunem à peccato originis apud Dominicales haereticus est, apud Scoustas oribotanus. that hold the virgin Marie to haue bene conceiued without originall sinne, or of them that hold her to haue bene conceiued in sinne. Whether [Page 9] it be the religion of Thomas Aquinas, that holdethThom. Aquin; p. 3. q. 80. art. 3. ad 3 that a dogge or a swine eating the Sacrament doth eate the very bodie of Christ: or the religion of theSent 4. dist. 13. Maister of the sentences, who cannot tell what the dogge eateth: or the religion of them that say, asVt supra. Aquinas reporteth, that so soone as the dogge or the mouse toucheth the Sacrament, straightwayes the bodie of Christ is taken vp into heauen. Whether it be the religion ofPigh. de peccato originali. Catharin. de lapsu hominis, &c. cap. 6. Pighius and Catharinus, who hold originall sinne to be a meere priuation: or the religion of Dominicus a Soto, who holdeth it as his fellowes do, to be a positiue corruption. Whether it be the religion of theColon. in Antididag. Diuines of Colein, who withPigh. de fide & instif. Pighius hold, that we are iustified by the imputed righteousnesse of Christ as the Protestants, or of the rest that hold that we are iustified by a formall inherent righteousnesse of our owne. Whether it be the religion ofOsor. de Iust. lib 9. Osorius, condemning the doctrine of S. Austine concerning predestination: or the religion ofBaron. Annal. lib. 6. Caesar Baronius, who acknowledgeth the same to be true. Whether it be the religion ofAlfons. aduer. haeres. lib. 1 cap. 4 & 8. Alfonsus de Castro, affirming that the Pope may erre: or the religion of them that affirme he cannot erre. Whether it be the religion of the Iesuits, maintainingDeclarat. saecerd ad Clement. 8. pag. 29. that a man who is no Christian may be Pope, and that stewes are as lawfull at Rome as the Pope himselfe: or the religion of the Seculars, that condemne these for wicked and false positions. Whether it be the religion ofDureus contra Whitaker. lib. 1. Dureus the Iesuite, defending that the Church may make a booke canonicall Scripture, which from the beginning was not so: or the religion ofAndrad. defens. fidei Trident lib. 3. Andradius, affirming that the Church hath no such authoritie. I might leade him along through Bellarmines controuersies, and shew how he alledgeth two, three, foure, and sometimes more opinions amongst them of sundry points of their religion, and in euery of them I might question, whether or which we shall take to be the religion of the Church of Rome? Now if he will answer, that men may haue priuate opinions and followers therein, which yet may not be vrged as preiudiciall to the currant and commonly receiued doctrine of the Church, in which sort theirAlfons. de Caestro aduersus haer. lib. 1. cap. 7. Thomists, and Scotists, and Occamists haue bene deuided one from another in the bosome of their Church, then let that little discretion that he hath serue him against another time to vnderstand, that it is no preiudice to our religion, that there is in some matters some diuersitie of opinions amongst vs, or that some men be exorbitant from that which is commonly [Page 10] amongst vs approued for the truth. There is an vniuersalitie of doctrine with them, for which men are esteemed of their religion, in the particulars whereof notwithstanding there are many differences for which they will not be thought to be one of one religion and another of another. What infinite varietie of obseruation and discipline is there found amongst their Friers and Monkes, and yet they take them to be all of one religion? There was of old a great dissention betwixtEuseb. hist. lib. 5. cap. 22.23. Polycrates the Metropolitan of the Asian Churches, and Victor Bishop of Rome, concerning the obseruation of the feast of Easter; betwixtCyprian. ad Pomptium. cont. epist. Stephani et Concil. Carthag. apud Cyprian. Cyprian and Stephanus Bishop of Rome, with their Churches on each part, about the rebaptizing of them that were baptized by heretikes; betwixtSocrat hist. lib. 6. cap. 13. Chrysostome and Epiphanius first, and after betwixtHieron▪ aduer. Ruffin. Hierome and Ruffinus, concerning the condemning of the works of Origen, betwixtSocrat. lib. 7 cap 19. Chrysostome and many other Bishops, concerning the often restitution of penitents to the communion of the Church; betwixtAugust. epist. 18 Hierome and Austine, concerning Peters dissimulation, and yet were they neuer taken to be of diuers religions vntill this day. And what? are we then in worse case then all these, that because there is some variance betwixt some of vs in some points of doctrine, or betwixt some others in matters of ceremony and circumstance concerning the discipline of the Church, therefore we must be sorted into so many Religions as M. Bishops idle head can deuise differences amongst vs? This is to be contemned, as a peeuish and impertinent cauil of contentious and wrangling Sophisters, bewraying more malice then learning or wit, making shew to the vnlearned of obiecting somewhat against vs, when their obiection maketh more against themselues then it doth against vs. Now then if M. Perkins either concerning Christs descending into hell, or some other like matters subiect to varietie of opinion, were otherwise minded then standeth with truth or the common iudgement of our Church, we do not therefore account him a man of other religion, but a maintainer of our religion, and we will say of him as Austine said of Cyprian, August. Therefore did he not see somewhat, that by him a greater matter might be seen, namely that in difference of iudgement we are not to be contentious, but labour with all our might to preserue the publike peace and vnitie of the Church, and with modestie and loue to carie our selues towards them that in opinion dissent from vs. A notable example [Page 11] whereof we see in M. Caluine, who when Luther vpon some matter of question, behaued himselfe somewhat intemperately against him and some others alike minded as he was, was wont to say,Caluin. epi. 57. Though he should call me diuell, yet will I do him his honour, to acknowledge him an excellent seruant of God. As for the imputations which here M. Bishop layeth vpon him and the rest whom he nameth, we account them but as the barking of a curre dogge against a Lion; they are stale and threedbare cauils, and too well knowne to cause them that reproch that he desireth. If Luther were licentious for marrying a wife, what were their Popes and Cardinals, their Bishops, and Priests, and Monks, for keeping other mens wiues, and retaining concubines and harlots of their owne? If Zuinglius went armed into the field to giue encouragement to his countrymen for their iust and necessary defence, is he thereupon to be taxed for a martial minister, more then Iulius the second for a martial Pope, who himselfe went in person against the French, and going ouer the bridge of Tiber, cast his crosse keyes into the riuer, and tooke his sword in his hand, saying,Bale. in Iul. 23 Seeing Peters keyes will do no good we will try whether Pauls sword wil serue the turne; or then Philip the French Bishop in the time king Richard the first, for a martiall Bishop, who bare armes against king Richard, and was taken in battell, in whose behalfe when the Pope wrote to the King, requesting fauour for his sonne, the King sent to him the Bishops armour with this message,Matth. Paris. in Richard. 1. Ʋide an tunica filij tui sit an non, See whether this be thy sonnes coate or not? Nay it is no rare matter to find examples of martiall Popes and martiall Cardinals and Bishops in the Church of Rome, and therfore we need say no more to M. Bishop as touching this cauill, but onely to bid him looke at home. As for that which he saith of Caluins expelling of the lawfull magistrate out of Geneua, it is a very malicious and false tale, it being very euident, that the Bishop of Geneua whom he meaneth, with his cleargie, perceiuing the people to be minded for the abolishing of Popish superstition and receiuing of the Gospell, voluntarily fled from thence before Caluins comming to that place. Last of all, he calleth Beza a dissolute turnecoate: but if a man should ask his wisedome, why he doth so, he cannot tell. All the matter of this dissolutenes is, that being vnder twentie yeares old, or a litle aboue, he wrote a booke of Epigrammes, in which by imitation of Catullus and Ouid, he expressed some things [Page 12] more licentiously and wantonly then was fit. The writing thereof he afterwards when God had called him to the knowledge of his truthBeza Confes. Epist. Dedicat. repented much, and when he was requested that the same might be reprinted, denied it vtterly, and wished the remembrance thereof to be wholy buried. In his conuersation otherwise he was neuer to be touched with any blemish of that lightnesse, which in those poeticall exercises he made shew of. And is not this a great matter, that these men obiect so often to his disgrace? Surely if the liues of sundry of the auncient Fathers were looked into with such eyes, before they were come to Christ, there would be found worse matters to vpbraid them with, euen by their owne confession, then this is. S. Austine when the Donatists dealt with him, as M. Bishop and his fellowes do with Beza, gaue answer to them thus:August. const. lit. Petil lib. 3. cap. 10. Quantum cunque ille accus [...]t vinum meum, tantum ego laude medicum meum. Looke how much they blame my fault, so much do I commend and prayse my Phisition. To which effect, I haue heard that Beza himselfe answered one as touching that columniation: Hic homo inuidet mihi gratiam Christi, This man enuieth me the grace of Christ. Surely, that should haue bene no fault, though it had bene much greater, if he had continued one of them. But what would they haue said, if Beza had done asBale. Act. Rom Pontif. in Iulio 3. Ioannes à Casa their Archbishop of Beneuentum did, who wrote an Italian Poeme in commendation of Sodomie, and printed it at Venice, professing himself to be delighted with that horrible filthinsse, and that he knew no venerie but that: or asJbid. in Sixt. 4 ex Orat. Heur. Agipp ad Loua. Pope Sixtus the fourth, who built a Stewes at Rome for the exercise of that vnnaturall and monstrous lust? How many such filthy dogges are there found amongst the Romaine Sages, who yet with them must go for sacred and holy Fathers, whilest Beza for a few verses written when he was yet but a boy, must be subiect to their reprochfull malice all his life, yea and after his death also. But the thing that troubleth M. Bishop indeed is, that Beza became a turncoate, for that he cast off the liuerie of Antichrist, the badge & cognisance of the man of sinne, and betooke himselfe to the profession and seruice of Iesus Christ. Well and happie were it for him, if he had turned his coate in the like sort, if he had put on the garment of Christ crucified; which though it might seeme base in the eyes of the proud harlot of Rome, yet should make him glorious in the eyes of God, and yeeld him acceptation before him. Now the Articles of our religion set downe by M. Perkins, he calleth the [Page 13] hotchpotch of all those new religions, because he well knoweth, that we on all sides agree in the maintenance of these Articles, and therfore are indeed but one religion. Whereby the Reader may easily conceiue, how idle his obiection is of diuisions and subdiuisions. But of this hotchpotch he hath tasted, and by this time it hath made his stomach very sicke, and I beleeue will cast him into a disease, from which he will neuer be able to recouer againe.
Of the religion in these articles expressed, he confesseth, that it can admit no reconcilement with the Church of Rome, but he liketh not the reason which M. Perkins alledgeth of the impossibilitie of this vnion. His reason is, because they of the Romaine Church haue razed the foundation, and though in words they honour Christ, yet indeed do turne him into a PseudoChrist and an Idol of their own braine. Against this reason M. Bishop alledgeth the explication that M. Perkins maketh of his Reformed Catholike, to be any one that holds the same necessarie heads of Religion with the Romane Church; wherto is added by M. Perkins which M. Bishop omitteth: Yet so, as he pares off and reiects all errors in doctrine, whereby the same religion is corrupted. Hereupon M. Bishop asketh, Can there be a more necessarie head of religion, then to haue a right faith in Christ? which is very clerkely and well applied, and sheweth him to be a man of deepe insight into dark points. Surely to haue a right faith in Christ would not be vnderstood for a head of religion, but for the whole effect (in a manner) and substance of it. M. Perkins by necessary heads of religion vnderstandeth those generalities and principles whereof there is no question betwixt the Church of Rome and vs, which for the points that he handleth, he hath set downe vnder the name of our consents in the beginning of euery question. These he will haue his Reformed Catholike still to hold with them, but to detest the absurdities and errors, which they teach in the deduction and application of these generalities. Therefore he doth not say as touching those principles, that they raze the foundation; but the razing of the foundation consisteth in the indirect vse and applying thereof. There is a generalitie doctrine to which Heretikes accord, and vnder the cloud whereof many times they couer their heresies, euen as the Pelagian Heretikes hid the poison of their heresie vnder the acknowledgement of the grace and helpe of God, but be wrayed the same notably when they were vrged to [Page 14] specifie what they meant by the same grace. So doth the Church of Rome acknowledge the incarnation of Christ, his passion, death and resurrection, his ascension, and intercession at the right hand of God, but in assigning the vse and effect of all these things and the rest, they make Christ in a manner no Christ at all. M. Bishop therefore might easily haue seene, but that he was willing to shew either his ignorance in not vnderstanding, or his learning in cauilling, that M. Perkins might well say without any contradiction, that the Church of Rome had razed the foundation, and yet wish his Reformed Catholike still to hold those necessarie heads of religion, which still remaine in the acknowledgement and profession of the Church of Rome. Now M. Perkins g ueth foure instances of their iustling of Christ out of his place. The first standeth in the Popes vsurping of the spirituall kingdome of Christ, by changing his commandements and adding to them: by taking vpon him to open and shut heauen to whom he will; by binding mens consciences with his decrees. But M. Bishop telleth vs, that Christs giuing of these faculties to the Pope, doth most highly recommend his singular bountie towards his followers, and is no derogation to himselfe. Which he telleth vs vpon his owne word; but as for me I haue read ouer the new Testament diuers times, and yet could I neuer light vpon any place where Christ hath made any mention of the Pope, or of any faculties that he would bestow vpon him. We reade of Antichrist the man of sinne, that2. Thess. 2.4. he should sit in the temple of God, and take vpon him to commaund as God; but we find not that Christ did euer appoint any man to execute any such place. Out of doubt Christ would somewhere or other haue spoken of it, if he had intended any such course. But M. Bishop taketh it to be a great glorie to Christ, to haue a Vicar here vpon earth with a triple Crowne, clothed like Diues in purple and fine linnen, and faring deliciously euery day: bespangled with gold, and besparkled with Iewels, and caried about like an Idoll vpon the shoulders of men, hauing Emperours, and Kings, and Princes to attend him, to hold his stirrop, to powre him water, to kisse his foot, and all at his deuotion, either to set them vp, or to pull them downe; yea hauing power ouer heauen, and earth, and Purgatorie, (the onely spite is, that he hath no power to keepe himselfe from hell) and that he should make lawes, and giue dispensations against Gods lawes, and [Page 15] like a Lord of misrule, turne all things vpside downe. O what a goodly matter had it bene, that Christ should haue made all his seruants like Popes here in the world, and all other people vassals and tributaries vnto them? what a golden world would that haue bene, 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 thē, 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 [Page 16] 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,Bodin de republ lib 1. cap 8. Qui a pont [...]si e maxime diuinis legibus salutus sic huis apud deū 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, thatDecret. 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 Ibid. in glossa. Papa [...]dispe sas contra Apostolū, & contra Canones Ap stoli. & contra vetus Testamentum. he can dispense against the Apostle, against the Canons of the Apostle, and against the old Testament; that25. 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: 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 them15.7.6 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 theIam. 4.12. one Lawgiuer, Ephes. 4.5. one Lord, 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,Rom. 13.1.5. Let euery soule [Page 17] 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, either1. 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; 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 Lawgiuer, 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 for2. Thes. 2.4. sitting as God in the [Page 18] 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, thatLuther 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,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 [Page 19] 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 by faith only: In which sence the Apostle S. Tim. 4. Paul sayth to his deare Disciple Timothie. For this doing thou shalt saue both thy selfe, and them that heare thee. And this, doth no more diminish the glorie of our Soueraigne Sauiours infinit merits, then to say that we are saued by faith only: good works no lesse depending, if not more aduancing Christs merits, then only faith, as shall be proued hereafter more as large in the question of merits. Now that other good mens merits may stood them, who want some of their owne, may be deduced out of an hundred places of the Scriptures, namely out of those where God saith, That for the sake of one of his true seruants, he will shew mercy to thousands, as is expresly said in the end of the first Commandement.
In like manner I answer vnto your third instance, that for Christ to haue taken away by his blessed Passion the eternall paine due vnto our sinnes, and to haue left a temporall to be satisfied by vs, is not to make himselfe a false Christ, but a most louing, kind, and withall a most prudent Redeemer, Wiping away that by himselfe, which passed our forces, and reseruing that to vs, which by the helpe of his grace, we will may and ought to do: not onely because it were vnseemely, that the parts of the body, should be disproportionalle to the head: but also because it is reasonable (as the Apostle holdeth,) Rom. 2. that we s ffer here with Christ before we raigne with him in his kingdome. In your last instance you say, that we make Christ our mediator of intercession to God, thinking out of your simplicitie, that therein we much magnifie him, and sing Osanna vnto him. Whereas we hold it for no [...] [...]agement vnto his diuine dignitie, to make him our Int rcessor [...] to pray him to pray for vs, who is of himselfe, right able to helpe in all we can demaund; [Page 21] being as well God, as Man. And albeit one in thought singling out the humanitie of Christ from his diuine nature and person, might make it an intercessor for vs; Yet that being but a Metaphisicall conceipt, to separate the nature from the person; since the Arian heresie (which held Christ to be inferior to his Father) it hath not bene practised by Catholikes, who alwayes pray our Sauiour Christ to haue mercy vpon vs, neuer to pray for vs. And consequently make him no mediator of intercession, but of redemption.
R. ABBOT.
The second instance giuen by M. Perkins, to proue that the Church of Rome maketh Christ but euen as an Idol, giuing him a name without the substance and effect thereof, is this, that they call him a Sauiour, and yet make him a Sauiour onely in vs and by vs, not in himselfe or immediatly by himselfe. For this is all that they attribute vnto him, that he putteth vs in case and state, to saue our selues, and to become our owne Sauiours. The meaning of the instance being plaine, M. Bishops question is very idle, In whom he should be a Sauiour if not in vs. He should be a Sauiour in himselfe, and by that that he doth himselfe, and not in vs, or by that that we do for our selues. But to the matter, he telleth vs, that it is a phrase vnheard of among Catholikes, that any man is his owne sauiour. Which we confesse as touching the phrase and word, but yet by their doctrine they do in truth make a man his owne Sauiour. If they should so say in words, they well know that all Christian eares would abhorre them, and many that now admire them, would spit in their faces, and account them accursed and damnable hypocrites, who vnder pretence of doing honour vnto Christ, do rob him of his honour, and bereaue him of the truth of that name wherein the Soueraigntie of his glory doth consist: therefore they forbeare the words, though that which they teach is the same in effect as if they sayd so. It is commonly knowne, that the effect is alwayes attributed to that which is the immediate and neerest efficient cause. We say in Philosophie, Sol & homo generant hominem, The sunne and a man do beget a man, because by the vegetation and influence of the Sunne and heauenly powers, it is deemed that a man hath power to beget a man. Yet we know that the Sunne or the heauen is not called the father of the child, but onely the [Page 22] man by whom the child is begotten. So is it therefore in the matter that we haue here in hand. M. Bishop saith, that GodOf merits. sect. 1. freely bestoweth his grace vpon vs in Baptisme, but all that arriue to the yeares of discretion must by the good vse of the same grace either merit life, or for want of such fruit of it, fall into the miserable state of death. God then giueth vs whereof to doe it, but we our selues of that which God giueth must effect and deserue our owne saluation. Therefore M. Bishop againe compareth the grace of God to aIbid. sect. 3. Farme, which the father bestoweth vpon his sonne, who of the commodities that arise of the good vsage thereof, groweth to be able to make a further purchase at his fathers hands, euen of any thing that his father will set to sale. In which case the father cannot be said to be the purchaser, or to make the purchase for the sonne, but the sonne is the purchaser for himselfe, though by that which his father gaue him, through the well ordering of it, he became able to make the purchase. Seeing then that Christ doth onely giue vs that whereof we our selues are to raise merits to deserue and purchase saluation, as they teach, it must needes follow by their doctrine, that Christ is made the more remote and antecedent cause, but we our selues are properly and immediatly the true causes of our owne saluation. Howsoeuer therefore they vse not the phrase, yet they teach the thing it selfe, that Christ is not our Sauiour properly, but we our selues by the good vsage of his gifts, are the Sauiours of our selues. Which absurditie M. Bishop saw, that standing to their owne grounds, he could by no meanes auoide, and therefore is content with Pighius (as it seemeth) for a present shift, to retire into our harbour; albeit I verily thinke, he vnderstandeth not himselfe, nor can tell, what meaning to make or that he saith. The thing that followeth of the assertion of meritorious works, he saith, is this, that by good workes we apply vnto vs the saluation which is in Christ Iesus, as (saith he) the Protestants auouch they do by faith onely. But he should here haue told vs, how his meaning is, that this saluation is in Christ. For if he meane, (as commonly he doth) that it is in Christ, because God for Christs sake giueth vs grace whereby to merit and deserue our saluation, then he dallieth altogether, and mocketh his Reader, as if he should say, It followeth not of the position of meritorious workes, that we are our owne sauiours, but that we apply vnto our selues by good workes, that whereby we [Page 23] are made our owne sauiors. But if he meane, as the Protestants do, when they auouch, that by faith onely we apply vnto our selues the saluation which is in Christ Iesus, that is, that this saluation is entirely in the merits of Christ, deseruing and purchasing the same for vs, and that meerely and immediatly for Christs sake God bestoweth the same vpon vs; that we do but onely stretch foorth the hand (and that by his gift also) to receiue that which freely and of his meere mercy he giueth vnto vs, then his meritorious workes are come to nought, and he bestoweth a great deale of labour in vaine for the proofe thereof. We would gladly see which way he will shift. Surely if our good workes do but apply vnto vs the saluation which is in Christ, then they cannot be said to merit saluation thē selues. For that that applyeth, doth not worke the effect of that which it doth apply. The hand that applieth the medicine, cannot be said it self to worke the cure: for if it performe the effect it selfe, to what end doth it apply another thing for the same purpose? But if our workes do merit saluation themselues, then they do more then apply vnto vs the saluation which is in Christ Iesus, and we must be said according to the absurditie before mentioned, to be thereby our owne sauiours. Let the Reader well obserue, how he stealeth away in a cloud of ambiguous words, which notwithstanding howsoeuer he expound, do worke inconuenience to himselfe. But by his owne words he giueth answer to the place which he obiecteth of Paule saying to Timothie, that1. Tim. 4.10. so doing, he should both saue himselfe and them that heard him, that he did not meane, that Timothie should do that for himselfe, by vertue whereof he should be saued, but onely that he should apply vnto himselfe the saluation which is in Christ Iesus. He was to saue them that heard him, not by meriting their saluation for them, but by preaching vnto them1. Cor. 15.2, the Gospell by which they were saued. So was he also to saue himselfe, by continuing in the same faith and doctrine of the Gospell, whereby the way of saluation is set foorth vnto vs. In the same manner S. Peter exhorteth the Iewes, who were pricked in their hearts at the hearing of his preaching,Act. 2.10. Saue your selues from this wicked generation: namely, by receiuing and accepting the message of saluation by Iesus Christ. We are said to saue our selues, as we are said to feed our selues, and to cure our selues. We feed our selues, not by being food and nourishment to our selues, but by [Page 24] receiuing that which is our food. We cure our selues, not by being a medicine to our selues, but by taking and applying to vs that whereby we are cured. So we saue our selues onely by embracing Iesus Christ, by whom onely we are saued. And this we intend, when we say, that we are saued by faith onely: namely, that faith only is the instrument whereby we lay hold of Iesus Christ, in whose onely merits our saluation wholy and immediatly doth consist. Which doctrine of faith wholy aduanceth the glorie of Christ, because it referreth all entirely to him, not onely for that we confesse that faith is the gift of Christ, but also because we teach that it is not by any vertue of faith it selfe by which we are saued, but onely by the merit and power of Christ, whom we receiue by faith. How then doth M. Bishop say, that their assertion of our merits doth no more diminish the glory of the merits of Christ, then it doth that we say, that we are saued by faith onely, when as they leaue so much for man to glorie of in himselfe, his assenting to grace, and working therewith by his owne free will, and his well vsing thereof to merit and deserue saluation for himselfe; when as we say, that we are saued meerely by the merits of Christ, and haue nothing in any sort to attribute to our selues, and they say, that we are not saued meerely by the merits of Christ, but the merits of Christ do onely make vs able by free will to deserue our owne saluation. But of this (as he saith) we shall haue further occasion to speake in the question of merits. Now here M. Perkins noteth it for a further absurditie of their doctrine of merits, that they do not onely make men their owne sauiours, but make one man also the sauiour of another, whilest that in the want of our owne merits, we may be partakers in the merits of the Saints. M. Bishop being a man of a wide throate to swallow, and of a strong stomacke to digest without any trouble all the filth of the Romish Church, sticketh not at the matter, but plainely affirmeth, that other good mens merits may steed them that want some of their owne, and saith, that it may be deduced out of an hundred places of Scripture, whereas of that hundred there is not so much as one, that will yeeld him ground of any such deduction. For as for that which he alledgeth out of the first Commaundement, that God sheweth mercy vnto thousands in them that loue him, and keepe his commandements, how he should draw mans merit from thence, where God professeth onely his mercie both to the fathers and the children, [Page 25] no wise man can easily conceiue. It is true, that God sometimes in the Scriptures is said for one mans sake to shew mercy to another, it is neuer said, that it is for one mans merits that he shewes mercy to another, but only for his own loue and promise sake. Thus do the people of God somtimes make mention ofDeut. 9. [...]7. Abraham, Isaac, Iacob, Psal. 132 10. Dauid, not as to begge of God for their merits sake, but as to vrge God with his couenant and promise, that he made vnto these, who shewed all that mercy and loue vnto their seed,Deut. 7.8. & 9.5. because he would keepe the oath which he had sworne vnto their fathers. And surely seeing it was onely for his mercies sake, that he respected the fathers themselues, it is vnlikely that for the fathers merits he shold respect the children.Oecumen. in Rom cap. 4. Siquis illum demostrare nita [...]urper opera dignum fuisse, &c. Vides quod nihil omninò h [...]beat, ne vestig [...]um qu [...]dem operum adhuiusmodi beneficia quae ipse à Deo accepit. Vnde ergo his dignus habitus est? Ex sola side. Abraham (saith Oecumenius) was not by his workes worthy of the benefites of God: he had nothing at all, not any shew of workes, to the benefites that he receiued of God; but was accounted worthy thereof by faith onely. The cause of all was that which Moses said;Deut. 4.37. He loued thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed. And what, was it for their merits that he loued them? What merits had Abraham, when God called him fromIosuah 24.2. seruìng other gods, and euen at the first gaue himGen. 12.1.2.an absolute promise of all that mercy and goodnesse that he shewed him afterwards? It was therefore that which the same Moses also saith:Deut. 7 7 8▪ He set his loue vpon you, because he loued you: there was nothing to moue him to loue but onely loue. To which purpose he saith by the Prophet Malachy: Mal. [...].2. Was not Esau Iacobs brother? yet I loued Iacob and hated Esau; signifying, that there was no cause in Iacob himselfe, why God should loue him more then Esau; and yet of meere grace and fauour he vouchsafed so to do. Here is nothing then to serue M. Bishops turne, that one mans merits may steed another, because these had no merits to steed themselues, but whatsoeuer they were, they were of mercie, and it was onely mercie whereby God bound himselfe to shew mercie to others for their sakes. And well we may wonder, but that these are impudent and shamelesse men, that they should dare so farre to aduance the righteousnesse of man, as to make him able▪ not only to merit and deserue at Gods hands for himselfe, but also for other men. Wherein their peruersnesse and iniquitie is so much the greater, for that they attribute and yeeld that to the spotted and vnperfect workes and righteousnesse of man, which they wickedly deny to the immaculate and most perfect merits and righteousnesse of [Page 26] the Sonne of God. For they hold it absurd, that the righteousnesse and merits of Christ should be imputed and accounted vnto vs; and yet they blush not to say, that a man may haue merits of his owne, sufficient for himselfe, and an ouerplus beside to be reckened and imputed vnto others to supply their want. The Popes dispensation can apply the merits of one man to another, but the faith of Christ cannot apply to vs the merits of Christ. The Scripture teacheth the imputation of Christs merits, and that they deny: it denyeth the imputing of other mens merits, and that they affirme against the Scripture. Which, beside that it teacheth an vnsufficiencie and imperfection in all the workes of men, and therefore bereaueth them of all power and abilitie of merit, doth also giue vs to vnderstand, thatEzech. 18.20 the righteousnesse of the righteous shall be vpon himselfe, and therefore shall not be reckened to another: thatRom. 14.12. euery man shall giue account of himselfe vnto God, and therefore shall haue nothing to do with other mens accounts; thatGal 6.5. euery man shall beare his owne burthen, and therefore shall not haue his burthen borne by others: that theMat. 25.9. wise virgins haue no superfluitie of oyle which they may impart to them that want.Tertull de pudicit. Qu [...] a [...] nam mortem suâ soluit, [...]solus Dei filius [...] sipeccatores, quomodo oleum faculae tuae sufficere & ti [...] & mi [...] poteri [...]? Who hath by his death released another mans death, saith Tertullian, but onely the Sonne of God? If thou be a sinner, how should the oyle of thy little candle be sufficient both for thee and me? He spake it truly in the proposition, though he misapplyed it to a wrong conclusion, and therefore Leo bishop of Rome saith in like sort, thatLeo Epist. 81. Acceperunt quip [...] [...]ust [...], non d [...]derunt coronas & def [...]r [...]dine fi [...]lium exempla [...] iust [...], &c. nec alter [...] quisquā de [...] [...] Domi [...] [...]ster Iesus Christus [...], in quo o [...]nes crucifixi, &c. the iust haue receiued crownes, they haue giuen none; and of the fortitude of the faithfull are growne examples of patience, not gifts of righteousnesse; neither hath any man by his end payed the debt of another man, seeing it is onely our Lord Iesus Christ amongst the sonnes of men, in whom all haue bene crucified, dead, buried, and raised againe. Farre was he from that blasphemous doctrine, which now preuaileth in the Church of Rome, that some men haue merits and gifts of righteousnesse, whereby to be helpefull to other men. But yet M. Bishop telleth vs, that they that receiue this helpe must be such as want but some of their owne. For we must vnderstand belike, that heauen is merited by peecemeale. Some merit it quarter part, and some the one halfe, and some all, and some more then all. By which meanes it must come to passe, that some, who haue merits to keepe them from hell, and yet not enough to bring them to heauen, must hang betwixt heauen and hell, vnlesse the Vicar of [Page 27] Rome will do them a fauour, out of his treasurie to endow them with the merits of some of the Saints, or some of the Saints themselues will vndertake out of their superfluities to make vp that that is wanting vnto them. This secret the Diuines of Rhemes vttered, thatRhem. Testam. Annot. Mat. 25.8. if we haue not our owne merits▪ we shall not be holpen by other mens deserts at the day of iudgement, leauing it to be vnderstood, that if we haue merits of our owne, we may then looke for the supply thereof in other mens merits. Wretched hypocrites, impostors and deluders of ignorant men, whoHieron. in Esa. lib. 6 cap. 14. Cum dies iud [...] cij ve [...]dormitionis aduenerit, dissoluentur omnes manus, quia nullum opus dignum Dei iustitia reperietur & non iustificabitur, &c. when all hands shall faile (as Hierome saith) because no worke shall be found worthy of the iustice of God, and no man liuing shall be iustified in the sight of God, yet make men beleeue, that some shall haue that superabundance of righteousnesse and merits, as that they shall be able to relieue them that want merits of their owne. Is this the honor that they do to Christ, to thrust him out of place when we haue greatest need of him, and to make men trust to the imaginarie merits of sinfull men? And what, shall not Christ be as ready then to succour vs as the Saints? or shall his merits be found vnsufficient to deliuer vs? or what should be the cause, that we should thus be put ouer one to be helped by another, rather then by him that is the helper and Sauiour of vs all? But this is the horrible apostasie and darknesse of the Romish Sinagogue, which hath made no end of multiplying her fornications, wherewith she hath bewitched men, and made them to doate vpon strange and monstrous fancies, and hidden from them the true knowledge of Iesus Christ, by which they should be saued.
As touching the third instance, it shall not here bee neede to say much. We affirme that they derogate from the merit of Christs passion, and do make him but a Parti-christ, in that they denie him to haue made a full and perfect satisfaction for our sins, and say, that he hath left vs in part to satisfie for the same. M. Bishop saith, that in the reseruing of temporall satisfaction, he hath shewed himselfe a most prudent redeemer, as if his foolish braines were the measure of the wisedome of Christ, or the selfe-will conceipts of carnall men were to determine the power and effect of the crosse of Christ. Christ isIoh. 1.29. the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinne of the world, and if he take away our sinnes then they remaine not by vs to be satisfied for. The forgiuenesse of our sinnes by Christ is2. Cor. 5.19. the not imputing of our sinnes; but how are they not imputed, if satisfaction thereof [Page 28] be required? This falsehood of theirs he gloseth with a truth. We must be madeRom 8.29. like vnto Christ as members to the head. We must2. Tim. 2.12. suffer with Christ, that we may raigne with Christ. But what of this? We denie not, but that by suffering, when God will and as he will, we must be conformed to Christ our head, but we deny this conformitie in suffering to be any satisfaction for our sinnes. Which as it hath no shew of proofe out of those words of the Apostle, so that it cannot otherwise bee proued, shall be shewed God willing▪ in the question concerning that matter.
In the third and last instance M. Perkins chargeth them, that though they be content to acknowledge Christ to be a Mediator of intercession, yet they reserue to his mother the blessed Virgin, their Queene of heauen, an authoritie to rule him and commaund him there. This M. Bishop thinketh to be a matter of simplicitie in M. Perkins, that he should thinke it a magnifying of Christ to acknowledge Christ a Mediatour of intercession, whereas they make him, as hee telleth vs, no Mediator of intercession, but a redeemer. Now in this we see his honest mind, that he is loth that M. Perkins should say better of them then they deserue, and will haue vs to know, that they bereaue Christ of one speciall part of his office and Priesthood, which is to make intercession for vs. The reason is, because they must haue a dignitie belonging to the Saints, and therefore because they know not how to doe it otherwise, they diuide the office of Christs mediation, & reseruing vnto Christ, though not that wholy neither, to be our Mediator of redemption, do assigne the mediatorship of intercession to the Saints. And yet the Scripture expresly telleth vs, that ChristRom. 8. [...]4. sitteth at the right hand of God to make intercession for vs; thatHeb. 7.25. he is able perfectly to saue them that come vnto God by him. seeing hee euer liueth to make intercession for them. Thus S. Austin saith, thatAug. in Psal. 85. Orat pro nobis, & orat in nobis, & oratur à nobis. Orat pro nobis vt sacerd [...]s nost [...]r, orat in nobis vt caput nostrum; oratur à nobis vt Deus noster. Christ prayeth for vs, and prayeth in vs, and is prayed vnto of vs. He prayeth for vs as our Priest; he prayeth in vs as our head; he is prayed vnto of vs as our God. Yea he sayth, thatJn Psal. 64. Solus ibi ex his qu [...] carnem gustauerunt i [...]terpell [...] pro nobis. in heauen Christ alone of them that haue bene partakers of flesh maketh intercession for vs, insomuch thatC [...]nt epist. Par [...]en. li. 2. ca 8. Si Joan [...]es [...]ta diceret, siquis peccauerit, aduocatum [...]ne habe [...]is apud patrem; ego exore pro p [...]cat [...]s vestris, quis eum sicut dis [...]pulum C [...]risti & non sicut Antichristum ipsum iniueretur? if S. Iohn should haue sayd, If any man sinne, ye haue me for an aduocate with the father, I make intercession for your sinnes, he should haue bene holden not for a Disciple of Christ, but rather for Antichrist himselfe. Thus he doth not onely make Christ our Mediator of intercession, but also the [Page 29] onely Mediator of intercession, and therefore condemneth M. Bishop of wicked sacriledge, that taketh away this part of his office from him, to bestow it vpon the Saints. But this prayer and intercession Christ performeth not now by vocall words, as in the time of his humiliation here vpon the earth, neither doth he infinitely busie himself by renewing his petitions & supplications to the Father when we call vpon him, but his intercession for vs is hisHeb. 9.24. appearing in the sight of God for vs; whereby asCyprian. ser. de bapt. Christi & manifestat. Tr [...]nit. the sacrifice which he offered vpon the crosse is no lesse effectuall now, then it was the day when water and bloud issued out of his wounded side, still requiring our saluation as the reward of his obedience, euen so the voyce of his intercession in the dayes of his flesh, still soundeth aloud in the eares of God, and by the power thereof, both we our selues, and all our prayers and requests are most effectually recommended to his mercie. Therefore we do not now pray to him to pray for vs, but weIohn 16.23. aske the father in his name, as he himselfe hath taught vs, presenting still the memorie of the merit and intercession that he hath performed for vs. And becauseIohn 5 27. the father hath giuen him power to execute iudgement euen as he is the sonne of man, euenMat. 28.18. all power both in heauen and earth, and Ephes. 1.22. hath made all things subiect vnder his feete, and set him as head (and ruler) ouer all things, to the behoofe of his Church, therefore we do not onely pray to the Father, but we pray to him also, euen as he is the sonne of man; we do not onelyBernard super Mis [...]us est. Hom. 3. Jpsum ocul [...]s patris; ipsum offeramus & suis. offer or present him to his Fathers eyes▪ but we present him also to his owne eyes, that for that intercessions sake whichAugust. in Psal. 34. In meipso humanitas in meipso diuinitatem interpellat. in himselfe as man he made to himselfe as God, he will both God and man bee mercifull vnto vs. As for M. Bishops Metaphysicall, or rather Nestorian-like and heretical conceipt of singling out the humanitie of Christ from his diuinitie, to make it an intercessor for vs, let him burie it in his owne braines where it was bred: but for vs we know, that to pray to Christ to be our intercessor to the Father, according to that he promiseth,Iohn 14.16. I will pray the Father, and he shall giue you another Comforter, doth no more require the singling or separating of the manhood from the Godhead, then do all other his workes for our reconciliation vnto God, in which the vnion of two natures doth alwayes giue force and strength to that which is properly acted but in one.
W. BISHOP.
And to come to your grieuous complaint, that withall his Mother must be Queene of heauen, and by right of a mother commaund him there: Who can sufficiently maruell at their vnnaturall grosse pates, who take it for a disgrace to the Sonne, to aduance his owne good Mother? or else who well in his wits, considering Christs bountie to strangers and his enemies, will not be perswaded, that on his best beloued mother, he did bestow his most speciall fauours? For hauing taken flesh of her, hauing suckt her breasts, and receiued his nuriture and education of her in his tender yeares, and being aswell followed of her, as of any other, Is it possible that he should not be as good to her, as to others, vnto whom he was not at all beholding? Againe, the very place of a mother, requiring preheminence, before all seruants and subiects, of what dignitie soeuer: doth not the right-rule of reason leade vs to thinke, that Christ the fountaine of all wisedome, replenished the blessed Virgin Marie his deare Mother with such grace as should make her fit for that place? it lying in his hands, and free choise to do it. And therefore is she truely tearmed of holy and learned Antiquity, Our Lady and Queene, exalted aboue all quiers of Angels. That which you impute vnto vs farther, that she must in the right of a mother commaund her Sonne, it no doctrine of the Romish Church, nor sayd in all her seruice: We say, Shew thy selfe to be a mother: but it is not added by commanding thy Sonne: that is your glosse, which is accursed, because it corrupteth the text, for it followeth in that place, Sumat per te preces, &c. Present our prayers to him, that vouchsafed to be borne of thee, for vs. If any priuat person by meditation, piercing more profoundly into the mutuall loue and affection, of such a Sonne towards so worthie a Mother, doe deeme her prayers as forcible in kindnesse as if they were commandements, and in that sence call them Commandements, according to the French phrase. Vos priers me sont des commandements, that may be done without derogation to Christs supreme dignitie, and with high commendation of his tender affection, vnto his reuerent and best beloued mother. Wherefore to conclude this Epistle, if there bee no waightier cause then this by you here produced, why you and your adherents do not reconcile your selues vnto the Church of Rome: you may shortly (by Gods grace) become new men. For we are so farre off, from making our Sauiour Christ a Pseudochrist, or from drawing one iote of excellencie [Page 31] from his soueraigne power, merits, or dignitie: that we in the very points by you put downe, do much more magnifie him then you do. For in maintaining the authoritie by him imparted vnto his deputies, our spirituall Magistrates, and of their merits and satisfaction: We first say, that these his seruants prorogatiues be his free gifts, of meere grace bestowed on whom he pleaseth; which is no small praise of his great liberalitie: And withall affirme, that there is an infinite difference betweene his owne power, merits, and satisfaction, and ours: wherein his Soueraigne honour is preserued entire to himselfe without any comparison. Now you make Christs authoritie so base, his merits and satisfaction so meane, that if he impart any degree of them vnto his seruants, he looseth the honour of all from himselfe. Whereupon it followeth inuincibly, if you vnfainedly seeke Christ Iesus his true honour, and will esteeme of his diuine gifts worthily, you must hold out no longer, but vnite your selues in these necessarie heads of Religion vnto the Catholike Church of Rome, which so highly exalteth him, both in his owne excellencie, and in his singular gifts to his subiects.
R. ABBOT.
Here M. Bishop telleth vs a goodly and a faire tale out of their old wiues deuotions, and sheweth himselfe more absurdly and grossely superstitious, then were almost to be imagined in a learned man. It is strange to vs, that the Euangelists and Apostles were not acquainted with this high point of religion, or if they were acquainted with it, that none of them should haue regard to recommend it to the Church. Surely, if they had bene of the Romish religion that now is, they would neuer haue done the Virgin Mary that exceeding great wrong: but because they were not so, because their care was, that God onely should be aduanced according to his word, therefore M. Bishop thinketh them vnnaturall grosse pates, in taking it to be a disgrace to the Sonne, to aduance his owne good Mother. As for vs, we honour the blessed Virgin so farre as God hath giuen vs warrant so to do. We acknowledge her a most excellent instrument of the grace of God, and most highly blessed aboue all other, in that God by her would bring him into the world, that should be a blessing to all other. But yet we say, that this was a blessing onely according to the flesh, it was no spirituall and heauenly [Page 32] blessing, and because spirituall blessings are greater then carnall, we hold the Virgin Mary to haue bene greater by that that she had according to the spirit, then by the honour that was done her according to the flesh. Therefore S. Austin saith, thatAugust. de sa [...]ct. Virg. cap. 3. [...] Mari [...] [...] fi [...] Christi, qu [...] c [...] [...] &c. [...]. Mary was more blessed by receiuing the faith of Christ, then by conceiuing the flesh of Christ. Her neernesse to Christ in being his mother had nothing booted her, had she not more happily borne him in her heart then in her wombe. This our Sauiour himselfe confirmeth in the Gospell, when being told as he was preaching, that his mother and brethren were desirous to speake with him, answered as with indignation, [...]. Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? He that doth the will of my Father which is in heauen. he is my brother and sister and mother. [...] My mother and brethren are these which heare the word of God and keepe it: Tertul [...] [...] He maketh these other of the greater woorth, saith Tertullian, and sheweth that the hearing of Gods word is a thing to be preferred aboue being the mother and brethren of Christ.J [...] [...], &c. Non vt v [...]res su [...]stituit. sed vt dig [...]res. He transferreth the names of kindred to them, whom he rather iudgeth to be most neare vnto him, because of faith, whom he putteth in place of the other, not as more truly his mother and his brethren, but as being of greater woorth. So againe, when a woman amidst the companie cryed out:L [...]k 1 [...].28. Blessed is the wombe that bare thee, and the pappes that gaue thee sucke, to withdraw the minds of men from carnall fancies, he answereth, Yea rather, blessed are they that heare the word of God and keepe it; Tertul. de car [...] Christi. Non ma [...] v [...]rum & v [...] [...] Not denying the wombe and pappes of his mother (saith Tertullian againe) but signifying them to be more happie, that do heare the word of God. This happinesse and heauenly bountie Mary was also partaker of, but he considereth her respectiuely onely vnder the title of the mother of Christ. Therefore more plainely S. Austin deliuereth Christs answer:Aug [...] [...] My mother whom ye call blessed is therfore blessed, because she keepeth the word of God. not because the word became flesh in her. Epiphanius further obserueth, that when Christ another time saith vnto his mother: Woman what haue I to do with thee, mine houre is not yet come? He thereforeE [...] [...] Virgi [...] [...] appella [...], ve [...]u [...] propheta [...] quae futura ess [...] [...] sectarum ac haeres [...] gratia, vt ne aliqud [...] sancta [...], in hanc haeres [...] [...]. called her woman that none might thinke too highly of the holy Ʋirgin; as prophecying what should come to passe in the earth by Sects and heresies, that none admiring her (saith he) should fall into this heresie and the dotages thereof: speaking there [Page 33] as touching the heresie of the Collyridians, who set vp the image of the Virgin Mary, and thereto offered (Collyridem) a cake in the honour of her, and thereof they had their name. As touching all this blind deuotion which the Papists haue renewed to the full, he telleth vs, thatIbid Est [...]dibr [...]um tota r [...]s. & amcularum fabula it is a toy, and an old wiues fable: and asketh as we do,Quae Scripturae ae hoc na [...]auit [...] What Scripture hath told vs any thing hereof? And that we may vnderstand how leudly M. Bishop belyeth antiquitie, in saying, that Antiquitie tearmed the Ʋirgin Marie, Our Ladie and Queene exalted aboue all quiers of Angels, he reasoneth thus against that heresie:Quis Prophetarum praecep [...] hominem adorari, nedum mult [...] rem? Which of the Prophets hath taught, that any man is to be worshipped? much lesse a woman. And againe,St Angelos adorari non [...]uli [...] quantò magis eam quae genitae est ab Anna. If God will not haue the Angels to be worshipped, how much more will he not haue the daughter of Anna to be worshipped? And againe,Mariam nem [...] adoret, non dico mulurem, imò neque vtrum. Deo debetur hoc mysterium, ne (que) Angelicapiunt talem glorificationem. Let no man worship Mary; I say, not a woman, no not a man: this mysterie belongeth vnto God, the Angels receiue not any such glorie. And againe, as touching the name of the Queene of heauen, he addeth,Ne turbent orbem terrarum: ne dicant, honoramus reginam coeli. Let not these women trouble the world: let them not say, We do honour to the Queene of heauen. We see how farre Epiphanius was from the conceipt of those supersticious fooleries, which M. Bishop here so solemnely discourseth vnto vs. We see how the Church of Rome walketh iust in the path and steppes of these heretikes, which were of old condemned by the Church. They argued as M. Bishop here full simply, doth from the vnright rule of crooked reason: she was his best beloued mother, he tooke flesh of her, he sucked her breasts, surely he would bestow vpon her his speciall fauours; he would without doubt do more for her, then for strangers, to whom he was not at all beholding: he would replenish her with such grace as should make her fit for that place which he neuer gaue her. These are fantasticall presumptious of silly doting women, and blind ignorant dottrels: they haue no sauour at all of the spirit of God. They might vpon these grounds argue for the brethren and cosins of Christ, and conceiue, as the mother of Iames and Iohn did, that being his kinsmen, they should be more respected then others, and as they were nearer him in bloud, so should be preferred in dignitie & place, and therefore shouldMat. 20.2 [...]. sit one on his right hand▪ and the other on his left hand in his kingdome. But the kingdome of Christ is not administred by such fancies, neither do carnal titles serue to giue preferment there. And as touching the blessed Virgin, Epiphanius further against such conceipts obserueth, that [Page 34] ChristIbid. Non pe [...] si [...] ipsidare baptisma, non benedicere discipulis, [...] [...]t terra [...]mpera [...] [...]ussit, sed & sola [...] ipsa [...] sa [...]ctificationem esse dignam factam esse regn [...] ipsius. permitted her not to baptize▪ gaue her not power to blesse his disciples, did not appoint her to raigne or rule in the earth: but her only sanctification was, to be made worthy of his kingdome. It was therefore an hereticall deuice, to make her Queene of heauen: and it hath bene since one of the forgeries of Antichrist, to attribute vnto her a power and authoritie to command the Sonne of God. But M. Bishop telleth vs, that this is no doctrine of the Romane Church, nor found in all her seruice, yet knoweth well enough, that this was the doctrine of the Romane Church, and commonly found in all her seruice. Harlots that haue little shame, yet blush at some things: and the harlot of Rome though of an iron forehead, yet saw some things to be so grossely blasphemous and inexcusable, as that she could not for shame but remoue them out of the Church, when question began to be made of them. Such was that prayer concerning Thomas Becket, which before I mentioned in the answer to the Epistle:
That is:
Which prayer was found in all their Portesses, though now it be taken out. So they were wont also very solemnely to sing throughout the whole Church of Rome:
This Duraeus the Iesuite acknowledgethDuraeus contr. Whitaker. lib. 9. Ad libros Rituales confug [...], ex quibus obsoleta quaedam corradis. ex libris Ritualibus, out of their bookes of rites and ceremonies, by which their Church-seruice was directed. Yea M. Bishop himselfe very well knoweth, that the words are not to be denied, and therefore as Duraeus doth, so doth he also make a fauourable construction thereof, that the Author of that prayer, deemed the Ʋirgins prayers to her Sonne, to be as forcible in kindnesse, as if they were commandements, and in that sence called thē commandements. Thus as M. Harding vnder a colour ofHarding. Confut. of the Apolog [...] part. 2. spirituall sporting and dalliance; so these men vnder opinion of kindnesse, do labour to hide open blasphemie and spirituall idolatrie. They sticke [Page 35] not to speake apparantly to the derogation of the Sonne of God, and then turne it to matter of iest, like him of whom Solomon speaketh, whoPro. 26.18.19 faining himselfe mad, casteth firebrands, arrowes and deadly tooles, and then saith, Am not I in sport? But how ill their sporting construction fitteth with the humour of those times, let it appeare by another hymne of theirs, which will not be so answered:
That is to say:
Here is then right and reason, and Gods Commandement to approue and iustifie, that the Virgin Mary as the Mother should haue power ouer her sonne, and authoritie to commaund him. And to no other purpose soundeth that which M. Bishop acknowledgeth, as being yet in their vse,In hymn. Ecclesiastic. Monstrate esse matrem; Shew thy selfe to be a mother. He saith it is not added, by commanding thy sonne, but he should haue told vs how otherwise it should be meant; because we know not, nor can conceiue in what meaning they should request her to shew her selfe to be his mother, but onely vpon opinion of some motherly superioritie, and authoritie to commaund him. For as for that which he saith followeth in that place, Sumat per te preces qui pro nobis natus tulit esse tuus; Let him by thee receiue our prayers, who for vs yeelded to be thy sonne; it giueth vs no light at all to the contrary, but that she should shew her motherly commaund, by causing him to accept the prayers that are made vnto [Page 36] him; which he seeing, translateth the words falsly, Present our prayers vnto him, &c. And thus the common people were perswaded by them, and specially women, that they had better hope and readier accesse to God, and more assured safetie by our Lady, then they had by the Sonne of God. And no maruell, when they lifted her vp into the seate of Christ, and inuested her in their publike seruice, with all the titles of mercy and grace that are proper vnto him. Now therefore, M. Bishop, there is cause sufficient for vs to forbeare to be reconciled to the Church of Rome, which vnder pretence of magnifying Christ, hath put the Pope and the Virgin Marie, and the rest of the Saints in the place of Christ, and coloureth her Antichristian presumptions, and vsurpations vnder the feigned title of the gifts of Christ. You deuise what you lift, and fill the Church with your abhominations, and vse the name of Christ as a cloake to couer your filthinesse and shame. If they came naked in their owne likenesse, all men would detest them, and detest you for perswading them; therefore it is the policie of the whore of Babylon to offer theApoc. 17.4. filthinesse of her fornications in the golden cup of the name of Christ, that the glory of the cup may bewitch them, not to suspect any poyson to bee contained therein. As for vs, we esteeme of the power, merits and satisfaction of Christ, as he himselfe hath taught vs to esteeme; we assume no part or parcell therof to our selues, because by the letters patents of his Gospell we haue no warrant so to do. Because then we vnfeignedly seeke the true honour of Iesus Christ, and cannot brooke the dishonour that is done vnto him in the Church of Rome, vnder the counterfeit termes of his diuine gifts, we make choise to hearken to the voyce of God,Apoc. [...]8.4. Come out of her, my people, and be not partakers of her sinnes, lest ye be partakers of her plagues.
M. BISHOPS ANSWER TO M. PERKINS Preface to the Reader.
VPon your preface to the Reader I will not stand, because it toucheth no point of controuersie: let it be declared in your next, what you meane, when you desire your reformed Catholike to hold the same necessarie heads of Religion with the Roman Church: for if the Roman Church doth erre in the matter of faith, and iustification; in the [Page 37] number and vertue of the Sacraments; in the bookes and interpretation of the word of God; if she raze the foundation, and make Christ a Pseudochrist, and an Idol; to omit twentie other errors in substantiall points of faith, as in this your small discourse you would perswade: there will remaine verie few necessarie heads of Religion for them to agree in. And be you well assured, that you are so wide from winning Catholikes by this your worke, to a better liking of your Religion, that you haue taken the high way, to leade them to a farre greater dislike of it; by teaching, that in so many materiall points it differeth so farre from theirs. For all Catholikes hold for most assured, that which the most ancient, learned and holy Doctor Athanasius in his Creed deliuereth in the 2. verse: Which Catholike faith vnlesse euerie man obserue wholy and inuiolably (not omitting, or sh inking from any one article of it) without doubt he shall perish euerlastingly. If S. Basil that reuerend and blessed Father of the Church, doth hold it the duty of euerie good Christian, rather to loose hi [...] life, then to condescend to the alteration of any one syllable in matter of faith: Theod. 4. his. cap. 17. you may be sure that we Catholikes cannot but cary a very base conceipt of your doctrine; who go about vnder the ouerworne and threedbare cloake of reformation, to deface and corrupt the purer and greater part of Christian Religion: specially when they shall perceiu [...] the most points of your pretended reformation, to be nothing else but ld [...]otten condemned heresies, new scoured vp and furbushed, and so [...]shew made more saleable vnto the vnskilfull, as in this treatise shall be proued in euerie Chapter.
R. ABBOT
YOur demaund, M. Bishop, is alreadie satisfied before. M. Perkins by those necessarie heads of Religion, vnderstandeth such generall grounds as stand vnquestioned betwixt vs and the Romish Church, which for the matters handled hee commonly setteth downe by the name of our consents in the entring of euery question. There are some maine points of doctrine to which the Church of Rome subscribeth as well as we. The Reformed Catholike is still to hold those, though hee depart from the corruptions and abhominations, to the maintenance whereof the same Church of Rome doth wickedly misapply them. As for his winning of Catholikes to the liking of our Religion, I assure my selfe that you M. Bishop your selfe, and your friend of good intelligence and iudgement, [Page 38] were iealous and doubtfull thereof. His plaine debating of the points in question, laying open the absurditie of Poperie, and clearing the doctrine on our part, from those lies and slaunders wherewith in corners you labour to depraue it, might seeme verie likely to drawe many to the knowledge and approbation of the truth. It should seeme, there was some sore, for that both you and your friend were so carefull to apply a plaister; but your plaister by the grace of God wil make your sore a great deale worse, when men shall further see, how sincerely he hath dealt to deliuer truth out of the word of God and doctrine of the ancient Church, and what base geere you haue brought as the marrow and pith of many large volumes, for the contradicting and oppugning of it. The more and greater the points are of difference betwixt the Church of Rome and vs, the more doth it concerne your Catholikes, if they tender their owne saluation to looke into them, which if they doe, they will cease to thinke basely of our religion, and will begin to honour it, and imbrace it as the truth of God. They will see, that there is in it a true reformation indeed, a iust departure from the horrible idolatries and superstitions of the Romish Sinagogue, and it shall grieue them that they haue so long dishonoured God, by holding fellowship with him who hath no true fellowship with Iesus Christ. That you thinke basely thereof, M. Bishop, we wonder not. He that doateth vpon a harlot, is wont to scorne and thinke basely of honest matrons. The Scribes and Pharisees thought basely of our Sauiour Christ: no maruell if you doe the like of the Gospell of Christ, who liue and thriue by traditions as they did. As for old rotten condemned heresies, how silly a man you haue shewed your selfe in the obiecting thereof, it hath appeared partly alreadie in the answer of your Epistle, and shall appeare further, God willing, in the answer of your booke, and wee will expect hereafter, that you learne more wit, then to babble and prate of heresies, you know not your selfe what.
THE THEAME OF M. PERKINS Prologue.
M. BISHOPS ANSWER TO M. Perkins Prologue.
Sect. 1.
THe learned know it to be a fault, Exordium Co [...] mune. to make that the entrie vnto our discourse, which may as properly fit him, that pleadeth against vs: but to vse that for our proeme, which in true sence hath nothing for vs, nay rather beareth strongly for our aduersarie, must needs argue great want of iudgement: Such is the sentence aboue cited out of S. Iohn by M. Perkins: for it being truly vnderstood, is so farre off from terrifying any one from the Catholike Roman Church, as it doth vehemently exhort all to flie vnto it, by forsaking their wicked companie that are banded against it. For by the purple Harlot in that place is signified (as shall be proued presently,) the Roman Empire, as then it was, the slaue of Idols, and with most bloudie slaughter persecuting Christs Saints: Those of the Church of Rome being as nearest vnto it, so most subiect to that sacrilegious butcherie. Wherefore that voyce which S. Iohn heard say, Go out of her my people, that you be not partakers of her sinnes, &c. can haue none other meaning, then that all they who desire to be Gods people, must separate themselues in faith and manners from them, who hate and persecute the Roman Church, as did then, the Heathen Emperours, and now do all Heretikes: Ʋnlesse they will be partakers of their sinnes, and consequently of their plagues. This shall yet appeare more plainely in the examination of this Chapter. Where I will deale friendly with my aduersarie, and aduantage him all that I can; that all being giuen him, which is any way probable; it may appeare more euidently, how little he hath to any purpose out of this place of the Apocalipse, whereof all Protestants vaunt and bragge so much both in their bookes and pulpits. Well then, I will admit that in the 17. and 18. Chapters of the Reuelation by the whore of Babylon, is vnderstood the Roman state and regiment: which in lawfull disputations, they are not [Page 40] able to proue: the most iuditious Doctor S. Augustine, and diuerse others of the ancient fathers, with the learned troupe of later interpreters, expounding it of the whole corps and societie of the wicked. And as for the seuen hils on the which they lay their foundation, they are not to be taken literally: the Angell of God in the very text it selfe interpreting the seuen heads of the beast, to bee aswell seuen Kings, as seuen hils. But this notwithstanding to helpe you forward, I will grant it you, because some good writers haue so taken it: and therefore omit as impertinent that which you say in proofe of it. What can you inferre hereunto? Marry that the Roman Church is that whore of Babylon. Faire and soft good Sir, how proue you that? Thus. The whoore of Babylon is a state of the Roman regiment, ergo the Roman Church is the whoore of Babylon. What forme of arguing call you me this? By the like sophistication, you may proue that Romulus and Remus were the purple Harlot, which to affirme were ridiculous, or (which is impious) that the most Christian Emperours, Constantine and Theodosius, were the whoore of Babylon, because these held also the state of the Roman Empire and regiment. To make short, the feeble force of this reason lieth in this: that they who hold the state, and gouerne in the same kingdome, must needs bee of like affection in religion; which if it were necessarie, then did Queene Marie of blessed memorie, and her sister Elizabeth carrie the same minds towards the true Catholike faith, because they sate in the same chaire of estate, and ruled in the same kingdome. See I pray you what a shamefull cauill this is, to raise such outcries vpon. A simple Logician would blush to argue in the par [...]ies so loafty: and yet they that take vpon them to controle the learnedst in the world, often fall into such open fallacies. Well then, admitting the purple Harlot to signifie the Roman state, we do say, that the state of Rome must bee taken as it was then, when these words were spoken of it; that is, Pagan, Idolatrous, and a hot persecutor of Christians. Such it had bene a little before vnder that bloudie tyrant Nero, and then was vnder Domitian: which we confirme by the authoritie of them who expound this passage of the Roman state. The commentarie on the Apocalipse, vnder S. Ambrose name saith, The great whoore sometime doth signifie Rome, specially which at that time when the Apostle wrote this, did persecute the Church of God: [...] Cap. 178. but otherwise, doth signifie the whole citie of the Diuell. And S. Ierome who applieth the place to Rome, affirmeth, Libr. 2. cont. J [...]n. that she had before his dayes blotted out that blasphemie [Page 41] written in her forehead, because then the state was Christian, which before had bene Heathen: so that vnto the partie Pagan, and not vnto the Church of God, he ascribeth these works of the wicked Harlot: which also the very text it selfe doth conuince: for it hath That she was drunk with the bloud of the Martyrs of Iesus.Verse 6. Now the Church of Rome had not then by the confession of all men, drawne any bloud of Christs Saints, but in testimonie of his truth, had powred out abundance of her best bloud. Wherefore it is most manifest, that the harlot could not signifie the Church of Rome, so pure and free from slaughter: but the Roman Empire, which was then full gorged, with that most innocent and holy bloud. Againe, that whoore is expounded, Verse 18. To be a citie which had kingdome, ouer the Kings of the earth. But the Church of Rome had then no kingdom ouer the earth, or any temporall dominion at all; but the Roman Emperours had such soueraigne commaundement ouer manie Kings: wherefore it must be vnderstood of them, and not of the Church. Now to take kingdome not properly for temporall soueraigntie, but for spirituall Iurisdiction, as some shifters do; is to flie without any warrant, from the natiue signification of the word, vnto the phantasticall and voluntarie imagination. And whereas M. Perkins saith, pag. 5. that Ecclesiasticall Rome in respect of state, princely dominion, and crueltie against the Saints, is all one with the heathenish Empire; he both seeketh to deceiue, and is greatly deceiued: he would deceiue, in that he doth apply words spoken of Rome, aboue 1500. yeares ago, vnto Rome as it is at this day: and yet if that were granted him, he erreth fouly in euery one of his particles. For first, touching princely dominion, the Roman Empire held then, all Italy, all France, all Spaine, all England, a great part of Germanie, of Asia, and also of Africke: hauing their Proconsuls, and other principall Officers in all those Countries, drawing an hundred thousand millions in money, and many other commodities out of them: Wherefore in princely dominion, and magnificall state, it surmounted Ecclesiasticall Rome (which hath not temporall dominion ouer the one halfe of that one kingdome of Italy) more then an hundred degrees. And as for persecution, the Empire slue, and caused to be slaine, more Saints of God in one yeare, then the Church of Rome hath done, of reprobates and obstinate heretikes, in 1600. yeares.
R. ABBOT.
WE see that M. Bishop hath some skill in Oratory, but it seemeth he hath learned one precept aboue the rest of extenuation or diminution, to giue semblance of making light of his aduersaries arguments, and not to be touched therewith, when notwithstanding hee is galled with them, and wounded at the heart. Of this lesson he maketh good vse throughout his whole booke; but here in the beginning hauing his wits ye [...] fresh, he goeth somewhat beyond it, and will make his Reader beleeue, that that text of the Apocalipse, which M. Perkins propounded for the matter of his Prologue, Go out of her my people, &c. is so farre from making against them, as that it is an aduertisement to all men to forsake the societie and fellowship of all them that shew themselues aduersaries to the Church of Rome. The Apostle telleth vs,1. Cor. 11.19. There must be heresies, that they which are approued may be knowne. Because there must be heresies, there must be heretickes, men giue vp to reprobate sence, obstinate and wilfull in their wicked fancies, euen then when they areTit. 3 11. condemned in themselues. Otherwise such is the light and euidence of Scripture, in directing that admonition as a caueat against the Church of Rome, at least wise to euerie mans eyes and sight, there is that probabilitie thereof, as that a man would not beleeue, but that the handling of this point should haue made M. Bishop to tremble and feare, and to surcease from going any further in the rest, specially seeing that for the safeguard of his minion of Rome, he is faine to go so directly contrarie to the euidence that stood against him. Yet we see how gloriously hee carieth himselfe here in the beginning, and maketh shew of great largesse, and of giuing his aduersarie all the aduantage he can. But let him remember what Solomon saith,Prou. 25.14. A man that boasteth of false liberalitie, is like clouds and wind without raine. His words shew more courage then wisedome, and he giueth his aduersarie no aduantage at all, but what hee must haue whether he will or not. The question is, whether Babylon and the whoore of Babylon mentioned in the Reuelation, be to be vnderstood of Rome or not? He alledgeth out of Austin, and some other ancient (though not indeed so ancient) writers, and out of a learned troupe of later interpreters, as it pleaseth him to terme them, that by Babylon is vnderstood the whole [Page 43] corps and societie of the wicked. But his maister Bellarmine hauing mentioned that exposition for answer to our obiection, leaueth, it, and saith,Bellarm de A [...]tichrist. cap. 13 secun [...]o dici potest. & me [...] iudiciomeliùs per merc [...]em intell gi [...] mam. It may be sayd, and in my iudgement better, that by the harlot is vnderstood Rome. So had he before sayd, that S. Iohn Ibid. cap. 5. Explicat mulierem esse vrbem magnamquae sedet super septem c [...]lles, id est, Roman [...]. declareth, that the woman is the citie that sitteth vpon seuen hils, that is, saith he, Rome. The verie cleere light of the truth made him to confesse, that in the description of the whoore of Babylon Rome must necessarily bee vnderstood; he must shift otherwise as hee might, but he saw that to denie this would be no shift. Yea and the exposition that M. Bishop bringeth, maketh nothing to the contrarie. For although we vnderstand that Babylon do import the whole corps and societie of the wicked, yet we are also to vnderstand, that this corps and societie hath a head, from whence the name is deriued to the whole body, and therefore the notification of the body, specially being a body so confused, must needs be by the description of the head. The affirming I say of Babylon to be the whole corps and societie of the wicked, doth not exclude Rome from being meant by the whoore of Babylon, because the head is necessarily implied in the whole body, and Rome is described and set forth vnto vs, as being the head of that societie. And that the head is here properly meant, is inuincibly manifest, because the speech is here ofApoc. 14.8. & 17.2. her that maketh all nations drunke with her fornications, and is therefore to be distinguished from the body of the wicked of all nations, which are made drunke by her. But for declaring of this point S. Austin in sundrie places diuideth the whole body of mankind byAugust in Psal 26. & 61. two cities, Babylon and Hierusalem, comprehending vnder the name of Babylon all that liue according to the flesh, and vnder the name of Hierusalem, all that liue according to the spirit.Idem in Psal. 64. Duas istas ciuitates duo faciunt amores: Hierusalem facit am [...]r dei; Babyloniam facit amer secul [...] The loue of the world maketh Babylon, and the citizens thereof, The loue of God maketh Hierusalem and the citizens thereof. This earthly citie being the whole corps and societie of the wicked, taketh the name of it from Babylon the great Citie of Assyria, which was for the time the principall part thereof.De ciuit dei. li. 16 cap. 17. In Assyria praeualucrat dominatus impiae ciuitatis: huius caput erat Babylon illa, cuius terr [...]genae ciuitatis nomen ap [...]issimum est, [...] est, confus [...]. In Assyria (saith S. Austin) preuailed the dominion of the wicked citie; the head thereof was Babylon, whose name, that is, Confusion, fitteth the citie of earthly kind and disposition. That Babylon wholy sauoured of the flesh, affecting altogether the state and kingdome of this world, full of abhominable idolatrie, couetousnesse, pride, crueltie, vncleane and filthie lust, persecution and [Page 44] hatred towards the people of God, whom it held a long time in subiection and bondage to it selfe. Now as that Babylon being the most auncient state of earthly minded men, was the head of that companie and societie of the wicked, not because all vniuersally were outwardly subiect vnto it, but because all were ioyned inwardly in conformitie of affection with it; so Rome arose vp afterward to be another head of the same bodie,Ibid. Roma co [...] velut altera [...] Occide [...]te Babylonia. as it were another Babylon in the West, as S. Austine speaketh.Ibid lib. 18 cap. 2. Babylonia quasi pr [...]m [...] Roma: Ip [...] Roma quasi secunda Babylonia est [...] cap. 22. velu [...] priori [...] filia Babyloni [...]. Babylon, saith he, was as it were a first Rome, and Rome is as it were a second Babylon, and as the daughter of the former Babylon▪ It was Babylon then euen from the first originall of it, though as did Babylon, so Rome also shold in the latter states therof grow to be in higher degree of confusion then it was in the beginning. All this the holy Ghost most plainely confirmeth in the description deliuered byApoc 13.1. & 17.3. &c. S. Iohn. First, it is to be obserued, that S. Iohn according to the example of the Prophet Daniel, doth by the tearme ofDan 7.3. &c. a beast import some earthly kingdome, state, and gouernement, therefore named a beast, to signifie the same to be led wholly with beastly & carnall affection, to those things that concerne the flesh, and sauour of the flesh. Secondly, byCap. 17.1.3. a woman, a harlot, he noteth a citie, which is the place and pallace of such a state, giuen to fornications, both spiritual by idolatry, and corporall by luxuriousnesse, wantonnesse and filthie lust, which sitteth and hath aduancement by the preheminence of that kingdome, state, and gouernment. Thus the Angell plainely distinguisheth the woman and the beast, when he saith:Ver. 7. I will shew thee the mysterie of the woman, and of the beast that beareth her, of which S. Iohn had said before,Ver. 3. I saw a woman sit vpon a scarlet coloured beast. Albeit, we are so to take this distinction, as that withall we vnderstand that the same is not alwaies precisely obserued, but that the woman and the beast are vsed sometimes indifferently for the same, and either of them to signifie the whole. Now of the woman the Angell saith,Ver. 18. The woman which thou sawest, is the great citie, which raigneth ouer the kings of the earth. Againe, she is saidVe [...]. 1. to sit vpon many waters, which (saith the Angel)Ver. 15. are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. But there was no citie that raigned ouer the kings of the earth, and ouer those many nations and peoples, but onely the citie of Rome. Rome therefore is the woman that is there meant. This appeareth further by that he noteth of the [Page 45] situation of this citie vpon the seuen heads of the beast, which (saith the Angell) are Ver. 9. seuen mountaines or hils, vpon which the woman sitteth. M. Bishop telleth vs, that those seuen hils are not to be taken literally; but that is a very witlesse shift. The Angell by way of exposition deliuereth, that by seuen heads are meant seuen hils, & we must take it vpon M. Bishops word, that by seuen heads are not meant seuen hils, but somewhat else, but what, he cannot tell himselfe. What an absurd toy is this, that the Angell so expounding it, we should be sent to him againe, to know what he meaneth by seuen hils? But this toucheth them to the quicke, because the citie of Rome is famous for seuen hils, for which Tertullian calleth the people of RomeTertul. Apol. cap 35. Ipsos Qu [...]rites, ipsam vernaculam septem collium plebem conuenio. the natiue or home-borne people of seuen hils; wherof they had theirIdem de idololat. septimontium, which wasJbid. in Annot. Ren. Liur. Septimontium dies festus appellatur mense Decembri, &c. quod in septem monubi [...] fierent sacra. a festiuall day in the moneth of December, vpon which day they performed sacrifices and deuotions vpon those seuen hils: and was so named (as Varro obserueth)Varro de ling. Latin. lib. 5. Dies septimontium nominatus est ab hu septem montibus in quibus vrbs sita est. of those seuen hils vpon which the citie stood. Seeing then there is no city in the world to which this marke of seuen hils can be applyed but onely the citie of Rome, they haue no way to excuse Rome from being the whore of Babylon here described, but onely by saying, that those hils are not properly to be vnderstood; thereby bewraying the miserie of their cause to euery man that doth not wilfully yeeld himselfe to be blinded by them. The Angell further expoundeth thoseVer. 9. seuen heads to signifie seuen kings, of which fiue are fallen, saith he, one is, and another is not yet come, that is, saith the Rhemish Diuines, though they said it before they were aware,Rhem. Test. Ann. Apoc. 13. [...] fiue were before Christ, one present, and one to come. Whereby they crosse that absurd shift of theirs vsed in the place which we haue here in hand, thatAnnot. Apoc. 17.9. seuen is a mysticall number, signifying vniuersally all of that sort wherof he speaketh, and that the seuen heads, hils, or kingdomes, are all the kingdomes of the world, persecuting the Christians, being heads and mountaines, say they, for their height in dignitie aboue others. For if the seuen heads be taken in that generalitie of construction, then there is no place left for this diuision of fiue before Christ, one present, and one to come, because the meaning must be all that are past, all that are present, and all that are to come. The other exposition which they bring is as vaine and ridiculous as that. For as they reckonIbid. fiue empires, kingdoms, or states, that were persecutors of Gods people before the time of Christ, as of Egypt, Canaan, Babylon, the Persians, and [Page 46] Greeks: so they may reckon many more as cruelly minded towards them as these were, the Philistines, the Amalekites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Ismaelites, the Edomites, the Assyrians: and because there are so many more then fiue, therefore they cannot accord with the summe here, where there are but fiue. Yea and the text plainely reiecteth this manner of account, because the seuen heads here spoken of, are heads of one beast, and therefore cannot be applyed to diuers states. But by one of these heads or kings, it shall appeare what all the rest are. Of the king that was in the time of Christ and of S. Iohn, there is no question but that it was the Emperor of Rome, who was in a manner the king of the world, and thereforeLuk. 1.2. gaue foorth commaundement a little before the birth of Christ, that all the world should be taxed. There is no other king to be spoken of at that time, but onely this king. Seeing then that the sixt king is head of the Romane state, and all the seuen kings are heads of one and the same state, it must needes be, that those fiue kings, which were before Christ, were also heads of the Romane state. Now in this sixt head, we see that the name of king is not vnderstood of them onely who haue the very title of kings, but of such as haue the place and authoritie of kings, that is, the highest and supreme gouernment of the state. And as the sixt head or king was not only one man, but the whole succession of the Emperors, so we must vnderstand, that the other fiue heads or kings, were not fiue seuerall men, but fiue seuerall titles and states of the highest gouernors of the state. And fully so many we find in the Romane gouernment before the Emperours and the time of Christ; which were kings so called, Consuls, Decemuirs, Tribunes, Dictators; euery of which for their times successiuely, were the supreme Officers in the Empire and kingdome of the Romanes. Seing then that this cannot be iustified in any other state or citie, but onely in the citie of Rome, it is hereby manifest againe, that Rome must be the Babyl [...] here intended by S. Iohn. Furthermore this beast is described also to haueVers 3. ten hornes, and those ten hornes are expounded to beVers. 12. ten kings, which shall grow out of the beast, that is, out of the same state or kingdome. Now there was no other state, but onely the state of the Romane Empire, whence those kings might arise, yea and S. Ierome witnesseth, thatHieron in Da. 7. Dicamus quod omnes Scriptores ecclesiastic [...] tradedirunt▪ &c. decem futuros reges qui [...]bem Roman [...] inter se diuidant. all Ecclesiasticall Writers haue deliuered, that those ten kings shall diuide amongst them the Romane Empire. Therefore [Page 47] Bellarmine also confesseth, thatBellarm de Antichrist. cap. 5. Orientur quidem ex Romano imperio, sed non erunt Romani Imperatoris sicut [...]ornua ipsa ortuntur ex bestia▪ sed bestia ipsa non sunt. the ten kings shall arise out of the Romane Empire, but shall be no Emperors of Rome, euen as the hornes grow out of the beast, but yet are not the beast. If then it be certaine, as it is most certaine, and cannot be denyed, that the state of Rome is it whence those ten kings must grow, how can we make doubt, but that the State of Rome is it, which is here set foorth vnto vs vnder the name of Babylon? To say nothing, that there was no other state or gouernment to which it can so rightly be applyed, that it wasVers. 6. drunken with the bloud of Saints, and of the martyrs of Iesus Christ. The description fitteth so liuely and apparantly, as that the auncient Fathers Tertullian and Hierom haue made vndoubted construction thereof concerning the citie of Rome.Tertul. contra Judaeos, & lib 3 contra Marcion. Babylon apud Ioannem nostrū Romanae vrbis figuraem portat. Babylon with S. Iohn (saith Tertullian) carieth the figure of the citie of Rome. Hieron. ad Algal. q. 11. Romanum imper [...]l aeternum putant. Vnde infronte purpuratae mere [...]icis secundum Apocalyps [...]o Ioannis scriptum est nomen blasphemiae, hoc est, Romae aeternae. They thinke (saith Hierome) that the Romane Empire shall be eternall, wherupon according to the Reuelation of S. Iohn, in the forehead of the purple harlot is written a name of blasphemie, that is, Rome euerlasting. In another place speaking of his dwelling in Rome, he saith:Jdem praefat. in lib. Didymi de Sp. sancto. Cùm in Babylone versarer, & purpuratae merciricis essem ce [...]onus, & iure Quiritum v [...] uerem. When I remained in Babylon, and was an inhabitant of the purple harlot, and liued after the law or fashion of the Romanes. And againe, writing to Marcella in the name of Paula and Eustochium, to perswade her to come from Rome to Bethlehem, vseth argument therof from that which in the Reuelation is written concerning Rome:Jaem ad Marcellam Lege Apocalypsin Ioannis, & quid de muliere purpurata, & scripta in eius fronte blasphemia, septem mon [...]bus, aquis multu, & Babylonis cantetur exitu contuere. Reade (saith he) the Reuelation of S. Iohn, and he hold what is there said of the purple harlot, and the blasphemie written in her forehead, of the seuen hils and many waters, and of the end of Babylon: and thereupon applyeth to it the sentence here prefixed, Go out of her my people, saith the Lord, &c. Of which place Ludouicus Ʋiues giueth this obseruation, thatLudo. Viues in August. de ciui. Dei. lib. 18 ca. 22 Hieronymus ad Marcillam scribens non aliam existimat describi à Ioanne in Apocalypsi Babylorem, quàm vrbem P [...]nam. Hierome writing to Marcella, thinketh that there is no other Babylon described by Iohn in the Reuelation, but onely the citie of Rome. In another place also speaking namely to the citie of Rome, he saith:Hieron. adu. Iouin. li. 2. Maledictionem tibi saluator in Apocalypsi comminatus est Our Sauiour in the Reuelation hath threatened a curse vnto thee. Thus they conceiued that all that is said of Babylon, of the purple harlot, of the name of blasphemie, of the seuen hils, of the many waters, of the curse threatned to Babylon, and the finall destruction of it, to be wholy vnderstood of the citie of Rome. We wil therefore take nothing here of M. Bishops curtesie and gift, but by [Page 48] the very light of the text we will wrest it from him whether he will or not. Now this M. Perkins setteth downe indefinitely, that the whore of Babylon is the state or regiment of a people that are the inhabitants of Rome, and appertaine thereto: he concludeth not, ergo, the Romane Church is the whore of Babylon, but infer [...]eth, that by other consequence afterwards, and M. Bishop shall see, God willing, that there is sufficient to be said for proofe thereof. But wheras he saith, that of that assertion it followeth that Romulus and Remus were the purple harlot, he is much deceiued therein, because the state or regiment of a people that are the inhabitants of Rome, cannot be strained to import all people that are the inhabitants of Rome. Yet we must let him vnderstand, that Romulus was the first founder of Babylon, and in him was the beginning of the first of those seuen heads of the beast, because he was the first king of Rome. For Rome was Babylon euen from the first originall of it, as before I noted out of A [...]stin, and as appeareth in that it is described to haue seuen heads, and therefore must be Babylon, not vnder one or two onely, but vnder all those heads, though we indeed most commonly speake thereof, onely in respect of Antichrist, which is the seuenth head. So was she also from the beginning a purple harlot, being founded in bloud and parricide, as S. Austin obserueth, byAugust de ciu. Dei lib. 15. cap 5 Romulus his slaughter of his brother Remus, that he might be king alone: established byTit Liu. Dec. 1. lib. 1. rauishment of virgins and maides, allured thither vnder pretence of sports and playes: increased by continualll slaughter and bloudshed, to that huge greatnesse which it attained vnto: though the name of purple harlot be more specially giuen in respect of shedding the bloud of the martyrs of Christ, and of the filthines of Antichrist, wherein he shold go beyond all other that had gone before him. As for Constantine, Theodosius, and some other such like godly and Christian Emperours, though they were heads of her that is the whore of Babylon, yet it followeth not that they were the whore of Babylon, or the purple harlot, because it is not necessarie that simply all in that succession should be of the same affection. For euen amidst the ranke and succcession of idolatrous heathen Emperours, when M. Bishop denyeth not but that Rome was Babylon, there wasEuseb. hist. lib. 6. cap. 33. Philip the Emperour, a godly and Christian Prince, so deuoted to religion, as that he submitted himselfe to the censure of the Church. Yea and Ʋalerian the Emperour in the beginning of [Page 49] his raigne was so well affected to Christian religion, as that hisIdem lib. 7. ca [...] 9. Tota illius aula referta erat pūs, et ecclesia dei facta. Court was full of godly and deuout persons, and was become a Church of God. Therefore though Constantine and Theodosius were godly princes, yet Rome might still continue Babylon, both by the remainder of those impieties that were before, and by the seedes of that defection that was to come, which soone began to be sowed, and mightily to grow there. Whatsoeuer may be alledged of Rome for that time, it is easily to be vnderstood, that some small interregnum, as I may tearme it, and intermission of beastly and Babylonish corruption and confusion, could not take away the nature and name of that which it had bene so long before, and was soone after to be againe. And indeed a small time it was, that Rome continued in the hands of those religious and godly Princes. Necessarie it was in respect of those things that were afterward to be fulfilled, that Christian religion should publikely be established and aduanced there, which could not be, but that the Emperours and Princes themselues must be professors of Christian faith. But the chiefe seate of the Empire being by Constantine translated to Constantinople in the East, Rome within a while fell into the possession of other Lords. For about threescore and thirteene yeares after the death of Constantine (in which time also for some part thereof it had bene holden by Constantius and Valentinian the second Arian heretikes, by Iulian the Apostata, and Maximus the tyrant) it was wholy taken by the Gothes out of the Emperours hands, and so continued asBellarm. de Antichristo cap. 5. Valens, Arcadius, Theodosius [...]unior, & alij eorum successores vs (que) ad Iustinianum omnes Roma caruerunt. Bellarmine also confesseth, vnto the time of Iustinian the Emperour, which was about the space of an hundred and foureteene yeeres: yea and soone after, it was distressed and taken againe, and the Westerne Empire wholy ouerthrowen, the prouidence of God by this confusion giuing way by little and little to the Bishop of Rome to take vpon him, as afterwards he did, to be the seuenth head of the Romane State. Now then we hope M. Bishop can see, that we haue no meaning to argue in that sort, that they are of like affection in Religion who gouerne the same kingdome, nay we are so far from arguing in that sort, as that we rather confesse, that they who both are properly heads of the whore of Babylon, may yet bee diuerse in religion, as were the heathen Emperours that were of old, from the Popes that are now. Yet vpon his loose imagination he censureth vs, that with such fallacies wee take vpon vs to controule [Page 50] the learnedst in the world, of which whosoeuer they are, we are sure that he is none, nor doe hold him a fit man to iudge who they are. But M. Bishop, let vs not contend who are the best learned. You know what we are wont to say, that the greatest Clerkes bee not alwayes the wisest men. Solomon telleth you,Prou. 26.12. Seest thou a man wise in his owne conceipt? there is more hope of a foole then of him. Thinke humbly of your learning, and it will haply serue you the better to learne the truth. As for our learning, thankes be to God, it hath done you that sorow, that ye haue no cause to bragge of yours, only loosers must haue their words, and he can do little, that cannot talke.
But now he telleth vs, that admitting the purple harlot to signifie the Romane state, yet the state of Rome must be taken as it was then when these words were spoken of it, that is, pagan, idolatrous, and a hot persecutor of Christians. Here is all that he hath to say, and if this be nothing, there is no remedie but Rome must be Babylon, the Pope Antichrist, and then what shall become of him? Now we deny not but that Rome was the purple harlot vnder those heathen Emperours, but we deny that in the falling of those Emperors, she shold thencefoorth cease to be the purple harlot. For the purple harlot described by S. Iohn, was so to be vnder seuen heads, of which by S. Iohns account the Emperour was but the sixt. Sith then that Rome was the purple harlot vnder the Emperor, which was the sixt head, it followeth that there remained after the Emperor a seuenth head of the Romane state, vnder which Rome was to continue to be the purple harlot. That Babylon spoken of by S. Iohn, must be possessed by a beast as head thereof, in the time of those ten kings to which the Empire shall be diuided, whichApoc. 17.13. shall giue their power and authoritie to the same beast. There was no such diuision of the Empire, nor any such ten kings in the time of those heathen Emperours. Therefore sith Rome was Babylon vnder the heathen Emperours, it must continue to be Babylon after them. Yea that Babylon must be destroyed, with that destruction which S. Iohn describeth at large in the 18. Chapter. But Rome was not so destroyed in the time of those heathen Emperours. Therefore it abideth still vnder the name of Babylon, expecting the time of that destruction. To be short, it is without all controuersie, and D. Sanders confesseth it, thatSander. visib. Eccles monarch. lib. 8. demonstr. de Antich. 38. Joannes in Apocalypsi dicit, Reges terraecum Babylone (quae sedes & ciuitas Antichristi est) fornicasas esse. Babylon mentioned by S. Iohn, is the seate and citie of Antichrist. [Page 51] Because therefore that Rome is that Babylon whereof Saint Iohn speaketh, Rome must be the seate and citie of Antichrist. Rome was not the seate and citie of Antichrist in the time of the heathen Emperors. Therefore it remained afterwards so to be. It appeareth therefore how vainely these men please themselues with a shadow of an answer, that Rome was the purple harlot in the time of the heathen Emperours, inasmuch as thereof it followeth, that she is afterwards also the purple harlot, because it is apparant, that the purple harlot must be after the time of those Emperors, and there are not two purple harlots but onely one. That therfore which M. Bishop alledgeth vnder the name of Ambrose, is so farre from making any thing for him, as that it maketh wholy against him, because it proueth, that Rome was that great whore at that time, when the Apostle did write this. So doth that also of Hierome, because it sheweth, that it was Rome that had that blasphemie written in her forehead. As for that that he saith, thatHieron adu. Iou [...]n. lib. 2. Scriptam in fronte blasphemiam Christi confessione delesti. by the confession of Christ, she had blotted out that blasphemie, it helpeth M. Bishop nothing. She had taken away the imputation thereof for the time, but that eclypse of the light, or rather of the darknesse of the beast hindred not, as before was said, but that she might return to be the same that she was before. Yea when presently after he saith, that Christ in the Reuelation had threatened a curse vnto her, and in his Epistle to Marcella hath applyed to her, that which is said of the destruction of Babylon, as we haue seene before, he giueth vs plainely to vnderstand, that his words yeeld no exception, but that Rome might still be Babylon, because that curse and destruction but vnder the name of Babylon, could not befall vnto her. But M. Bishop hath yet some foolish reasons to perswade vs, that these things cannot be meant of the Church of Rome. First, the purple harlot was then drunke with the bloud of the Martyrs, but the Church of Rome had not then drawne bloud of any. Absurd shifter, that will thus go about to delude the vnheedie and ignorant Reader. Who would thinke him in his wits to argue thus, that the Church of Rome now cannot be the purple harlot, because the Church of Rome that then was, had shed no bloud of any Martyr? The Church of Rome then had not that headship, wherein she should be the purple harlot. She was afterterwards to be the purple harlot, when she shold be fallen from that that she was then, and should vsurpe the state and dignitie of them, [Page 52] by whom the bloud of Martyrs then was spilt, which hauing sithence done by her head the Pope, she hath played the butcher of Gods Saints vnder him, aswell as the citie of Rome did before vnder the heathen Emperor. Hereby his other exception falleth in like sort, because we speake not of the Church of Rome that then was, but of that that is growne since, by degenerating from that Church. That Church raigned not ouer the kings of the earth, neither was this latter Church of Rome to raigne ouer kings in that sort as the city of Rome then did: it is sufficient, that by raigning then ouer the kings of the earth, the place is described where the purple harlot should afterwards sit, though her kingdome were to be of another kind. For that kind of gouernment which was the Empire, was wholy to be abolished, and those ten kings before spoken of, were to arise out of the ruines thereof: but in the place of the Empire another kind of kingdome was to be set vp, in name whereof those tenne kings should submit themselues vnto the beast, Some title the beast, that is, Antichrist must haue whereby to chalenge superioritie ouer those ten kings, which, the title of Imperiall iurisdiction being extinguished, should in likelihood be the spirituall iurisdiction which hath succeeded in the same place. Which M. Bishop would gladly seeme to fasten vpon the first Church of Rome, but alas, that Church knew no such matter; it is a meere vsurpation long after presumed by the Pope. Now by this spirituall iurisdiction, he would not deny but that the Pope and Church of Rome hath raigned ouer the kings of the earth; onely hee will not haue it to be called a kingdome, and thinketh it to be but shifting to take it so. Yet Thomas Aquinas, who we hope hee will say was no shifter, was put to such a shift, as that he was faine to call it not a kingdome onely but an Empire. Who perceiuing it by constant agreement of all antiquitie, that in the dissolution of the Romane Empire should bee the arising of Antichrist, and seeing what the case of the Empire in his time was, asked the question,Thom. Aquin. in 2 Thes. cap. 2. Lect 1. Quomodo est h [...]c, quia iamdus gente [...] à Romano imperio recesserunt, & tamen necdum veni [...]. Antichrist [...] D [...]cendum est, qu [...] I [...] [...] cessauit, sed est comm [...]ta [...] de temporal [...] spirituale; & [...]deo d [...]cendam est quo [...] discessio à Romano imperio deb [...] intelligi non solum à tempor [...]li sed à spirituali. How is it that the nations long since are fallen away from the Roman Empire, and yet Antichrist is not come? Whereto he answereth, that the Empire is not ceased, but is changed from temporall to spirituall, and that the falling away must not be onely from the temporall Empire, but also from the spirituall. Whe [...]e if he had not bene blinded with the doating loue of his mistresse, he would haue seene that Antichrist certainly [Page 53] had bene come, because the certaine and infallible token of the comming of Antichrist, which was the ruine of the Roman Empire, was apparantly fulfilled. For it was the temporall Empire that the ancient fathers spake of, they neuer were so mad as to dreame of a spirituall empire to be diuided to ten kings. Of the temporall and ciuill state of the Empire, it was that Tertullian said;Tertul. de resur. carnis Romani imperij abscessio in decem reges d [...]uisa Antichristum superduce [...]. The decay of the Roman empire diuided to ten kings, shall be the bringing in of Antichrist. Of the fulfilling whereof Eberhard Archbishop of Iuuauia, aboue three hundred and fiftie yeares ago, spake thus in an assembly of the states of B [...]uaria:Auenc [...]. Annal. lib. [...] Ro ani maiestas populi qua o [...]m orbis regabatur. subl [...] est do terr [...], &c. Imperator vana appella [...]s & fol [...] vmbra est Regen decem par [...]r existu [...], qu [...] orbem t [...]rrae, Romanum quondā imperium non ad regendum, sed ad consumendum par [...]ti sunt. Decem cornua, Turcae, Graeci, Aegyptij, Afri, Hispani, Galle, Angli, Germani, Siculi, Itali, Romanas prouincias possident, Romanosque in hi [...] excidere colonos. Cornu paruulum sub his sucereuit, &c. The maiestie of the people of Rome, by which the world in times past was ruled, is taken out of the earth. The Emperour is a vaine title, and onely a shadow. There are ten kings being together, who haue diuided the world, which was sometimes the Roman empire, not to gouerne but to consume it. The ten hornes, the Turkes, Greekes, Egyptians, Africans, Spaniards, French, English, Germans, Sicilians, Italians do possesse the Roman prouinces, and haue thence worne out the colonies of the Romans. A little horne is growne vp vnder these, which hath eies, and a mouth speaking great things. Thereof Lyra also saith;Lyra. in 2 Thess. cap. 2 A Romano imperio recesserunt quaso omnia regna; negantia ei subijci & re [...]ditionem tributi. Iam à multis annis imperiū illud caruit imperatore. All kingdomes in a manner are gone from the empire of Rome, denying to it subiection and payment of tribute; now for manie yeares hath that empire beene without an Emperour. The empire of Rome then is long ago abolished and come to nought; all Bellarmines deuices cannot set it vp againe. The Empire that now is, is but a meere title; the name without the thing, and not to bee accounted so much as the shadow of the Romane empire. Yea what it is, it is the Germane, not the Roman empire; for how should he be called Emperour of Rome, who hath nothing to do in Rome? For the Pope these many hundred yeeres hath vsurped Rome, and taken it for his owne, wholy excluding the Emperour from thence.Auent Annal. li 6. A [...]ulia nostra cum vrbe Romana est, non Imperatoris. Romae nostra sede [...] est, Imperatoris est. Aquis. &c. The citie of Rome is ours, saith Adrian the fourth, not the Emperors: our seate is at Rome, the Emperours seate is at Aquez in Arduenna, which is a wood in France. Theodoric. à Num. li 3. ca. 43. Si ad Romam & Italiam respexeris. fuit illa quidam veteris Impe [...]j sedes, sed nunc Imperator nihil de ea habet quàm titulum. If a man looke to Rome & Italy, saith Theodoricus, it was indeed the seate of the ancient empire, but now the Emperour hath nothing thereof but a title onely. So then it is but a mockery now to call him the Roman Emperour; he shall vnder the name of an Emperour, be onely one of those ten kings, to whom the Empire [Page 54] should be diuided. And hereby the Bishop of Rome is infallibly knowne to be Antichrist, because in the fall of the Empire he is risen vp, and insteed of the temporall maiestie, he hath set vp a spirituall empire and iurisdiction of his owne. As for temporall dominion, he needeth not to make him Antichrist, to haue any more but onely the state and territorie of Rome. The Emperor was the sixt, & Antichrist (the Empire being dissolued) must be the seuenth head of that Romane state, which the Pope hath long time bene, andB [...]llar. de Rom. Pontif. l [...]b. 5. ca 9 Bellarmine defendeth him so to be. But to make him equall to the heathen Emperours in state and princely dominion, his spirituall iurisdiction hath bene fully sufficient; in respect whereofBlond instaur. Romae lib. 3. Omnes principes orbis terrarum pontificem vt summum deum honoram & colun [...], &c. Maiora vel certè parta priscorum tem [...]rum vect [...]g [...] libus Eur papenè omn [...] tributa Romam mittit. all princes of the world, as saith Bloudus the Popes secretarie, did honor the Pope as the highest God; and almost all Europe did send their tributes to Rome, greater, or at least equall to the reuenues of ancient times. Yea, euen out of this realme of England there went greater reuenues to Rome, asMath. Paris [...] Henr. 3. Mathew of Paris, and others haue noted, then were the reuenues of the Crowne. Therefore a very simple euasion doth M. Bishop vse, in saying, that by temporall dominion the Pope is a hundred degrees lesse then the Emperour was, when as he knoweth, that by his spirituall empire and kingdome, he hath beene as great, and indeed greater then euer the Emperour was. Now I would haue him to remember what his maister Bellarmine saith, thatBellarm. de Antichr. cap. 15. Exi [...] Antichristus vltimus rex qui tene [...] it Romanum imperium, tamen sine nomine Romani Imperatoris. Antichrist shalbe the last that shall hold the Romane empire, and yet without the name of the Romane Emperour. He would not see it, but indeed he doth thereby rightly describe the Pope, who without the name of the Emperour, hath vnder another name of spirituall iurisdiction, holden the Empire in subiection to himselfe. This he should do, because the temporall dominion was to bee diuided to ten kings. This he hath done, and hath holden those kings vnder his obedience, and yet these men stop their eyes, and will not see him to be that that indeed he is. As for that which M. Bishop saith, that M. Perkins seeketh to deceiue, in that hee applieth to Rome at this day, that which was spoken of Rome 1500 yeares ago, hee is therein much deceiued himselfe, because those things which were spoken of Rome 1500. yeares ago, were spoken by way of prophecie, to discouer Rome vnto vs as it is at this day. His last exception is, that the Empire slue more saints of God in one yeare, then the Church of Rome hath done of obstinate heretikes [Page 55] in 1600. yeeres. Where after the manner of the persecutors vnder the old empire, he calleth them reprobate and obstinate heretikes, who were indeed the Saints of God. Of them the Church of Rome slue none at all, vntill by vsurpation of the Pope, she became the seate and kingdom of Antichrist: but how she hath played her part since, it may be esteemed by that that Bellarmine himselfe reporteth, that by Bellar de notis eccles. cap 18. eight thousand, which as Mathew of Paris noteth, were the PopesMath. Paris. in Ioanne. anno 1213. crosse-marked souldiers, there were slaine at once in Fraunce a hundred thousand of the Albigenses, in the time of Innocentius the third. Mathew Paris againe mentioneth, that not long after, in the time of Pope Gregorie the ninth, there were slain of thē in AlmaineIdem in Henr. 3. anno. 1234. an infinite number, besides a great multitude of them destroyed in Spaine. Now these Albigenses, although they will not haue it so taken, were professors of the Gospell, euen of the same faith and religion which we now professe, of whom it were infinit to record, how many hundreds and thousands they haue slaine vnder the names of Waldenses, Leonists, Lollards, Wicleuists, Hussites, Hugonots, and such like. But of later times Paulus Ʋergerius, who himselfe had bin one of the Inquisition, & spake vpon good knowledge of his own, declared that by the same very Inquisition within the space of thirtie yeeres, there had bin martyredBale. de Act. Rom. Pontif. lib. 7. in fine. ex Verge [...]o. a hundred and fiftie thousand men and women, onely for the Gospels sake. The French massacres and butcheries will not bee forgotten, wherein M. Stow mentioneth, thatStowes Annals. anno 1562. in marg. the slaughters at Vassey, Paris, Sens, Tholouse, Blois, Tours, Angiers, and other places, by credible estimation reported out of France in the yeare 1562. were to the number of a hundred thousand persons, within the space of sixe moneths. After which about the space of ten yeares, followed the slaughter of Bart [...]emewtide, most barbarous and cruell, wherein some thirtie or fortie thousand were destroyed in Paris, and other cities of France, within a very short space, and thereupon great gratulations made at Rome, with processions, and other tokens of publike ioy. Thus they haue made no end of martyring the Saints of Christ, and haue equalled the crueltie of the heathen Empire to the vttermost: and yet this hypocrite being instructed by his maister Bellarmine, and hauing sold himselfe to dub his lies, telleth vs, that his Romane Church, or the Pope the head therof, hath not at all shed so much bloud, as by the heathen Empire was shed within the compasse of [Page 56] one yeare. The bloud that they haue shed crieth for reuenge, and they shall receiue it in due time.
W. BISHOP.
Hauing thus proued, that the whore of Babylon, signifieth the heathen state of Rome, and not the Ecclesiasticall: let vs now heare what you say against it. Marrie, that the distinction of the Empire of Rome, and Church of Rome is foolish, and coyned of late to serue our turne: which to be farre otherwise, I proue out of those very Authors, who do interpret that harlot to signifie Rome; who are neither foolish, nor of late dayes: you haue heard it before out of S. Ambrose commentaries. And farther, we gather it out of S. Hierome, in the Epistle which you cite: for he hauing resembled Rome vnto Babylon, for the multitude of the wicked, which yet remained in it: pointeth out a more pure part, saying; There is indeed the holy Church, there are the triumphant monuments of the Apostles and Martyrs, there is the true confession of Christ, there is the faith praised by the Apostle, &c. Be not there expressed two distinct parts of Rome? Againe, Tertullian who liued in the second hundreth yeare, vnder those persecuting Emperours, saith in one place, Lib. cont. Iud. Depraescript. cap. 16. that Babylon is a figure of Rome, in respect of her proud Empire, and persecution of the Saints. And in another, that Rome was most happie for her holy Church, vnto which the Apostles with their bloud had poured forth their whole doctrine. See a plaine distinction betweene the Heathen Empire and the holy Church of Rome; [...]. Pet. 5. which finally may be gathered out of the expresse word of God. Where the Church in Babylon coelect, is distinguished from the rest of that city, which was Pagan. You say (but without any author) that Babylon there doth not signifie Rome, but either a city in Egypt, or Assyria: But Eusebius lib. 2. his. cap. 14. & S. Ierome de Eccles. script. vers. Marcus, with other Authors more worthie of credit, do expound it of Rome. And you your selues take Babylon for Rome, where you thinke that any hold may be taken against it, as in the 17. of the Reuelation, but in S. Peters Epistle they will none of it, because it would proue too plainly, that S. Peter had bene at Rome,
R. ABBOT.
We haue here a friuolous and idle discourse, onely to giue a mocke to the vnlearned Reader. We doubt not but that there was a difference of old to be made betwixt the prophane state of the Empire, and the state of the Christian Romane Church, and who would go about to make any question of that matter? Nay we say further, that there is exceeding great difference betwixt the Church of Rome that then was, and the Church of Rome that now is; because the church of Rome that now is, is become in dominion and princely state like to the Empire that then was. And in this respect is it that M. Perkins calleth that a foolish distinction, not because it putteth difference betwixt the heathen Empire and the church that was, but because it distinguisheth to no purpose the Empire of Rome that was from the church of Rome that now is, when as the Bishops sea is now turned into the Emperours court, and by pretence of spirituall iurisdiction, the beast that now is, is become the perfectApoc. 13.12.14. image of the former beast. Some difference there is in that the Empire was wholy Pagan, and the church in some sort professeth Christ, but in pompe and pride, in filthinesse, idolatry and crueltie, the church is now the same that the Empire was. He bringeth a place of Peter needlesly to proue his distinction, and in that place will needs haue it, that by Babylon must bee meant Rome. We are well content at his offer to take it so; but so, as that he must remember that being once Babylon, it should neuer finally surcease that name vntill it caried Antichrist for the seuenth head thereof, vnder whom the abhominations of it shall grow to their full measure, that that heauie destruction may fall vpon it, which God hath threatned for full vengeance.
W. BISHOP
Well, M. Perkins is content in fine, to allow of that distinction, of Heathenish and Ecclesiasticall Rome, which before he esteemed so foolish: and then will proue; that not the Heathenish, but Ecclesiasticall Rome is resembled to the purple Harlot. See what confidence this man hath in his owne shutle wit, that now will proue this, and shortly after disproue it: but let vs giue him the hearing in the 3. v. The holy Ghost saith plainely, Cap. 1 [...]. that she hath made al the world drunk with the wine of the wrath of her fornication, & yet addeth: that she hath committed fronication [Page 58] with the kings of the earth: But this cannot be vnderstood of heathen ish Rome, for that left all the kingdomes of the earth vnto their owne religion and idolatrie: and did not labour to bring them to worship the Roman Gods. Ergo, it must bee vnderstood of Papall Rome. I answer. The Roman Empire being the head and principall promoter of all kind of Idolatrie, and maintaining, and aduancing them, that most vehemently opposed themselues against the Christian religion; who with any shew of reason can deny, but they chiefly committed spirituall fornication with the kings of the earth, if not by perswading them to forsake their owne false Gods, which the Pagan Romans worship as well as they: yet by encouraging and commaunding them to perseuer in that filthie Idolatrie, and to resist, and oppresse the Christians wheresoeuer. Neither is that true, that the Roman Emperours did not labour to bring other nations to worship new Gods, when Nero and Domitian would be worshipped as Gods, and for feare of Adrian, one Antinous his seruant, was worshipped as a God of all men: as Iustinus Martyr testifieth in his Apologie to Antonine. [...]eb. lib. 4. hist. ca [...] 8. These words of the text then, agree very well with the Emperours, who both were Idolaters, and the chiefe patrons of Idolatrie: but can in no sort be applied to the Roman Church, which was then (as the Protestants cannot deny) a pure Virgin, and most free from all spirituall fornication.
R. ABBOT.
M. Perkins admitteth the distinction, without impeachment of any thing that he hath before sayd. He granteth them that, wherby he giueth them to vnderstand that they gaine nothing. The argument which hee alledgeth to proue that Rome ecclesiasticall is here to be vnderstood, and not the heathen Rome, is very forcible & strong. For it is true that heathen Rome did not tie other nations, when they had conquered them, to their gods and rites of religion, but did rather entertaine the religions and gods of other nations. Which was a thing that S. Austin derided in them, thatAug. de e [...] [...] cap. 3. Ʋ [...] [...] ac [...], &c. Mag [...] [...] praesump [...]um non p [...]sse [...] defens [...] v [...]s. they worshipped those Gods as their maintainers and defendors whom they themselues had ouercome, and vainly presumed they could not be conquered, hauing before conquered them by whom they should be defended. They made not themselues any rule of religion; they thought it to be the way to gaine both gods and men, to haue a Pantheon for a receptacle of all strange gods, and to fashion themselues to the rites and [Page 58] ceremonies of other men. The instances that M. Bishop bringeth against this, are not to the purpose, because they are examples singular, and touch not the perpetuall course of the Romane gouernment. Nero and Domitian commaunded themselues to be worshipped as Gods, but neither did any so before, nor did any afterwards vphold that which they commanded, neither grew any such worship vniuersally or commonly to be receiued. Adrian being grieued at the losse of his paramour Antinous, whom he had abused to filthie vnnaturall lust, to do him some honour being dead whom he could not keepe aliue, named a citie in Egypt of his nameOrigen. contra Celsum lib. 3. Antinoupolis, and builded him there a temple, and commanded him there to be worshipped, but much further the worship of Antinous preuailed not. These examples are far from answering that which is said of the whore of Babylon, with speciall reference to the last state thereof, for the corruptions whereof she should finally be destroyed:Apoc. 17.2. The kings of the earth haue committed fornication with her, and the inhabitants of the earth are drunken with the wine of her fornication. Cap 18.3. All nations haue drunken of the wine of the wrath of her fornications: Cap. 19 2. she did corrupt the earth with her fornication. But these things very apparantly agree to the Church of Rome, in which it is fully verified which S. Hierome saith of Antichrist, thatH [...]ron in Dan. 7. C [...]nct [...] religionem suae sub [...]cret po [...]ati. he shal [...] bring all religion vnder his owne power. The Pope hath made himself the master and commander of all religion; what he list to approue, must be followed; what he disliketh, must be reiected: no man must presume to contrarie that which he saith.Decretal de [...]aer [...]. cap. Ad al [...]o [...]ena [...]m. Vniuersos que de sacramento cor [...] & sanguinis Domini, vel de baptismate. se [...] peccatorum confessione, matrimonio, vel reliq [...] ecclesiasticis Sacramentu, aliter s [...]ntire aut docere n [...]n me [...] unt quam sacrosancta Romana Ecclesia praedicat & obseruat. vinculo perpetu [...] Anathematis [...]nnodamus. We bind them all vniuersally with a bond of a perpetuall curse, saith he, who dare to thinke or teach otherwise then the Church of Rome teacheth and obserueth of the sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ, or of Baptisme, or of confession, matrimonie, or other sacraments of the Church. 25. q. 1. Generali. Constitu [...] mus vt execrandum anathema sit, quicunque regum seu episcoporum, vel potē tum de [...]ceps Romanorum Pontificum decreterum censuram in quoquam crediderit vel permiserit violandam. We determin that he shall be highly accursed, whatsoeuer king, or bishop, or potentate, shall thinke that the sentence of the decrees of the Bishops of Rome may be violated in any thing, or shall suffer the same so to be. De maior. & obed. cap Vnam sanctam. Subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, & pronunciamus, [...] mnò esse de necessitate salu [...], We denounce, that it is necessarie to saluation, for euery humane creature to be subiect to the Bishop of Rome. Vnder this authoritie he hath sent abroad through the world his Iubilees, his Pardons, his dispensations, his [Page 60] Masses, his Monkeries, his Relickes, his Agnus Deis, his hallowed beades, his holy water, his holy oyle, and a thousand such other witchcrafts and sorceries, and hath enchanted and besotted the nations to make them doate vpon the opinion of these abhominations. I need not amplifie this point, the matter is plaine enough, and they themselues require this obedience to be performed to that filthie beast. As for that M. Bishop saith of heathen Rome, incouraging and commanding the nations to perseuere in their filthie idolatry, neither doth that satisfie the matter, because she could not be properly calledApoc. [...]8.5. the mother of those fornications and abhominations which she found among the nations, and onely incouraged them to perseuere therein. But the Church of Rome hath either bene the deuiser of her abominations, or if they haue in any part bene deuised by others, yet she hath licked all those monstrous and ilfauoured bastards to their forme. The Church of Rome, I say, that now is, we apply nothing to the Church of Rome that then was, which he fondly inculcateth without cause. The mother we confesse was a chast matron, but the daughter is growne to be a filthie harlot.
W. BISHOP.
But that it is now become idolatrous, M. Perkins doth proue by his second reason, gathered also (I warrant you, right learnedly) out of the text it selfe, where it is said: that the tenne hornes which signifie ten kings,Cap. 17. ver 16. shall hate the whore, and make her desolate and naked: which (as he saith) must be vnderstood of Popish Rome. For whereas in former times, all the kings of the earth did submit themselues to the whore: now they haue begun to withdraw themselues, and to make her desolate: as the kings of Bohemia, Denmarke, Germany, England, Scotland, and other parts. In these his words is committed a most foule fault, by grosse ouersight and ignorance in the very text. What, be England, Scotland, Denmarke, (as for Bohemia ruled by a Catholike Emperor, it must be omitted, as also many States of Germany,) be these Kingdoms your principall pillars of the new Gospell, comprehended within the number of the ten, mentioned there in S. Iohn, which hate the harlot? Yes marry. Why then they are enemies of Christ, and Satans souldiers; for in the 13. verse it is said of these, that they shall deliuer their power vnto the beast, (which signifieth either the diuell or Antichrist) and [Page 61] shall fight with the Lambe, and the Lambe shall ouercome them, because he is Lord of Lords, and King of Kings. Is not this doating in an high degree, to infame so notoriously them, of whom he wold speake most honor? and to make the speciall Patrons of their new Gospell, the diuels captaines, and fiercely to wage battell against Christ Iesus. See, how heate of wrangling blindeth mens iudgements.
R. ABBOT.
The direct conclusion intended by M. Perkins is, that S. Iohns prophecie was not accomplished in heathenish Rome, whereupon it remaineth to be vnderstood of the Church of Rome. The argument which he vseth to that purpose is inuincible, and M. Bishop cunningly ouerslippeth it without saying any thing directly to it. He chargeth M. Perkins with most foule fault, and grosse ouersight and ignorance in the text, and with being blinded with heate of wrangling, when he himselfe, poore soule, knoweth not what he saith, or if he do know, then carieth himselfe most impudently therein. The case is plaine, if we do but consider that the beast and the harlot belong both to one, as S. Iohn giueth vs to vnderstand, by describingApoc 17.3.7. the woman to be sitting vpon the beast, in respect whereof the Rhemish Diuines do nameRhem. Testā. Annotat. Apoc. 131. the whore, and the beast, and Antichrist all as one. So Ferus their Preacher of Mentz saith:Ferus in Mat. 24. Abhominationem disolationis quae est regnū Antichristi Ioannes in Apocalypsi nunc qu [...]dē per Bestiam cui draco potestatem suam dedit, nunc per mulierem best [...] insidentem intelliga. &c. The abomination of desolation which is the kingdome of Antichrist, Iohn in the Apocalypse vnderstandeth sometimes by the beast to which the Dragon gaue power, sometimes by the woman sitting vpon the beast, and making all to drinke of the wine of her fornication. S. Iohn then giueth vs to vnderstand, that ten kings should arise out of the dissolution of the Empire, as hath bene said. Of these ten kings he saith,Ver. 13. These haue one mind, and shall giue their power and authoritie to the beast. Hereupon it shall follow, that together with the beastVer. 14. they shall fight against the Lambe, that is, against Iesus Christ. Afterward it shall come to passe, that those ten kings▪ Ver. 16. shall hate the whore that sitteth vpon the beast, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eate her flesh, and burne her with fire. For, that it may appeare how they shall giue their power to the beast, and yet hate the whore, that is, submit themselues to Antichrists state and gouernment, and yet hate the Babylon wherein he hath raigned, he addeth:Ver. [...]7. For God hath put [Page 62] in their hearts to fulfill his will, and to do with one consent, for to giue their kingdome to the beast, vntill the words of God be fulfilled. So then vntill the words of God be fulfilled, and he haue performed what in his secret iudgement he hath thereof decreed, those ten kings shall submit themselues to the whore, to the beast, that is, to Antichrist raigning in his Babylon. But when God hath finished his worke otherwise, then the kingdome of Antichrist shall be ouerthrowne: the kings that before were subiect, shall withdraw their obedience from him; they shall hate the whore of Babylon, the citie of the beast, of Antichrist, and hauing stript her of the state and dominion wherby she was aduanced and raigned ouer them, they shall furiously bend themselues against her, vntill they haue vtterly destroyed her. These things we see cannot belong to the dayes of the heathen Emperours, as before is said, because the diuision of the Empire, and these ten kings were not in those times. It remaineth therefore, that the prophecie belongeth to times afterwards succeeding. Now being so vnderstood, as necessarily it must be, we see the same in part alreadie fulfilled in the Church of Rome, and God in his good time will fulfill the rest. The Empire hath bene diuided into many kingdomes: those kings haue all submitted their scepters to the power and authoritie of the Bishop of Rome. He hath plaid the Lord and tyrant ouer them, and they haue patiently suffered him so to do. Yet God at length hath opened some of their eyes alreadie, and they haue learned to see the deceits of Antichrist, and to hate the same. The like mercie he will shew to the rest in his good time, and they shall ioyntly apply themselues to worke the confusion of that wicked strumpet. So then they whom God hath alreadie called, are not now as M. Bishop cauilleth, the enemies of Christ, and Satans souldiers; they were so, so long as they gaue their power and kingdome to the beast: but now they are Gods armie, and the captaines of the Lords hoast, to fight his battels against the beast and the whore, vntill they haue wrought his iudgement vpon them. Weigh the text (gentle Reader) and consider well how readily it yeeldeth thee that that we say thereof: and hereby conceiue, in what a pitifull case M. Bishop was, when he was faine to passe it ouer as he hath done. Yet his fellowes are beholding to him, that he layeth lustily about him with words, and seemeth to haue a good courage, howsoeuer if he weighed the place at all, it [Page 63] could not be, but that in his owne bosome he was well priuie, that his cause was quite vndone.
W. BISHOP.
But you proceed and say, pag. 7. that we further hold, that the bloud of the Saints and Martyrs was not shed in Rome, but in Hierusalem. Here is a confusion of men, and matters; for we say that the bloud of many Saints rehearsed in the Apoc. was shed in Rome by the tyrannicall Emperors, but the martyring of those two principall witnesses, Cap. 17. Enoch and Elias, (recorded in the eleuenth of the same) shall be at Hierusalem, aswell, because the text is very plaine for it; Ver. 8. specifying that their bodies shall lie in the streetes of that great citie, where the Lord was crucified; as for that the ordinarie interpreters of that place do so take it. But M. Perkins holdeth, that the place where Christ was crucified, signifieth here not Hierusalem, but Rome; because Christ was crucified there in his members: so it might as well signifie any other place of persecution as Rome: the reason therefore being nought worth, he fortifieth it with the name of S. Hierome, but citeth in the margent a letter of two vertuous matrons, Paula and Eustochium. Good sir, if S. Hierome had meant, that that Epistle should haue had his authoritie, Epist. 17. Epist. 17. he would haue set it out in his owne name, which seeing he thought not expedient, set the authoritie of it aside, and vrge his reasons, if you thinke it woorth your labour, and you shall be answered. In the meane season (I hope) all sober Christians, will take the place where our Sauiour Christ was nailed on the crosse, to signifie rather Hierusalem, then Rome. And consequently, all that you haue alledged out of Scripture, to proue the whore of Babylon to figure the ecclesiasticall state of Rome, not to be woorth a rush.
R. ABBOT.
That which M. Perkins alledgeth, is according to their common fancie, that Antichrist shall haue his seate & kingdome at Hierusalem, & therfore shall there shed the bloud of the Martyrs of Christ. For some of thē perceiuing, as M. Bishop might do, if his eyes were matches, that the Prophecie of S. Iohn cannot be determined vnder the heathen Empire of Rome, do post vs off to Hierusalem. there to find the whore of Babylon drunke with the bloud of Gods Saints, [Page 64] and so vnderstand that which is said of the slaughter ofApoc. 11.3.8. the two witnesses, whose bodies are said to lie in the streets of the great citie, where our Lord also was crucified. Thus because Rome is most euidently described by S. Iohn, they tell vs one while that these things are indeed to be referred to Rome, but vnder the heathen Emperours: and because there are some things that cannot possibly be applied to the time of the heathen Emperours, they another while put all ouer to Hierusalem, and will by no meanes admit of Rome, albeit it be most manifestly pointed out for the place thereof. But as touching the place of the death of those two witnesses, M. Perkins rightly saith, that it is not meant of Hierusalem, but of Rome. It is called the great citie, and what the great citie importeth we vnderstand by the mention of it afterwards,Cap. 17.18. the great citie that raigneth ouer the kings of the earth. That was Rome, and not Hierusalem, as hath beene before declared. Hierusalem was destroyed 20. yeares or more before S. Iohn saw this Reuelation, andHieron. in Ier. lib. 4. cap. 19. Ciuitas eorum in aeter [...]os caneres collapsa est: us (que) ad consummationem seculi ruinae Hierusalem permansurae sunt was fallen into dust for euer, as Hierome speaketh, the ruines or destructions thereof shall continue vntill the worlds end. Theodoret in Diu. cap. 9. Vs (que) ad finem seculi consummatio desolationis absque vlla mutatione permanebit Euen to the end of the world, saith Theodoret, the consummation of her desolation shall continue without any change. The words of the Prophets are fully verified in her,Ierem. 19 11. I will breake this citie as a man breaketh a potters vessell, that cannot be made whole againe. Mich 3 12. Sion shall be plowed as a field, and Hierusalem shall be an heape, and the mountaine of the house shall be as the high places of the forrest. Saue onely for three turrets, and a part of the wals on the west side, left to shew what a citie the Romanes had ouercome, it was so destroyedIoseph. le bello Iudai [...]. cap. 18. & 2 [...]. to the very foundations, as Iosephus recordeth, and layed so flat, as that men would hardly haue thought that there had bene any habitation there. Arias Montan. in Mich. cap. 3. Ille quae nunc Hierosolyma dicitur [...] Ael [...]o Adriano Athae nomin [...] construct [...], [...]que antiquam faciem ne qu [...] situm etiam retinet. Quod & obscura quaedam ill [...] quae extant vestigia & de scriptio ipsa manifestè arguunt, &c. Onely Aelius Adrianus the Emperour built neare vnto it another citie, which of his own name he called Aelia, which since hath gone with Christians vnder the name of Hierusalem, but hath indeed neither the fashion nor situation of Hierusalem, as Arias Montanus noteth for the iustifying of that prophecie, and therefore is but wrongly and corruptly called by that name. Therefore there neither is, nor shall bee any Hierusalem for Antichrist to raigne in, nor streets of Hierusalem, wherein the corpses of those two witnesses should lie. To proue that Hierusalem is not there vnderstood, M. Perkins bringeth the testimonie of Hieromes epistle, written in the name of Paula and Eustochium, to [Page 65] Marcella. M. Bishop answereth, that if Hierome had meant that that epistle should haue had his authoritie, he would haue set it out in his owne name. He could not denie but that Hierome was the author of it, and if Hierome would not haue had it to cary his authoritie, he would not surely haue giuen it place amongst the rest of his epistles. But that he should keepe it still vnder their names for whom he wrote it, there was a necessarie cause, because there are some circumstances in it that are appliable to them onely, and not to him. Now Hierome though he there deny that great citie to be Hierusalem, yet doth not expound it to be Rome; but that is very manifest of it selfe, because it isVerse 7 [...] the beast that shall fight against those two witnesses and kill them, and the beast, as we haue before seene, is the Romane state and gouernement, and Rome the citie of seuen hils, the place and seate thereof. But to the contrarie M. Bishop vrgeth, that it is sayd to be the citie where our Lord also was crucified; and that he saith, all sober Christians will take rather to signifie Hierusalem then Rome. Thus no man must be taken to be sober that wil not serue the Popes turne. Yet we take our selues to be sober, and because we are so, we know that the words are not to be vnderstood of that that is not, but of that that is, and therefore not of Hierusalem, which neither is nor shall be, as hath bene sayd, but of Rome, which is and shall bee, vntill God bring vpon it the destruction which he hath pronounced. For that we are not properly there to vnderstand the place where Christ was crucified, beside that we conceiue it by the course of the whole booke,Hieron. de 5. quaest. Marcellae. Omnis ille liber spiritualitèr intelligendus est. which as Hierome saith, is spiritually to be vnderstood, the place it selfe plainely directeth vs thereto. The great citie, saith S. Iohn, which spiritually is called Sodome and Egypt, where our Lord also was crucified. It is spiritually called Sodome and Egypt, and it is spiritually the place where our Lord was crucified. Now the citie where our Lord was corporally crucified being vtterly perished, there is no other great city to which we haue any reason in speciall maner to referre it spiritually, but onely the city of Rome.Rhem. Testam. Annot. Apoc. 17. 18. By authoritie of the Romane Empire, as the Rhemists rightly acknowledge, Christ himselfe was put to death, and by the same Romish authoritie the members of Christ were put to death, both in Rome it selfe, and throughout the whole world. The members of Christ are spiritually Christ; he reckoneth and accounteth them as himselfe. Of the members of his mysticall [Page 66] body, he saith;Math. 25.40. In as much as ye haue done it to one of the least of these my brethren, ye haue done it vnto me. Acts 9.4. Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? Origen. in Ierem hom. 11. Per singulis martyres Iesus cōdemnatur. Si co [...]emnatur Christianus [...]: tanti [...] quod Christianus est, Christus est qu. condemnatur. In euery of the martyrs Iesus is condemned. If a Christian be condemned onely for that hee is a Christian, it is Christ that is condemned. Therefore those things that are done to the faithfull for the name and faith of Christ, are termedPhil. 3.10. Christs sufferings, 2. Cor. [...].10. the death of the Lord Iesus, Heb. 13.13. the reproach of Christ, Gal. 6.17. the markes of the Lord Iesus, & therein they are saydIbid. 2.19. to be crucified with Christ. Seeing then the bloud of the martyrs hath bene shed so abundantly in the streetes of Rome it selfe, and by authoritie from Rome, the like bloud hath bene shed and spilt in the streetes of all other cities and places throughout the world, which because they were vnder the dominion of the citie of Rome, may well bee called the streetes of Rome, therefore Rome aboue all other is the place whereof it may be truly sayd, that it is the great citie where spiritually our Lord was crucified, and in the streetes whereof the Lords witnesses were slaine. And that Christ was crucified at Rome, M. Bishop must not deny, because he must not deny that which Ambrose reporteth concerning Peters being crucified at Rome. He telleth, thatAmbros lib. 5. epist. 32. in Orat. cont. Auxent. when the Pagan infidels sought for Peter to put him to death, the faithfull requested him that for a while he should go aside, and should reserue himselfe to instruct and strengthen the people of Christ. Whereupon at night he was going out, and seeing Christ to meete him in the gate, and to be entring into the citie, he saith vnto him, Lord, whither goest thou? Respondit Christ [...]; venio Romam uerum crucifiga. Intellexit ergò Petrus quod iterum Christus erat crucifegendus in seruulo, &c. Christ answered, I come to Rome to be crucified againe. Peter then vnderstood, that Christ was in his seruant to be crucified againe. Therefore he went backe of his owne accord, and when the Christians demaunded the matter, he gaue them this answer, and being streight wayes taken he glorified the Lord Iesus. Sith then that in the crucifying of Peter Christ was crucified, and Peter was crucified at Rome, it cannot be denied but that Christ also was crucified at Rome, and therefore that Rome is rightly called the citie where our Lord was crucified. As for that that hee saith, that the two witnesses there spoken of, are Enoch and Elias, it is a meere fable, and hath no probabilitie or likelihood of truth. Some curious heads finding mention of two witnesses, must needs vse their wits to deuise to what two particular men they might apply that name. Arethas saith,Areth. in Apo 11. Extraditione prae [...] Christi inuariabilitèr in ecclesia receptum est Enoch venturum esse cum [...]lia Thesbite. that it was constantly receiued that they should be Enoch and Elias. But Victorinus, [Page 67] who was farre more ancient then Arethas, telleth vs otherwise.Victorin. in Apoc. 11 apud sixt. senens B blioth. lib. 6. annot. 34 [...]. Multiputant vnum ex hic testibus esse Eliā, alterum aut Elizeum aut Mose [...]; sed vtrique mortui sunt. Jeremiae autem mors non inuenitur, quia omnes veteres nostri tradiderunt illū esse Ieremiam. Many thinke (they did but thinke) that one of these witnesses is Elias, the other either Elizeus or Moses, but they are both dead. Marry, the death of Ieremy is not found; for all our ancients haue deliuered that that other is Ieremie. YetHilar. in Mat. can. 20 Mosen & Eliam duos prophetas intelligimus praeuementes aduentum Antichristi, &c. Hilary thinketh, that he that shall come with Elias shall be Moses and no other. Such vncertaintie is there in mens presumptions, when they will determine of that which God hath said, only by their conceipts. Very probable it is, that it is an allusion to thatIohn. 8.17. that is written in the law, as our Sauior saith, that the witnesse of two is true, God therby giuing to vnderstand, that notwithstanding the furie of the beast, & the crueltie of persecutors & tyrants, yet he will neuer want two witnesses, that is, sufficient for the iustifying of his truth. We may otherwise though to the same effect refer it to theZach. 4.3.12. two oliue branches spokē of by the prophet Zachary, which did drop oyle into the lampe that was to burne and giue light before the Lord, as to signifie that God would prouide alwayes to haue some by whom he would preserue the light of the Church, and no lesse vphold it, then by the two oliue branches, that is, the kingdome and the priesthood, he did amongst the people of the Iewes. S. Austin in his Homilies vpon the Apocalypse, if at least he were the author of them, expoundethAugust, in Apoc. hom. 8. Beda in Apo. 11. the two witnesses to be the two testaments, whom Beda also followeth therein, and that we may know the vanitie of that tale of Enoch and Elias, he saith, thatAugust. ibid. Excluditur omnis suspicio quorundam qui putant hos duos testes, duos vn o [...] esse, & ante aduentum Christi coelum in nubibus ascendisse. Quomodo autem potuerunt habitantes terram de duorum nece gaudere, [...]um in vna ciuitate marerentur & munera inuicē mittere, si tres dies sunt quo antequā gaudeant de nece contristentur de resurrectione. their conceipt is wholy excluded, who thinke that those two witnesses shall be two certaine men, and that they bee ascended to heauen in the clouds before the comming of Christ. For how, saith he should the inhabitants of the earth reioyce of the death of two, when as they should dye in one citie; and how should they send gifts one to another, if there be but three dayes that before they can reioyce of their death, they shall haue sorow againe of their resurrection. He gathereth out of the very text it selfe, that the place cannot be meant of two particular men, because the inhabitants through the world can haue no such reioycing of two men put to death in one place, who within three dayes must rise againe, and therefore necessarily we must admit another construction thereof. That is briefly this, as more at large might be shewed, if occasion so required, that the seruants of God for the word of their testimonie, the doctrine of Iesus Christ, witnessed by the old and new testament, should be murthered and slaine in the [Page 68] streets and cities of the Romane Empire, and their bodies dishonorably cast forth and left to the foules and beasts, whom yet notwithstanding God after a time certainly determined, would chalenge from that despite and reproach, and make their name glorious, so that they should seeme euen to rise from death to life, and as it were from hell to be raised vp to heauen; which came afterwards to passe, when God by Constantine freed his Church from the persecution of that time.
W. BISHOP.
Now let vs come to the ancient and learned men, whom you cite in fauour of your exposition. The first is S. Bernard, who saith, that they are the ministers of Christ, but they serue Antichrist. Of whom speaketh that good religious Father? forsooth of some officers of the court of Rome. Good, who were (as he saith) the ministers of Christ, because they were lawfully called by the Pope to their places, but serued Antichrist; for that they behaued themselues corruptly in their callings. And so this maketh more against you, then for you, approuing the lawfull officers of Rome, to be Christs ministers. The second place is alledged out of him yet more impertinently, your selfe confessing presently, that those words were not spoken of the Pope, but of his enemie: The reason yet there set downe, pleaseth you exceedingly: which you vouch so clearely that it seemeth to beare flat against you; for you inferre that that Pope, and all others since that time, be vsurpers, out of this reason of S. Bernard. Because forsooth, that the Antipope called Innocentius, was chosen by the King of Almaine, Fraunce, England, &c. and their whole cleargie, and people. For if Innocentius were an Antichrist and vsurper, because he was elected by so many Kings and people: then belike he that had no such election, but is chosen by the Cardinals of Rome onely is true Pope. This, your words declare, but your meaning (as I take it) is quite contrarie. But of this matter and manner of election shall be treated hereafter, if need require; It sufficeth for this present, that you find no reliefe at all in S. Bernard, touching the maine point, that either the Pope, or Church of Rome is Antichrist. And all the world might maruell, if out of so sweet a Doctor, and so obedient vnto the Pope, any such poyson might be sucked: specially weighing well, what he hath written vnto one of them, Lib. 2. de Cons. ad Eugen. to whom he speaketh thus, Go to, let vs yet enquire more [Page 69] diligently, who thou art, and what person thou bearest in the Church of God, during the time. Who art thou? A great Priest, the highest Bishop: thou art the Prince of Bishops, the heire of the Apostles, and in dignitie Aaron, in authoritie, Moses, in Power, Peter, thou art he to whom the Keyes were deliuered, to whom the sheepe were committed: There are indeed also other Porters of Heauen, and Pastors of flockes; but thou art so much the more glorious, as thou hast inherited a more excellent name aboue them: they haue their flockes allotted to them, to each man one: but to thee all were committed, as one flocke to one man: thou art not onely Pastor of the sheepe, but of all other Pastors, thou alone art the Pastor. And much more to this purpose, which being his cleare opinion of the Pope, how absurd is it, out of certaine blind places, and broken sentences of his to gather, that he thought the Pope of Rome to be neither sheepe, nor Pastor of Christs Church, but verie Antichrist himselfe.
There is a grosse fault, also in the Canon of Pope Nicholas as he citeth it: that the Pope was to bee created by the Cardinals, Bishops of Rome. As though there were some thirtie or fortie Bishops of Rome at once, but of the matter of election else where.
R. ABBOT.
I confesse the places of S. Bernard do not serue directly to that purpose to which they are brought. In naming Antichrist, he did not intend thereby, that we should vnderstand the Pope; yet M. Bishop without cause taketh aduantage of his first words, because the Pope being Antichrist indeed, nothing hindreth, but that they who by office, and calling, and dutie, are the ministers and seruants of Christ, may in action and practise perfidiously and trecherously yeeld their seruice to the Pope. Antichrist shall2. Thes. 2.4. sit in the temple of God, and therefore the officers of the temple of God shall be subiect vnto him. That which by institution is the house of God, shall by his occupation become a den of theeues: they who by dutie are subiects, shall in following him be rebels and traitors; pastors shall become beasts; watchmen shall be blind men, and they who haue places for one vse, shall turne them to another. Thus S. Bernard saith of the Cleargie of Rome:Bernard. in Cant. ser. 32. Ministri Christi sunt & seruiunt Antichristo. They are the ministers of Christ, and they [Page 70] serue Antichrist: the true vse of their places is the seruice of Christ, but they abuse the same to the helping forward of the kingdome of Antichrist. He describeth at large in that place the horrible corruption of the Church of Rome.Ibid serpit hodie putidatabes per omne corpus ecclesiae, et quo la t [...]u [...] eo desperatit [...]; co (que) perititiosius, quo inter [...]tis. A filthie contagion, saith he, is creeping through the whole bodie of the Church, by how much the more generally, so much the more desperatly; and so much the more dangerously, by how much the more inwardly. He sheweth how the Pastours of Churches, Deanes, Archdeacons, Bishops, Archbishops, got their places by Simonie, and abused them to luxurie and all excesse. He complaineth thatIut [...]sti [...]a & insinabilu est plaga ecclesia, &c. A turpi vita, à turpi questu, à turpi commercio, à negatio deni (que), perambulante in tenebris. the plague of the Church was inward and incurable, and that by filthie life, by filthie lucre, by filthie companie, and by the matter that walketh in the darke, that is, by Simonie. He concludeth thus,Superest vt tam de medio siat daemonium meridianum, ad seducendos siqui in Christo residus sunt adhuc permanentes in simplicitate sua. Ipse est Antichristus qui se non solùm diem sed etiam meridiem menti [...]tur. It remaineth, that the noone-walking diuell be brought forth to seduce, if there be any in Christ, yet continuing in their simplicitie. The same is Antichrist, who shal counterfeit himselfe to benot onely day, but noone day, and shall be exalted aboue all that is called God, &c. Againe, hauing vpon another occasion afterwards entred into the like discourse of the strange declination of the state of the Church, he endeth in like sort;In Psal. Qui habitat ser. 6. superest vt reueletur homo peccati &c. It remaineth, that the man of sinne be reuealed, the son of perdition, &c. He saw not that the Pope was Antichrist, yet he saw that the Church was then by the gouernment of the Pope as a horse sadled and bridled, and fully furnished for Antichrist to get vp and ride vpon. Yea and it appeareth by that that M. Perkins secondly citeth, that he did not thinke S. Peters chaire to be vncapable of Antichrist, in that he saith:Idem epist. 125. Bestia illa de Apocalypsi cui datum est os loquutus blasphemias & bellum gererecum sinctu Petri sedem occupat tanquam leo paratus ad praedam. The beast spoken of in the Reuelation, to which is giuen a mouth speaking blasphemies, and to make warre with the Saints, possesseth the chaire of Peter, as a Lion readie to the prey. He spake this indeed of the Antipope, but yet it appeareth that he saw the time then fitting for the kingdome of Antichrist, and that Antichrist might be likely to sit in Peters chaire, and therfore was not farre from seeing and deeming that the Pope was Antichrist. But what he saw not, others had seene before that time, whenAuent. Annal. lib 5. Pleri (que) tum Hildebrandum pro contione Antichristum esse praedicant titulo Christi, inquibat, Antichristi negotium agitat. In Babylonia in templo dei sede [...]. Super omne id quod col tur extollitur quasi deus sit, se errare nō posse gloriatur, &c. Quicquid dixerit, legem Dei putat, &c. many in their Sermons, as Auentinus saith, did publikely deliuer, that Hildebrand was Antichrist; that vnder the title of Christ, he did the businesse of Antichrist. He sitteth in Babylon, said they, in the temple of God; he is exalted aboue all that is worshipped, as if he were very God: he boasteth that he cannot erre: whatsoeuer he saith, he taketh it to be the law of God. The same Auentinus mentioneth, that [Page 71] Ibid. Pleri (que) omnes boni, aperti, iusti, ingenui, simplices tum imperium Antichristi coepisse quòd ea quae Christus seruator noster tot annos antè nobis cantauit euenisse eo tempore cernebant, memoriae literarum prodidere. almost all good and plaine men, that dealt iustly, ingenuously, and simply, did then deliuer in writing, that the kingdome of Antichrist was then begun, for that they saw that those things were then come to passe, which Christ our Sauiour had spoken of so many yeares before. Long after that he bringeth in Eberhard the Archbishop of Iunauia, of whom I spake before, saying,Idem. lib. 7. Sub Pont. maximi titulo, pastoris pelle, lupum saeuissimum nisi caeci sumus sentimus. Hildebrā dus ante annos centum et septuaginta primus specie religionis Antichristi imperij jundamenta iecit. &c. Flamines illi Babyloniae soli regnare cupiunt: ferreparem non possunt. &c. Qui seruus seruorum est, dominus dominorū perinde acsi deus foret esse cupit. &c. Ingentia loquitur quasi vera Deus esset. &c. Ʋnder the title of the highest bishop, the garment of a shepheard, we perceiue, if we be not blind, a most cruell wolfe. Hildebrand, saith he, a hundred and seuenty yeares ago, did first vnder shew of religion lay the foundation of the Empire of Antichrist, &c. Those Priests of Babylon desire to raigne alone; they can indure no equall. He that is the seruant of seruants coueteth to be Lord of Lords, euen as though he were God. He speaketh great words as though he were God, euen that wicked man, whom they are wont to call Antichrist, in whose forehead a name of blasphemie is written, I am God, I cannot erre. Thus l Matthew of Paris sheweth, how Robert Grosthead bishop of Lincolne in the time of king Henry the third, being extremely afflicted and grieued, to see the desolation and confusion of the Church, by the practises of the Bishop of Rome, a little before his death called some of his Cleargie to him, and by argument and reason informed them, that the Pope was Antichrist, for that he wasm a destroyer of soules, for that he by his n Non obstante violated and ouerturned all the constitutions of the holy Fathers; for that he multiplied o mischiefes and inconueniences in the Church, &c. I omit many other that might be brought particularly acknowledging and testifying this point: but by these it may appeare, that both before the time of S. Bernard, and after, it was a thing amongst good men cō monly beleeued and spoken, that the Pope was Antichrist. Yea M. Perkins well obserueth, that the reason whereby S. Bernard proued Anacletus the Antipope to be Antichrist, proueth all the Popes since to haue bene Antichrists, because they haue not bene elected according to that forme whereby he then iustified Innocentius to be the true bishop of Rome, that is, with consent of the Emperor, the Princes of Christendome, and the whole Cleargie, being since chosen by the Cardinals onely. And this he further confirmeth by a decree of Pope Nicholas the second, for the election of the Pope, that it shall be with the liking of theDist. 33. In nomine saluo sē per honore & reuerentia Imperae toris ista siant. Emperour, and performed byElectio Romani Pontificis in potestate Cardinalium Episcoporum sit: ita vt siquis Apostolicae sedi sinc praemissae concordi & canonica electione eorum, ac deinde sequentium ordinum religioserū. Clericorum & Laicorum consensu inthroni. zatur. non Papa vel Apostolicus, sed Apostataeus habeatur. the Cardinall Bishops, but with the consent of the rest of the Cleargie and Laitie, and if any man, saith he, be set in the Apostolike seate [Page 72] without the foresaid concording and canonicall election of the Cardinals, and the consent of the religious states following, the Cleargie and Laity, he shall not be accounted Pope or Apostolicall, but Apostatical, which is as much to say, as Antichristian. The Popes then being not now, nor hauing bene of long time chosen by this rule, but onely by the Colledge of Cardinals, are found to be Apostataes and Antichrists, by the sentence and decree of the Pope himselfe. Hereto M. Bishop saith not a word, though he confesse that he knew M. Perkins meaning well enough, which indeed was somewhat amisse set downe, by putting the Antipope called Innocentius for the Pope called Innocentius. He had nothing whereby to excuse the Pope from being Antichrist euen by his owne decrees, and therefore putteth the matter ouer to another place, where he neuer meant to say any thing of it. Onely in the end he chargeth M. Perkins with a grosse fault in citing the Canon of Pope Nicholas, for saying that the Pope was to be created by the Cardinals, bishops of Rome; as though, saith he, there were some thirtie or fortie Bishops of Rome. Belike it was darke, and his eyes did not well serue him, or else he might haue seene, that M. Perkins did not say, by the Cardinals, Bishops of Rome, as he hath set downe, and pointed amisse, but by the Cardinall Bishops of Rome, that is, by the Cardinals of Rome which are Bishops. For they are all Cardinals of Rome, but some are Cardinall bishops, some Cardinall priests, some Cardinall Deacons, and according to this distinction M. Perkins named the Cardinall Bishops of Rome, the Popes Canon requiring the Cardinall Bishops to be the Electors of the Pope. As touching that which M. Bishop citeth out of S. Bernard for his opinion of the Pope, I answer him, that we doubt not, but that S. Bernard had a very high opinion of the Popes place, but I answer him withall, that S. Bernard had a higher opinion of the Popes place, then he had of the Pope himselfe. He knew well, that though the Popes place were such in the Church of Christ as he describeth it to be, yet the Pope by the abusing of his place, might be very Antichrist himselfe. He wisheth Pope Eugenius to remember and consider, what person, what place and office, according to his conceipt, he did beare in the Church, thereby to moue him vpon conscience thereof to the redressing of those intolerable enormities and corruptions, that were then growne in the Church and Court of Rome. For in those books De consideratione, he doth purposely [Page 73] bend himselfe to lay foorth the deformities and abuses then preuailing: to shew how the Bishop of Rome by temporall dominion and princely pompe, did degenerate from Peter and the rest of the Apostles, & did rather succeed Constantine then him; to note the defaults and corruptions of gouernment, of iudiciall proceedings, of appeales to Rome, of the Popes dispensations, of the neglect of the punishment of offendors; to shew the neglect of the Cleargie in teaching the people, making themselues fitter for any other vse, then for that. Yea such was the horrible apostasie and iniquitie raigning at that time, as that by way of complaint vnto Iesus Christ, he saith therof with exceeding griefe in another place,Bernard in conuers. S. Pauli Ser. 1. Coniurasse contra te videtur vniuersitas Christiani populi à minimo vsque ad maximum: à planta pedis, vs (que) ad verticem, non est sanitas vlla. Egressa est iniquitas à senioribus, Iudicibus, Vi carijs tuis qui videntur regere populum tuum, &c. Heu! heu! Domine Deus, quia ipsi sunt in persecutione tua primi qui videntur in Ecclesia tua diligere primatum, gerere principatum. Aꝰ cem Sion occupauerunt, apprehenderunt munitiones, & vniuersam deinceps liberè & potestatiuè tradunt incendio ciuitatem. Misera eortem conuersatio plebis tuae miserabilis subuersio est, &c. Dati sunt sacri gradus in occasionem turpis luer [...] &c. De animarum salute nouissima cogitatio est, &c. Iniquè agit [...]r & caeteri eo [...]ra Christum, multique nostris temporibus sunt Antichristi. The whole company of Christian people seemeth to haue conspired against thee, from the least euen to the greatest; from the sole of the foote to the top of the head there is nothing sound: iniquitie is gone foorth from the auncients, the Iudges, thy Ʋicars which seeme to gouerne thy people. Alas, alas, O Lord God, for they are foremost in persecuting thee, who seeme to loue supremacie, and to beare principalitie in thy Church. They haue taken possession of the tower of Sion, they haue seized vpon the munitions thereof, and thencefoorth freely and by authoritie they betray the whole citie to the fire. Their wretched conuersation is the miserable subuersion of thy people, &c. The sacred degrees and orders are yeelded to opportunitie of filthie lucre: the sauing of souls is the thing last thought of. The rest also deale wickedly against Christ, and there are many Antichrists in our times. Now the due consideration of these words we suppose may somewhat qualifie M. Bishops opinion of the words by himselfe alledged, because hereby we plainely vnderstand, not by broken, but by perfect sentences, that whatsoeuer S. Bernard conceiued of the dignitie and dutie of the Popes place, yet that he very well saw, that by euill vsage therof the Popes in his time were become the very enemies and persecutors of Christ, euen they who (as he saith) were Christs Ʋicars, and had the supremacie and principalitie in the Church of Christ. And so we find that the high Priest of the Iewes, who by Gods owne ordinance and institution was a figure of Christ, and sate in the place of Christ, yet by Apostasie and iniquitie became an Antichrist, a persecutor of Christ, and solemnly gaue sentence against Christ. In like sort therefore nothing letteth, but that the Pope may now be Antichrist, albeit his place had bene at the first appointed by Christ: but much more now, in that [Page 74] his place is no diuine institution but onely humane presumption; affected by ambition, attempted by rebellion, yeelded vnto by superstition, established & possessed by tyrannie and crueltie, by villanie and trecherie: vpholden by the deuices of Sycophants and Parasites, who haue vsed all manner falshood and deceipt to iniect into the minds of men an opinion of it. S. Bernard therefore by errour attributed to the Pope that which indeed is none of his, and although for the credit of the Popes authoritie, he alledge some words out of the Gospell vsed to S. Peter, yet he bringeth no Scripture to proue, either that that which he giueth to the Pope in that description, did euer belong to Peter, or that that which in the Gospell is spoken to Peter, belongeth to the Pope. He attributeth to the Pope to beTues princeps Episcoporum, summus Pontifex prince of Bishops, and highest Bishop, directly against the decree of the African Councell, one Canon whereof is, thatConcil. [...]p [...]ric. cap. 6. Vt primae sedis Episcopus non appelletur Princeps sacerdotum, aut summus sacerdos, aut aliquid huiusmodi, sed tantùm primae sedis Episcopus the Bishop of the first sea (which was Rome) should not be called prince of Bishops, or highest Bishop, or such like, but onely the Bishop of the first sea. His error therefore is apparant in this point, by the sentence of the Councell, but it is more absurd in some other words that he vseth, howsoeuer we presume that his meaning was more tolerable then his words. For to say as he doth, that the Pope isOrdine Melchisedec, vnctio. de Christus. by order Melchisedec, and by annointing Christ, what construction he would make of his owne words we know not, and M. Bishop by omitting those words, sheweth that he was ashamed of them, but we know that it soundeth little lesse then blasphemie against Christ.
W. BISHOP.
M. Perkins hauing lightly skirmished with a broken sentence or two out of one Catholike Author, flieth to a late Heretike called Ioachim, and quoteth Iewel for relator of it. A worshipfull testimonie of one Heretike, and that vpon the report of another: and he the most lying Author of these dayes. As for the late Poet Petrarke his words might easily be answered, but because he quoteth no place, I will not stand to answer it. But to close vp this first combat, a sentence is set downe out of the famous Martyr Irenaeus, that Antichrist should be Lateinos, a Romane. Here be as many faults as words. That learned auncient Doctor discoursing of Antichrist his proper name, out of these words of the Reuelation, Cap. 13. the number of the beast is 666. and obseruing the letters [Page 75] of the Greeke Alphabet, (by which they do number, as we do by cyphers) saith: that among others the word Lateinos doth conteine those letters, which amount iust to the number of 666. and consequently that Antichrists proper name perhaps might be Lateinos, but more likely it is to be Teitan, as he saith there, and lastly that it is most vncertaine what his name shall be. See the place (gentle reader) and learne to beware of such deceitfull merchants, as make no conscience, to corrupt the best Authors: and being often warned of it, will neuer learne to amend. Irenaeus leaueth it most doubtfull what shall be Antichrists name: And among diuerse words esteemeth Lateinos, to bee the vnlikeliest. And yet M. Perkins reporteth him to say resolutely that his name shall bee Lateinos: and then to make vp the matter, turneth Lateinos, a proper name with S. Irenaeus into Romane, an appellatiue, which noteth only his countrey. Fie vpon that cause, which cannot bee vpholden and maintained, but by a number of such paltry shifts.
R. ABBOT.
It followeth not that euery man who in a point of doctrine conceiueth amisse, is presently an heretike, for so many should be heretikes both of ancienter and later writers, who notwithstanding by M. Bishop himselfe are reckoned for good Catholikes. Ioachim indeed deliuered against Peter Lombard, a pernicious opinion concerning the godhead. The councell of Laterane condemned his opinion, but because he was not wilfull in his error, it made no hereticke of him. Therefore in that councell it is noted in the margent,Concil. Lateran cap. 2. in marg. Non ipse Joachim, sed eius liber damnatur. Not Ioachim himselfe, but his booke is condemned. M. Bishop therfore is too presumptuous, to pronounce him an heretike, whom the councell did not so pronounce. M. Perkins citeth the words of Ioachim out of Bishop Iewels sermons, but he is also reiected as another heretike, yea and the most lying Author of these dayes. But we would gladly haue M. Bishop to learne that point of honest ciuilitie and good maners, not to speake so rudely of them whom he knoweth not. I dare say hee neuer read Bishop Iewell, nor doth know whether he tel truth or not; only the Magistri nostri haue told him that so he must say. And indeed it concerneth them that Bishop Iewell be taken for a lying author, for if he haue reported truth, then in miserable case are they. But his true & faithful dealing wil sufficiently [Page 76] iustifie it selfe to them that are carefull to learne the truth, euen to the shame and confusion of these Sycophants, who labour by impeaching the truth of others, to gaine opinion and credit to their owne lies. But for this matter, if he will not take it to be true vpon Bishop Iewels report, I will do him the fauour to referre him to another author, who is liable to no exception. That is Roger Houeden, who writeth that Ioachim the Abbot in a discourse before king Richard the first of our land,Rog. Houed. Annal. lib. 2. anno. 1190. De isto Antichristo dicit idem Ioachim quod ia [...] natus est in ciuitate Romane, & in sede Apostolica sublimaintur. did say concerning Antichrist, that he was then borne in Rome, and should be set vp aloft in the Apostolike sea. Then was indeede the Bishop of Rome growne to that height of insolencie and pride, as that he openly practised rebellion against the Emperour his Lord and maister. Yea such was the incredible arrogancie and impudencie of this Antichristian beast, as that soone after that speech of Ioachim, Idem anno. 1191. Celestinus the third being to crowne the Emperour Henry the sixt, tooke the Crowne betwixt his two feete, and made the Emperour to bow downe, that with his feete he might set it vpon his head, which hauing done, with one of his feet he strooke it off againe, to giue him to vnderstand, that it was in his power againe to bereaue him of the Crowne. As for Petrarch, I let him passe, because though freely vttering what he thought, he called Rome Babylon, & spake many things to touch the triple crowne, yet it seemeth that for feare of displeasure hee was afterwards content to make the best of that he had sayd. There remaineth onely Irenaeus, who setting downe diuers coniectures as touching the name of the beast, which S. Iohn saith shall containe the number 666. bringeth this for one, thatλ.30.α.1.τ.300. [...].5.ι.10. [...].50.ο.70.ς.200. 666. [...] is the name imported by that number, and that Antichrist happily shall be knowne by that name. Against this M. Bishop hath sundrie exceptions, and all to little purpose. First he saith, that Irenaeus amongst diuerse words esteemeth Lateinos to bee the vnlikeliest. But whether that be true let the Reader esteeme by Irenaeus his owne words.Jerenaeus li. 5. Sed & [...] nomen sexcentorū sexaginta sex numerum habens valdè verisimile est quomam ve [...]ssimum regnum hoc habet vocabulum; Latini enim sunt qui nunc regnant, sed non in hoc nos glo [...]a [...]imur. The name Lateinos, saith he, conteining the number of sixe hundred, sixtie sixe is very likely, because the truest kingdome hath that name. For they are the Latins that now raigne, but neither will we presume of this. Irenaeus himselfe saith, It is verie likely: M. Bishop telleth vs that Irenaeus saith, It is the most vnlikely of all other: hereby let it appeare who best deserueth the name of a lying author. Againe, he saith that Irenaeus meaneth it to be a proper [Page 77] name, whereas we make it an appellatiue. But this appeareth to be false, by the reason that is giuen by Irenaeus of the likelihood of the name. For if he should haue that name of the kingdome and countrey where he should raigne, as the words of Irenaeus import, then it is manifest that it should not be his proper name. Thirdly, he alledgeth that Irenaeus makethτ.300.ς.5. [...].10.τ.300.α.1.υ.50. 666. [...] a more likely word. I mention not these things in the same order as he hath set them downe, but as they yeeld themselues most conueniently to bee spoken of. Now it is true that Irenaeus saith, that that name isOmnium nominum quae apud nos inueniuntur magis side dignum est. most worthy to be beleeued, but that helpeth M. Bishop nothing, because that name by the Popes owne decrees lighteth fully vpon himselfe. For Titan, as Irenaeus noteth, is the name of the sunne, and the Pope maketh himselfeDecretal. Gregor. de maiorit. & obed. ca. solitae. Quanta est inter solem & Lunam, tanta inter Pontifices & reges differentia. the Sunne, and the Emperour the Moone, and will haue vs to thinke, that so much as the Moone is lesser then the Sunne, so much is the Emperour inferiour to him. Titan is a name applied to Idols, saith Irenaeus, and what is the Pope but an Idoll, caried vp and downe vpon mens shoulders like an Idoll, bedecked like an Idoll, publikly adored and worshipped like an Idoll. Titan, saith he, is a name containing ostentation of reuenge, and who hath euer more proudly vaunted reuenge then the Pope hath done, whose stile against such as offend him vsually is this,25. q. 1. Generali. We decree that he shall bee vtterly accursed: Decretal de haeret. cap. Ad aebolendam. we bind him with a bond of perpetuall curse: Extrauag de offic. delegati cap. Sedes Apostolica, & passim. let him know that he shall incurre the indignation of Almightie God, and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul: yea and not onely by words, but by deeds hath made euen the earth to grone, and the Princes thereof to stagger and fall vnder the burden of his reuenge. But of this name also Irenaeus will affirme nothing, and therfore fourthly M. Bishop saith, that Irenaeus leaueth it vncertaine and doubtfull what his name shall be. And so he doth indeed, but with this direction, thatCertius & sine periculo est sustinere adimpletionem prophatiae. the surest way and without danger, is to waite for the fulfilling of the prophecie. Now the fulfilling of the prophecie hath made that cleere and certaine to vs, which some did coniecture then, and could but coniecture, beeing so many hundred yeares before the fulfilling of it. The number of the name ofApoc. 13.18. the beast, that is, of Antichrist, is set downe in the thirteenth chapter. Afterwards in the seuēteenth chapter, many things are further added for the better vnderstanding of all that went before. Now there we vnderstand, that Antichrist shall beApoc. 17.9.10. a king, that is, as before hath [Page 78] bene sayd, the highest gouernour of a state. We know also by experience, that a king taketh his name of the countrey, or place, or state whereof he is king. Thus are we wont to name kings, the king of England, the king of Denmarke, the French king, the Spanish king. We must therfore conceiue likewise, that Antichrist being a king, must take his name of his kingdome, of the citie or countrey ouer which he raigneth. The place where Antichrist shall raigne, is set forth to beVer. 9.18. the citie vpon seuen hils raigning then ouer the kings of the earth, which is vndoubtedly the citie of Rome. Antichrist therefore must haue his name from the inhabitants and people of Rome ouer whom hee is to raigne, and the name that hee taketh from them, which is [...], Latine or Romane, fully expresseth the number sixe hundred, sixtie, sixe. But to giue vs yet further light, it is noted that he shall beVer. 9.10. the seuenth king of the Latines, and hee shall bee together withVers. 18. the ten kings, to which the Empire of Rome shall be diuided. The sixt king of the Latines we haue before seene was the Emperour. So then after the fall of the Emperour, and dissolution of the Empire, the Latine king shall be the certaine and vndoubted name of Antichrist, neither are we to make any question, but that he is Antichrist whosoeuer is Lord and king of the Romane state. But that the Pope hath euer since bene, and therefore doth Turrian the Iesuite call the Popedome,Turrian. de eccles & ordinat. minist. lib. 1. cap. 2. Regnum Romanerum. the kingdome of the Romanes, and Nauarre the Canonist termeth the PopeNauar. Manual. Confessar. in epist. dedicat. ad Gregor. 13. regem Latinorum, the king of the Latines or Romanes, and it hath bene before shewed, that hee wholy chalengeth to himselfe the right and title thereof. The Pope therefore without all doubt is Antichrist, and we know him so to be, because after the Emperor hee is become the Latine or Romane king, vnder the name of the Latine or Romane Bishop, by which hee is renowmed through the whole world. And because we see that the seuenth king of the Latines is not one onely man, but a succession of many, as in the other gouernments before, therefore wee know that it was not meant that Antichrist should be one onely man, but a succession of many in one gouernement of the Romane state. Which is the thing wherein Irenaeus erred, being deceiued as it seemeth by the traditions of Papias, by meanes whereof, both he himselfe, and others after him by his example more readily entertained sundry fables concerning Antichrist, the pretence whereof the Papists now abuse [Page 79] to make men looke for another Antichrist, and not to knowe him whom the Scripture hath described so to be.
W. BISHOP.
Thus come we at length to the end of M. Perkins proofes, and reproofes in his prologue, where we finding little fidelitie in his allegations of the fathers, bad construction and foule ouersight in the text of holy Scripture, briefly great malice, but slender force against the Church of Rome, we are to returne the words of his theame to all good Christians. Go out of her my people. Forsake the enemies of the Romane Church. And as our Ancestors did the Pagan Emperours, who drew out her most pure bloud, so let vs flie in matters of faith and religion, from all heretikes that of late also spared not to shed abundance of the same most innocent bloud, vnlesse to your greater condemnation, you had leifer be partakers of her sinnes, and receiue of her plagues. And because I purpose (God willing) not onely to confute what M. Perkins bringeth against the Catholike doctrine, but somewhat also in euery Chapter to fortifie and confirme it: I will here deliuer what some of the most ancient, most learned, and most holy Fathers doe teach, concerning ioyning with the Church, and Pope of Rome, from whose societie Protestants labour tooth and naile to withdraw vs. And because of this we must treat more amply in the question of supremacie, I will vse here their authoritie, onely whom M. Perkins citeth against vs. S, Bernard is cited alreadie, S. Irenaeus Scholer of S. Policarpe, and he of S. Iohn the Euangelist, of the Church of Rome writeth thus. To this Church,Lib. 3. cap. 3 [...] by reason of her more mightie principalitie, it is necessarie that euerie Church, that is, the faithfull on all sides, do condescend and agree; in and by which, alwayes the tradition of the Apostles hath bene preserued by them that be round about her.
Saint Ierome writing to Damasus Pope of Rome, saith: I following none as chiefest but Christ, do in participation ioyne with thy blessednesse, that is, with the chaire of Peter, I knowe the Church to be builded vpon that Rocke. Whosoeuer doth eate the Paschall Lambe out of this house, is a profane fellow, hee that is not found within the Arke of Noe, shall when the flouds arise perish: And a little after, I know not Ʋitalie, I refuse Meletius, I take no notice of Paulinus: he that gathereth not with thee, scattereth; that is, he [Page 80] that is not with Christ, is with Antichrist.
Marke and embrace this most learned Doctors iudgement, of ioyning with the See of Rome, in all doubtfull questions: he would not trust to his owne wit and skill, which were singular; nor thought it safe to rely vpon his learned and wise neighbours: he durst not set vp his rest with his owne Bishop Paulinus, who was a man of no meane marke but the Patriarke of Antioch: but made his assured stay vpon the See of Rome, as vpon an vnmoueable Rocke, with which (saith he) if we do not communicate in faith and Sacraments, we are but profane men, voide of all Religion: In a word, we belong to Christ, but be of Antichrists traine. See, how flat contrarie this most holy ancient Father is to M. Perkins. M. Perkins would make vs of Antichrists band, because we cleaue vnto the Bishop of Rome. Whereas S. Hierome holdeth all to appertaine to Antichrist, who be not fast lincked in matters of Religion, with the Pope and See of Rome. And so to conclude with this point, euery true Catholike must say with S. Ambrose:Lib 3 de Sacra. cap. 1. I desire in all things to follow the Church of Rome. And thus much of his prologue. Afterward he taketh vpon him to prescribe and shewe vs how farre foorth wee may ioyne with the Church of Rome, by proposing many points in controuersie betweene vs and them, and in each shewing in what points wee consent together, and in what we differ. I meane by Gods grace to followe him step by step, although he hath made many a disorderly one, as well to discouer his deceits, and to disproue their errors, as also to establish the Catholike doctrine, the which I will endeuour to performe (by the helpe of God) with all simplicitie of language, and with as much breuitie as such a weightie matter will permit. Yet (I hope) with that perspicuity, as the meaner learned may vnderstand it, and with such substance of proofe, both out of the holy Scriptures and auncient Fathers, as the more iudicious (to whose profite it is principally dedicated) may not contemne it.
R. ABBOT.
What the dealing of M. Perkins and M. Bishop on each part hath bene, I leaue it to the Reader to iudge by examining of both, who I doubt not will acknowledge M. Perkins fidelitie of allegations, true construction of holy Scriptures, and sufficient argument to make all men iealous of the Church of Rome. And seeing Hierom [Page 81] of old hath giuen light (as before hath bene shewed) that of Rome it is said, Go out of her my people, and there can be thencefoorth no other Rome, to which we may apply it, but onely the corrupted state of the Church of Rome: therefore he will take it (I presume) as a warning from God, to take heed of, and to eschue the filthy fornications, idolatries, and abominations of that vncleane strumpet, and will deride the sillinesse of those collections, whereby M. Bishop laboureth to perswade the contrarie. As for that which he saith of vs vnder the name of heretikes, that of late we spared not to shed abundance of their most innocent bloud, it setteth foorth the singular impudencie, and remorselesse malice of these notorious hypocrites. For whereas he talketh of abundance of bloud, he well knoweth, that in fiue and fortie yeares of Queene Elizabeth, there was not so much bloud of theirs shed by vs, as was of ours by them in fiue yeares of the raigne of Queene Mary. And whereas he calleth it innocent bloud, they themselues, M. Bishop I meane, and his fellow Seculars, by their ProctorWatsons Quodlibet [...]. Watson, haue cleared the State, as hauing iust cause to proceed against thē that were put to death; against the Iesuites as immediate actors of treason, against the Priests as being employed by them for the effecting thereof. It pleased God by that quarrell of theirs against the Iesuites, to make them witnesses of the innocencie of the State in the shedding of their bloud: and by their owne mouth to make it knowne, that the Iesuites were still deuising & practising for the death of the Queen, and for the ruine and ouerthrow of the Realme, and that the Priests were vsed by them as instruments for the compassing and atchieuing of their traiterous designes, so that the nature of their fact could be no lesse then treason: and therefore what conscience may we thinke there is in this leud hireling, contrarie to their owne cō fession, to renew a complaint against the State, of shedding innocent bloud, as if there had bene no cause but meerely Religion towards God, why they were put to death. But if that had bene the quarrell, many more would haue bene in like sort to be touched, being openly knowne to be professors of that Religion, who notwithstanding as we know, saue onely for a pecuniarie mulct for trespassing the law, liued at their owne libertie, and fully with vs enioyed the benefite of the State. To let this passe, M. Bishop will now tel vs somwhat out of the Fathers, to warrant our ioyning with the [Page 82] Church and Pope of Rome. He hath alledged S. Bernard before, and he is answered before. Further, he bringeth Irenaeus, saying:Iren. lib. 3. ca. 3 Ad hanc Ecclesiam propter pote [...]ti [...]em principalitatem necesse est omnem conuenire Ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt vndi (que) fideles; [...]n qui semper ab [...] qui su [...]t vnd que conseruata est, ea quae est ab Apostolis traditio. To this Church by reason of the more mightie principalitie, it is necessarie that euery Church, that is, the faithfull on all sides do agree, in which the tradition which is from the Apostles, hath bene alwaies preserued of thē that are about her. Which words he alledgeth, but drawes no direct cōclusion from them, nor indeed can do, but by begging that which is in question betwixt vs. It was necessarie in the time of Irenaeus, that euery Church should accord to the Church of Rome, because therein the tradition and true doctrine of the Apostles had bene faithfully preserued: but will M. Bishop hereof simply conclude, that it is now also necessarie for euery Church to accord with the Church of Rome? It is a question now, whether she retaine the doctrine and tradition of the Apostles: nay it is out of question that she doth not so, and therefore her former commendation, is no argument, that we should approue her now. Ierusalem was2. Chron. 6.6. the city which the Lord did chuse to place his name there. She was a faithfull citie, & so long necessarie it was, that all other cities shold conforme themselues to her. ButEsa. 1.21. of a faithfull citie, she became a harlot, and departed so farre from her former steps, as that she crucified the Sonne of God, and killed his Saints, and in the end it was said of her by a voyce from God, as Iosephus recordeth,Ioseph. de bello Iudaico [...]. 7. c. 12 Migremus hinc: Let vs depart from hence. So the Church of Rome was a Virgin, the chast and faithfull spouse of Christ, continuing stedfastly in the doctrine by which she first became the Church of Rome, and so long as she so cōtinued, it was necessarie for al Churches to accord with her, as for her to accord with all other Churches that had done the like. But she is since become an vncleane filth prostituted to all manner of fornications, embrued & drunken with the bloud that she hath sprit, so that now the voyce of God calleth to vs in like sort concerning her, Go out of her my people. Neither hath M. Bishop any better helpe by that that he will further alledge, that Irenaeus mentioneth a potent principalitie of that Church. For that potent principalitie was not intended by Irenaeus for any supremacie of the Church of Rome, but imported onely an honour yeelded vnto it in respect of the imperiall state of the citie of Rome; which we know men of inferior townes are wont to yeeld to them that are of high and honorable cities, only for the preheminence of the place. [Page 83] But if the Church of Rome had had any such potent principalitie as M. Bishop intendeth, in respect whereof all other Churches shold yeeld subiection and obedience vnto her, then would notJren. apud Euseb. hist. eccles. lib. 5. cap 23. Polycarpus the Bishop of Smyrna haue refused to yeeld to Anicetus the Bishop of Rome in matters of difference betwixt them, as Irenaeus sheweth he did before his time: neither wouldIbid. cap. 22. & Hieron. in Catal. Script. Eccles. in Polycrate. Polycrates the Bishop of Ephesus and Metropolitan of the Asian Churches haue resisted Victor in the time of Irenaeus; neither wouldCypr ad Pompeium contra Epist. Stephane. Cyprian haue contradicted Stephanus, neither would Aurelius and Austin and the rest of the Fathers in the Councell of Carthage, haueConcil. Carth. 6 & Aphrican. cap 101. &c. withstood the claime of the Bishop of Rome for authoritie to receiue appeals made from them to him: neither would those sixe hundred and thirtie Bishops in the Chalcedon Councel, haue yeelded to the Patriarch of Constantinople, according to a former decree of a councell ofConc Constantinop. 1. cap. 2. Constantinople, an equalitie of priuiledge and prerogatiue with the Bishop of Rome. The matter is very plaine.Conc l. Cha [...]cedon Act. 15. ca. 28. Antiquae Romae throno quòd vrbi il [...]a imperaret, iure Patres priu [...]legiae tribuere. Et eadē consideratione moti 150 Dei amantissimi Episcopi sanctissimo nouae Romae throno aequalia priuilegia tribuere, rectè iudicantes vrbem quae & imperio & Senatu honerata sit, & aequalibus cum antiquissimo Roma priuilegijs fruatur, etiam in rebus ecclesiasticis, non secus ac illā extolli & magnificari secundā post illam existentem. The Fathers, say they, haue yeelded priuiledges to the sea of old Rome, because that was the Imperiall citie. And the hundred and fiftie Bishops (of the Councell of Constantinople) being moued with the same consideration haue yeelded equall priuiledges to the sacred sea of new Rome, (that is, Constantinople) rightly iudging, that the citie which is honoured with the Empire and Senate, and enioyeth equall priuiledges with old Rome, should also in ecclesiasticall matters be no lesse extolled and magnified then it is, being the next vnto it. Thus they acknowledge the principalitie of the Church of Rome to be nothing else, but in respect that that citie was the seate of the Empire, and therfore Constantinople being become the seate of the Empire, and in respect thereof being called New Rome, they gaue to the Church of Constantinople equall dignitie and principalitie with the Church of Rome, leauing to the Bishop of Rome onely precedence of name and place. The Legates of the Bishop of Rome would faine haue had it otherwise, but the whole Councell approued the decree. Now by that that hath bene said to Irenaeus, the answer is plaine to that that M. Bishop further citeth out of Hierome. The true faith and doctrine of the Godhead of Christ, was then maintained by the Church of Rome against the remainder of the infection and poyson of the Arian heresie. Hereupon Hierome writeth to Damasus Bishop of Rome, to be aduertised of the vse of some words that [Page 84] concerned that point. He commendeth the Church of Rome,Hieron. ad Damasum. Apud vos solos incorrupta Patrum seruatur haereditae. for that the inheritance of the Fathers (that is, the true faith) was preserued vncorrupt with them onely. For this cause doth he bind himselfe to the communion and fellowship of Damasus. Ʋpon the rocke of that faith which the Church of Rome stil held, he knew the Church to be built. In respect of this faith, he that went out of that house, that is, left the communion of that Church, because thereby he renounced the truth, he became prophane. In the same respect, he that gathered not with Damasus, being a maintainer of the true faith, be must needes be a scatterer. He could not be of Christ, that refused them that tooke part with Christ, and therefore must be of Antichrist. In this respect he renounced Ʋitalis, Milesius, and Paulinus, becauseErasm. schol. ibid. they were all either knowne or suspected to be partakers of the heresie of Arius, and therefore very deceitfully doth M. Bishop alledge, that he would not set vp his rest with his owne Bishop Paulinus, who was no meane man, but the Patriarch of Antioch: as hereby to adde a superioritie to the Bishop of Rome, when as there was otherwise so apparant cause, why he should refuse so to do. In all this therefore Hierome saith no more of the Bishop and Church of Rome, then he might haue said of any other Bishop and Church, professing true faith and doctrine, as the Church of Rome then did: but very farre was he from teaching or intending any perpetuall necessitie, that all Churches for euer should conforme themselues to the Church of Rome. And that he neuer had any such meaning, let it appeare by himselfe, when being vrged with the example of the Church of Rome, he answereth:Hieron. Epist. ad Euagr. Quid mihi profers vntus vrbis consuetudinem? quid paucitatem de qua ortum est supercilium in leges Ecclesiae vindicas? What dost thou bring to me the custome of one citie? why dost thou maintaine a paucitie (or fewnesse) whence hath growne proud vsurping vpon the lawes of the Church? He had said a little before,Ibid. Si autoritas quaeritur, orbis maior est vrbe. Vbicunque fuerit Episcopus, siue Romae, siue Eugubij, siue Cō stantinopoli, siue Rhegij, siue Alexandriae, siue Tanis, eiusdem meriti est, eiusdē sacerdotij. Potentia diuitiarū, & pauperiatis humilitas s [...]l linuorem vel inferiorem Episcopū non facit, caeterùm omnes Apostolorum successores sunt. If we demaund authority, the world is greater then the citie. Wheresoeuer a Bishop be, whether of Rome, or of Eugubium; whether at Constantinople, or at Rhegium; whether at Alexandria, or at Tanes, he is of the same worth, and of the same office of Bishopricke. Power of wealth, or basenesse of pouertie, maketh a Bishop neither higher nor lower, but they are all successors of the Apostles. Thus he spake purposely in derogation of the Church of Rome, charging the same with proud domineering ouer the lawes of the Church: affirming the authoritie of the Churches through the world, to be greater then the authority of the Church of Rome: [Page 85] attributing to euery Bishop of whatsoeuer place, equalitie in office with the Bishop of Rome, because all are alike successors of the Apostles. Yea and to shew that the Church of Rome receiued no more by Peter, then other Churches did by the rest of the Apostles, he saith in another place: thatIdem adu. Iouin lib. 1. At dicis. super Petrū fit datur Ecclesia; liceta idipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat, & cuncti claues regni coelerum accipiant, & ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidatur. the Church is built vpon all the Apostles, and they all receiue the keyes of the kingdome of heauen; and the strength of the Church is equally grounded vpon them. Whereby it plainely appeareth, that Hierome neuer meant to make the Church of Rome any such perpetuall Mistris and ruler of other Churches, as M. Bishop dreameth her to be. Yea but S. Ambrose further saith: I desire in all things to follow the Church of Rome. But why did M. Bishop giue ouer there, & not adde also that that followeth:Ambros. de Sacram. lib. 3. cap. [...] In omnibus cupio sequi Roman [...]m Ecclesiam, sed tamen & nos homines sensum habentus: ideo quod alibi rectiùs seruatur, & nos rectè custodimus. I desire (saith he) in all things to follow the Church of Rome: but yet we are also men that haue vnderstanding: and therefore what is more rightly obserued otherwhere, we also iustly obserue the same. S. Ambrose being Bishop of Millaine not farre from Rome sheweth, that he yeelded a reuerend respect vnto the Church of Rome, but yet professeth, that things might be better in other places then they were at Rome, and that his Church of Millaine had vnderstanding to iudge what was fit aswell as the Church of Rome, and therefore that they held not themselues tyed by any necessarie dutie to the example thereof, but would do what they thought more rightly performed in any other Church. Now then what shall we thinke of M. Bishop, who thus shamefully seeketh to blind his reader, by alledging one part of a sentence for his purpose, when the other part thereof expresly crosseth that for which he alledgeth it. And thus much concerning M. Bishops answer to M. Perkins Prologue. For the rest I will (God willing) follow him in like sort steppe by steppe, according to his owne words, in more honest and faithfull manner then he hath dealt with M. Perkins, and that in such sort I hope, as that the meaner learned shall vnderstand, that the learning which he would teach them is naught, and the more iudicious shall be able to iudge, that it is a very bad cause, to which the marrow and pith of many large volumes can yeeld no better defence then he hath brought.
CHAPTER. 1. OF FREE WILL.
1. W. BISHOP.
THat I be not thought captious, but willing to admit any thing that M. Perkins hath sayd agreeable to the truth, I will let his whole text in places indifferent, passe, paring off onely superfluous words, with adding some annotations where it shall be needfull, and rest onely vpon the points in controuersie. First then concerning Free will, wherewith he beginneth, thus he saith: Free will both by them and vs, is taken for a mixt power in the mind and will of man, whereby discerning what is good, and what is euill, he doth accordingly chuse or refuse the same.
Annot. If we would speake formally, it is not a mixt power in the mind and will, but is a free facultie of the mind and will onely, whereby we chuse or refuse, supposing in the vnderstanding, a knowledge of the same before. But let this definition passe as more popular.
M. Perkins. 1. Conclusion. Man must be considered in a fourefold estate, as he was created, as he was corrupted, as he is renued, as he shall be glorified. In the first state we ascribe vnto mans will libertie of nature, in which he could will or will either good or euill; note that this libertie proceeded not from his owne nature, but of originall Iustice, in which he was created. In the third libertie of grace, in the last libertie of glorie.
Annot. Cary this in mind, that here he granteth man in the state of grace to haue Free will.
R. ABBOT.
MAister Bishop here dealeth as iuglers are wont to do, who make shew of faire play, when they vse nothing but legerdemaine. He will not be thought captious, and yet for two whole pages here in the beginning, is nothing but captious. His [...]ing the text of M. Perkins his booke to passe whole in places indifferent, is [Page 87] nothing but a dismembring and mangling of the text. His paring off onely of superfluous words, is the paring off of such arguments and authorities as he knew not how to answer. His adding of annotations, the sophisticating of his reader with idle and friuolous corrections. His resting onely vpon points of controuersie, the wresting of those things to controuersie whereof there is no controuersie at all. M. Perkins defineth Freewill to be a mixt power of the minde and will of man, whereby esteeming what is good and what is euill, he doth accordingly chuse or refuse the same. A little to please himselfe hee giueth a snatch at this definition of Free will, as not formal enough, onely to shew himselfe more formall then wise, the definition being more fitly expressed then that which he hath put in place of it, and he honestly is content because it is more popular, to let it passe. Whereas M. Perkins in his first conclusion, affirmeth in the first estate of man as he was created, a libertie of nature, M. Bishop giueth thereof this learned note: that this libertie preceeded not from mans owne nature, but from originall iustice wherein he was created, as if he should say, that the shining of the Sunne proceedeth not from the nature of the Sunne, but from the light of it; whereas the light is a part of the nature of the Sunne, as was originall iustice a part of the nature of man, being theEphes. 4.24. image and likenesse of God, in which and according to which he was created. And to say that Free will did proceed from originall iustice, is wholy against himselfe, because it must thereof follow, that in the fall of originall iustice, must needs be implied the losse of Free wil, which cannot stand without that from which it doth proceed, so that man in his fall must necessarily be sayd to haue lost his Free will. But he should rather haue sayd, that God gaue vnto man Free will, as the steward and disposer of originall iustice and righteousnesse, and asTertul adu. Marcion lib. 2. Libertas & potestas arbitrij quasi ubripens emancipatia deo boni. the ballance to turne either to or fro, the benefit that God had put into the hands and power of man.
In the third estate of man, as he is renewed, M. Perkins affirmeth libertie of grace. Carry this in minde, saith M. Bishop, that here he granteth man in the state of grace to haue Free will. As though either he, or any of vs had made question thereof, who all acknowledge by the Gospell that it is the worke of ChristIohn 8.36. to make vs free, Rom 6 18. free from sinne, Cap. 8.21. free from the bondage of corruption, that in holinesse wee may bee seruants vnto God. Nay that the reader may the more [Page 88] cleerly conceiue the truth of this whole matter, we deny not Free will in any estate of man. For it is true which S. Austin saith,August. de ciuit dei. lib 5. cap. 10. Necesse est esse vt cùm volumus libero velimus arbitrio. that whatsoeuer we will, we will the same by Free will, because the will is not subiect to compulsion, but willeth alwayes freely, and of it owne accord, or else looseth the nature and name of will. Which freedome of will, by originall institution stood indifferent either to good or euill; yet was not to continue so, but vpon election once made to be free onely in that whereto of it selfe it should betake it selfe: free onely in euill, if it should apply it selfe to euill: free only in good, if it should make choise to continue therein. Therefore the Angels which kept their originall habitation and estate, haue theirBernard. de grat & li [...] arb. Angeli sancti ita sunt boni vt non possuit esse & [...]ali. Free wil by Gods election and grace stablished in goodnes, so that it is not inclineable to any thing that is euill. But the Angels which sinned and abode not in the truth, haue their Free will by it selfe, and of it selfeIb [...]d praeuaricatores angeli ita sunt mali vt [...] non valeant esse boni. obdured and hardened in that that is euill, so that it is not at all appliable to any thing that is good. Man therefore by sinne hath not lost Free will, for byAugust. cont 2. epist. Pelag. lib. 1. cap 2 Liberum arbitrium vsque a [...]o in peccatore non perij [...] vt per illud peccant, maximè omnes qui cum delectatione peccant & lib. 3. ca. 8 Non nisi ad peccatu [...] v [...]let. Free wil it is that now he sinneth, yea and can nothing but sinne. But this Free will that is thus free in sinne, hath no freedome at all, as S. Austin in sundry places expresseth, to righteousnesse and to the seruice of God, vntill it be rectified and made free by Iesus Christ; no freedome or power at all, but what is newly and meerelyIdem. de peccat. mer. & rem. lib. 2. cap. 6. Ipsum liberum arbitrium ad dei gratiam hoc est ad Dei dona pertinere non ambigens. &c. the grace and gift of God. Therfore hauing affirmed the freedome of the will to sinne, he addeth thatCont 2. epist. Pelag. l. 3. cap. 8. Ad iustitiam nisi diuinitùs liberatum aduitumque non valet. to righteousnesse, but as it is made free and helped of God, it auaileth nothing. Ibid. lib. 4 ca. 8 Quid mihi obi [...]d [...]s liberum arbitrium quod ad faciendam iustitiam liberum non erit, nisi ouis fuerit? Qui facit igitur òues homines ipse ad obedientiam pietatie humanas liberat voluntates. What tellest thou me of Free will, saith he, which to the doing of righteousnesse shall not be free, except thou become a sheepe of Gods? he then who of men maketh his sheepe, euen he maketh the wils of men Free to the obedience of godlinesse. Epist. 107. Liberum arbitrium ad diligendum Deum primi peccati granditate perdidimus: & antea: Gratia nostrum ad de. linandum à malo & faciendum bonum liberatur arbitrium. We lost free will to loue God by the greatnesse of the first sinne, saith he, but by grace our will is made free to decline from euill and do good. So then we do not deny Free will to be righteousnesse, but yet we haue regard to that caution which S. Austin giueth against Pelagians and Papists,Ibid. si verè volumus defenders liberum arbitrium non oppugnemus v [...]de [...]ic liberum. if wee will defend Free will aright, not to oppugne that whence it is made free. WhatCont. 2. ep. Pelag. l. 4 cap. 9. Nunquid liberum arbitrium negat hominibus quia Deo totum tribuit quòd rectè viuimus? doth a man denie Free will, saith he, because he attributeth it [Page 89] wholy to God that we liue well: Retract. lib. 1 [...] cap 9. Tale est. vt sine illo rectè viuere nequeamus. without freedome of will we cannot liue well; (for how should a man do well without his will?) but yet this Free wil to liue wel isCont 2. epist. Pelag. lib. 3 cap. 7. Hominis non libera sed Dei gratia liberata voluntas. a will not free (meerly & of it selfe) but made free by the grace of God. For then isDe ciuit. Dei. lib. 14. cap. 11. Arbitrium voluntatu tunc est vere liberum, cùm vetijs peccatisque non seruit. Tale datum est a Deo quod amissum proprio vitio, nisi à quo dari potuit reddi non potest. the will of man free indeed, when it is free from sinne: and such a free will God gaue to man in the beginning, but he lost it by his owne default, and being lost it cannot be restored, but by him that was able first to giue it. In Christ therefore it is restored vnto vs, who by hisEsai. 51.12. free spirit giuethEsa. [...]1 1. libertie to the captiues, and openeth the prison to them that are bound, andCol. 1.13. deliuereth vs from the power of darknesse, and maketh vs1 Cor. 7.22. free-men vnto him. But yet so, as that hauing receiued butRom. 8.23. the first fruits of the spirit, by whom this freedome is wrought, according to the words of the Apostle,2. Cor. 3.17. Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is libertie, the same is yet but begun in vs, so thatAugust. in Ioan. tract. 41. Ex parte libertas, ex parte seruitus; nondum tota, nondum pura, nondum plena liberias. there is partly freedome, and partly bondage, not yet whole and pure and perfect freedome. For no further is the will freed then it is renewed; and it is renewed as yet but in part, continuing stillDe peccat. mer. & rem lib. 2. cap. 7. Animus qui est homo interior nondum totus est renouatus, & in quantū nondum est renouatus, intantum adhuc in vetustate est. in part in the old estate. Therefore it is so made free, as that in some part we haue cause still to complaine with the Apostle,Rom. 7.14. I am carnall, sold vnder sinne, and to pray with the Prophet Dauid: Psal. 142.7. Bring my soule out of prison, that I may giue thankes vnto thy name. Hence is that heauinesse and dulnesse, that waywardnesse and vntowardnesse, that retention and holding backe, that still we find in vs in the applying of our selues to spirituall and heauenly things. And as touching that wherein we are renewed and made free, it is not sufficient to vphold vs and keepe vs in the right way, but we haue still neede of the grace of God, to be assistant and helpefull vnto vs.Hieron. ad Ctesiphont. Non sufficit mihi quòd semel donauit, nisi semper donauerit: Peto vt accipiam, & eum accepero rursus peto. It is not enough that God hath once giuen, sayth Hierome, except he still giue: I pray to receiue, and when I haue receiued, I pray againe. Therefore the ancient church required of Pelagius to confesse, thatAugust epist. 106. Fateatur gratiam Dei & ad [...]utorium etiam ad singulos actus dari. the grace of God is giuen vs to euerie act that we do. Enchirid cap. 32. Nolen [...]em praeuenit vt velit; volentem subsequitur ne frustra velit. He preuenteth vs to make vs willing, & followeth vs when we are willing, that we do not wil in vaine. And if his hand do not hold vs and vphold vs, it commeth to passe by the burden of corruptible flesh, that we are still relapsing to our [Page 90] selues, and still readie with theExod. 14.11.12. Israelits to yeeld our selues to become bond againe.Bernard. in Cant. ser. 84. Non est aliud anima nostra quàm spirites valiens & non rediens [...], ita fuerit derelicta. Our soule, saith Bernard, is no other but as a wind that passeth and returneth not againe, if it be left vnto it selfe. Now M. Bishop do you carry this in mind, thus expressed by the phrases and speeches of the ancient Church, and leaue to calumniate our doctrine, who affirme Free will as farre as they affirmed it, and deny it no otherwise but as they denied it against the Pelagian heretikes. But you will hardly leaue your wont, because you see well enough, that if you take our doctrine as we deliuer it, you can deuise nothing plausibly or colourably to speake against it.
2. W. BISHOP.
M. Per. 2. Conclusion. The matters whereabout Free will is occupied, are principally the actions of men, which be of three sorts, Naturall, Humane, Spirituall. Naturall actions are such, as are common to men and beasts, as to eate, sleepe, &c. In all which we ioyne with the Papists, and hold that man hath free will euen since the fall of Adam.
M. Per. 3. Conclusion. Humane actions are such, as are common to all men, good and bad, as to speake, to practise any kind of art, to performe any kind of ciuill dutie, to preach, to administer Sacraments, &c. And hither we may referre the outward actions of ciuill vertues, as namely Iustice, Temperance, Gentlenesse, and Liberalitie, and in these also we ioyne with the Church of Rome, and say (as experience teacheth) that men haue a naturall freedome of will, to put them, or not to put them in execution. S. Paul saith, The Gentiles that haue not the law,Rom. 2.14. do the things of the law by nature, that is, by naturall strength: And he saith of himselfe, Phil 3 6. Mat 6 5. Ezech. 29.19. that before his conuersion touching the righteousnesse of the law, he was vnblameable. And for the externall obedience, naturall men receiue reward in temporall things. And yet here some caueats must be remembred.
First, that in humane actions (he should say morall) mans will is weake, and his vnderstanding dimme, thereupon he often failes in them. This caueat is no caueat of the Protestants, but taken out of S. Thomas of Aquines.Summe. 12 [...]. 109. art. 4. & 8. And in all such actions with S. Augustine (you might haue quoted the place) I vnderstand the will of man, to be onely wounded [Page 91] or halfe dead.
2. That the will of man, is vnder the will of God, and therefore to be ordered by it: Who knowes not this?
R. ABBOT.
Here M. Bishop giueth vs some more of his learned notes, and telleth vs, that M. Perkins for humane should haue said morall, wheras the name of morall actions doth not so properly comprehend all those which he meant to import by humane actions. As touching the first caueat giuen to the third conclusion, that in humane actions mans will is weake, and his vnderstanding dimme, &c. he noteth that this caueat is no caueat of the Protestants, but taken out of S. Thomas of Aquines. He was desirous it seemeth to haue it thought, that he had looked into Thomas Aquinas, but he was willing withall to shew that he did not well vnderstand what he read there: for he that looketh intoThomas Aqui. 1 2. q. 109. art. 4. & 8. the places which he quoteth, shall easily see, that there was little cause for him to say, that that is a caueat taken out of Thomas Aquinas, there being nothing directly tending to the matter of the caueat expressed by M. Perkins. But the Protestants might wel learne that caueat out of their owne experience, and if we had not obserued it of our selues, we could haue learned it of Philosophers, and Poets, & Historians, to say nothing of eccelesiasticall Writers, so that we need not to seeke to Thomas Aquinas to borrow it from him. But what is that to the purpose, seeing we professe our selues well content legere Margaritas ea coeno, to gather Pearles euen out the dirt, and from M. Bishop himself to take knowledge of any thing worthy our learning, if any thing worthy our learning had bin writtē by him. M. Perkins saith, that in humane or moral actions, with Austin he vnderstandeth the wil of man only wounded or half dead. M. Bishop saith, he should haue quoted the place: the place to which M. Perkins alludeth, I take it to be Hypognost. lib. 3. where Austine saith that man was wounded and halfe dead, August. Hypognost. lib. 3 Rectè dictus est sentiuiuus: habebat enim vitalē motum, id est liberum arbitrium [...]uburatum (morum scilicet ornamentis & bono pos [...]i [...]litatis liberi arbitrij perdit [...]) quod ei solum ad vitam aeternam quam perd derat red [...]. 8 non sufficiebat. because his Free will had still vitall motion, but he was wounded in the ornaments of morall actions, and lost the benefite of the possibilitie of Free will, to returne vnto euerlasting life. To the other caueat, that the will of man is vnder the will of God, and therefore to be ordered by it, M. Bishop saith, Who knowes not this? As if men in deliuering precepts and rules of any kind of [Page 92] learning, did not set downe euen triuiall and common things, because howsoeuer they be common yet they be necessarie to make a perfect worke, and alwaies necessarie for learners, when the whole workes are needlesse to them that are alreadie learned. And why might not M. Perkins bring in this caueat in a writing against the Papists, as well as Hierome did against the Pelagians?Hieron adu. Pelag. lib. 2. Ʋt scramus non ex nobis, sed ex Dei cunct [...] pendere iudicio, veniam, inquit, &c. Qui enim dicit, veniā ad vos, ostendit se velle, mostrat cupere, promittit aduentum: sed vt cautiùs haec lo qu [...]tur, infert; si Dominus voluerit. Si quis enim putat si quid nosse necdum nouit sicut [...] Jeoportet That we may know, saith he, that all things depend, not vpon vs, but vpon the discretion and will of God, the Apostle saith, I will come vnto you speedily, if the Lord will. When he saith, I will come vnto you, he sheweth his good wil, he declareth his desire, he promiseth his coming. But yet to speake with a caueat, he saith, If the Lord will. For if any man thinke he knoweth any thing, he knoweth not yet as he ought to know. Yea and S. Austine also thought this point worth the noting against the same Pelagians, thatAugust de grat. & lib [...]bit. cap. 20. Scriptura intendit non solù̄ bonus [...]ominum voluntates, &c virum [...] tiam quae conseruant seculiore [...] turamita esse in Dei potestate, vt eas quo voluerit, quando voluerit, facia [...] inclinar [...], &c. the wils of men not onely for spirituall and eternall life, but as they concerne the preseruing of the creature of the world, are in the power of God, so as that he causeth them to incline whither he will, and when he will, either for benefite to some, or for punishment to othersome. And he thought it not vnfit to exemplifie this matter out of theIbid. cap. 20, 21 bookes of Iosuah, of the Kings and Chronicles, how God ordereth the wils of men, for the constituting of earthly kingdomes, and maketh profitable vse and application thereof, that it should be absurdDe Praedest. sanct. cap. 20. Cogitate quale sit, vt credamus ad constituenda regna terrena hominum voluntates operari Deum, & ad capessendum regnum c [...]elorum homines operari voluntates suas. to think that God frameth the wils of men for the setling of earthly kingdomes, and that men frame their owne wils for the obtaining of the kingdome of heauen. And will M. Bishop now turne off Austine and Hierome, as he doth M. Perkins, with Who knowes not this? But his notes yet are but to whet his wit: when he is well awaked out of his sleepe, haply we shall haue some wiser stuffe.
W. BISHOP.
M. P. 4. Conclusion. The third kind of actions are spirituall more nearely, and these be twofold: good, or bad. In sinnes we ioyne with the Papist, and teach that in sinnes man hath freedome of will. Some perhaps will say, that we sinne necessarily, because he that sinneth, cannot but sin, and that Free wil and necessitie, cannot stand together. Indeed the necessitie of compulsion and Free will, cannot stand together, but there is another kind of necessitie (or rather infallibilitie) which may stand with Free will: for some things may be done necessarily, and also freely.
Annot. The example of a close prisoner is not to the purpose, for it puts necessitie in one thing, and libertie in another. The solution is, that necessarily must be taken for certainely, not that a man is at any time compelled to sinne, but his weaknesse and the craft of the diuell are such, that he is very often ouerreached by the diuell, and induced to sinne, but with free consent of his owne will.
R. ABBOT.
The comparison of a prison vsed by M. Perkins, is most pregnant and fit. A man walketh vp and down in close prison, and freely moueth and stirreth himselfe; yet he hath no power to get out of prison, but for ought he can do for himselfe is necessarily there. Euen so, man is free in sinne, and freely willeth whatsoeuer he willeth thereto: but sinne is his prison, and he cannot free himselfe therefrom; nay because the will it selfe is imprisoned, he hath no will to be free, and therefore of necessitie remaineth still a prisoner to sinne, till God do change his will to make him free. But M. Bishop disliketh the comparison, because it puts necessitie in one thing, and libertie in another, whereas to that purpose it was vsed, and to that purpose most fitly is applyed, and therein nothing contained, but what is agreable to the truth. For whereas he taketh vpon him to correct that terme of necessitie, and will haue it to be called infallibilitie and certaintie, he malapertly taketh vpon him to teach them that are more learned then himselfe. It is a word which S. Austin often vseth vpon the like occasion, both against the Pelagians and Manichees.August. de perfect. iustit. Rat. 9 Quia peccauit voluntas secula est peccantem peccatū habendi dura necessitas. Man sinned by his will, saith he, and thereupon followed a cruell necessitie of hauing sinne. Retract. lib. 1. cap. 1 Naturae nostrae dura necessitas merito praecedentis iniquitatis exortae est. A cruell necessitie (of sinne) grew vpon our nature by the desert of the first sinne. De nat. & gra. cap. 66 Ex vitijs naturae, non ex cōditione naturae est quaedam peccandi necessitas. Not by creation, but by corruption of nature, there is a certaine necessitie of committing sinne. Cont Fortunat. disput. [...]. Post quā libera ipse voluntate peccauit nos in necessitatem praec [...]pitati sumus After that Adam sinned by free will, we were throwne headlong into a necessitie (of sinne) all that haue descended of his race. And that this necessitie doth well stand with libertie, S. Bernard sheweth, in calling itBernard. in Cantic. Ser. 81. Ipsa sua volūtas necessitatē facit, vt nec necessitas cùm voluntaria sit excludere valeat voluntatem, nec voluntas cùm sit illecta excludere necessitatem. Et post [...] Anima sub voluntaria quadam & malè libera voluntate tenetur. Et iterum post. Ʋoluntas inexcusabilem & incorrigibilē necessitas facis. a voluntarie and mis-free necessitie, wherein neither can necessitie excuse the will, because it is voluntarie, nor the will exclude necessitie, because it is entangled with delight therein; wherein will taketh frō him all matter of defence, and necessitie bereaueth him of possibilitie of amendment, and in a word, the will it selfe in strange wise causeth this [Page 94] necessitie to it selfe. Now then because the state of sinne is such, as that there is one way necessitie by the habit of corruption, and another way libertie by the free motion of the will, very rightly did M. Perkins to expresse the same, vse the example of a prison, that puts necessitie in one thing, and libertie in another. And thus in righteousnesse also necessitie and libertie agree, and do not one exclude the other. For the Angels being by the grace and power of God confirmed in goodnesse, are thereby necessarily good, Jdem de grat. & lib. arist. sup. so and in such sort good, as that they cannot become euill, and yet they are freely and voluntarily good, because it is the will it selfe that is established in goodnesse. The same shall be the state of eternall life to the elect and faithfull,August de perfect. iustitia. Bene viuendi & nunquam peccandi, voluntaria foelix (que) necessitas: A voluntarie and happy necessitie of liuing wel, and neuer sinning any more. Let M. Bishop take knowledge now of this manner of speech, and learne not to find fault when he hath no cause. But he noteth, that we must not vnderstand, that a man is at any time compelled to sinne: where I may answer him with his owne words before, Who knowes not this? And againe, that this is none of M. Bishops caueat, but taken out of M. Perkins. M. Perkins had told him so much before hand, and therfore what needed this note? For this necessitie groweth not of any outward force, but from inward nature, not by condition of the substance, but by accidentall corruption, which being supposed, there is a necessitie of sinne, as in the palsey a necessitie of shaking, in the hot feauer a necessitie of burning, in the broken legge a necessitie of halting, so continuing till the maladie and distemper be cured and done away. And whereas M. Bishop referreth this necessitie of sinne to the weaknesse of man, and to the craft of the diuell, he speaketh too short in the one, and impertinently in the other. For we are not to conceiue weaknesse onely, which may be onely a priuation, but a positiue euill habite and contagion of sinne, whereby a man sinneth euen without any furtherance of the diuels temptations, by the onely euill disposition of himselfe. Which euill disposition, because it is also in the will it selfe, therefore in the midst of that necessitie, a man sinneth no otherwise, but as M. Bishop requireth to haue it said, with free consent of his owne will.
W. BISHOP.
M. P. 5. Conclusion. The second kind of spirituall actions be good, as Repentance, Faith, Obedience, &c. In which we likewise in part ioyne with the Church of Rome, and say that in the first conuersion of a sinner, mans Free will concurreth with Gods grace, as a fellow or co-worker in some sort: for in the conuersion of a sinner, three things are required: the word, Gods spirit, and Mans will: for Mans will is not passiue in all and euery respect, but hath an action in the first conuersion and change of the soule: when any man is conuerted, this worke of God is not done by compulsion, but he is conuerted willingly, and at the very time when he is conuerted by Gods grace, he willeth his conuersion. To this end saith S. Augustine, He which made thee without thee,Se [...]. 15 de verb. Apost. will not saue thee without thee. Againe, that it is certaine that our will is required in this, that we may do any thing well, (it is not onely then required in our first conuersion, if it be required to all good things which we do,) but we haue it not from our owne power, but God workes to will in vs. For looke at what time God giues grace, at the same time he giues a will to desire and will the same: as for example, when God worke faith, at the same time, he workes also vpon the will, causing it to desire faith, and willingly to receiue the gift of beleeuing: God makes of the vnwilling wil a willing will, because no man can receiue grace vtterly against his will, considering will constrained, is no will. But here we must remember, that howsoeuer in respect of time, the working of grace by Gods spirit, and the willing of it in man go together: yet in regard of order, grace is first wrought, and mans will must first of all be acted and moued by grace; and then it also acteth, willeth, and moueth it selfe. And this is the last point of consent betweene vs and the Romane Church, touching Freewill, neither may we proceed farther with them. Hitherto M. Perkins.
Now before I come to the supposed difference, I gather first, that he yeeldeth vnto the principall point in controuersie, that is, freedome of will, in ciuill and morall workes in the state of corruption, and all good workes in the state of grace: for in his first conclusion distinguishing foure estates of man, he affirmeth, that in the third, of man renewed or (as we speake iustified) there is libertie of grace, that is, grace enableth mans will to do (if it please) such spirituall workes, as God requireth at his hands. Yet lest he be taken to yeeld in any thing, Pag. [...]0. he doth in shew of words [Page 96] contradict both these points in another place: For in setting downe the difference of our opinions, he saith: that mans will in his conuersion is not actiue, but passiue, which is flat opposite vnto that which himselfe said a little before in his first conclusion; that in the conuersion of a sinner, mans will concurreth not passiuely, but is co-worker with Gods grace.
R. ABBOT.
M. Bishop vnderstandeth not the principall point in controuersie, and therefore thinketh that M. Perkins yeeldeth to the principall point in controuersie, when he doth nothing lesse. It was neuer any point of controuersie, whether man in the state of corruption haue freedome of will in ciuill or morall workes: for none of vs euer hath denyed it. Neither was it euer any point of controuersie, whether man in the state of grace haue freedome of will to good workes: for there is not one of vs but alwaies hath affirmed it, so that M. Bishop knoweth not indeed what he disputeth of. As for that libertie of grace, he expoundeth it also out of his owne blind fancie, and not out of our doctrine. For we do not meane thereby, that grace enableth mans will to do, if it please, such spirituall works as God requireth at his hands, but that grace worketh in the will of man to please to do such spirituall workes as God requireth at his hands. For he doth not hang his worke vpon the suspended if of our will, butPhil. 2.13. worketh in vs to will, andEzech 36.27. August. de Praedest. sanct. cap. 10 Ipse facit vti illi faciant quae praecepit. Et cap. 11. Promissit facturum se vt faciā [...], quae [...]ulci vt fiant. causeth vs to do the things that he commaundeth vs to do. But M. Bishop here imagineth, that M. Perkins contradicteth in one leafe that which he yeeldeth in another. He saith one where, that mans will in his conuersion, is not actiue but passiue. But let M. Bishop learne of S. Austine, thatAugust. quaest. ve [...]. Test. 14. Qui verba suppronit quaestionis aut imperitu [...] est aut tergiuersator, qui calumniae magis studeat, quam doctrinae. he that concealeth the words of the point in question, is either an vnlearned ideot, or a wrangling crauen, that studieth more to cauill, then either to teach or learne. The words of M. Perkins are these: The Papists say, Will hath a naturall cooperation; we deny it, and say, it hath cooperation onely by grace, being in it selfe not actiue but passiue, willing well onely as it is moued by grace, whereby it must first be acted and moued, before it can act or will. Where he very plainely affirmeth the cooperation of mans will in his conuersion, but saith truly, that it is of grace it selfe, that it doth cooperate with grace. He saith, that in it selfe it is not actiue but passiue, but though in it selfe it be onely passiue, yet he acknowledgeth [Page 97] that it becommeth actiue also, by being acted or moued by grace. Now how is this contrarie to that which he saith in the fift conclusion, that mans Free will concurres with Gods grace, as a fellow or co-worker in some sort, and is not passiue in all and euery respect? In some sort, saith he, it is a co-worker with grace, and is not passiue in all and euery respect. How is that? Mans will must first of all be acted and moued by grace, and then it also acteth, willeth, and moueth it selfe. How can M. Bishop deuise to haue a man speake more agreably to himselfe? But he playeth the lewd cousiner, and whereas the whole point of the controuersie lieth in these words, by it selfe, or in it selfe, he guilefully omitteth the same, and maketh M. Perkins absolutely to say, that mans will in his conuersion is not actiue but passiue, when he saith, that in it selfe it is not actiue but passiue, declaring that by grace it is made actiue. So in the other place where it is said, that mans will is a co-worker in some sort, and is not passiue in all and euery respect, he leaueth out those termes of restraint, as if M. Perkins had made the will simply and of it selfe a co worker with grace, and not passiue in any respect. The contradiction therefore was not in M. Perkins his words, but in M. Bishops head, or rather in his malicious and wicked heart, which blind-foldeth him to make him seeme not to see that which he seeth well enough.
5. W. BISHOP.
The like contradiction may be obserued in the other part of libertie in morall actions: for in his third conclusion he deliuereth plainely, man to haue a naturall freedome, euen since the fall of Adam, to do, or not to do the acts of wisedome, Iustice, Temperance, &c. and proues out of S. Paul, that the Gentiles so did: yet in his first reason, Pag. 19. he affirmeth as peremptorily out of the eight of Genesis, that the whole frame of mans hart is corrupted, and all that he thinketh, deuiseth, or imagineth, is wholy euill, leauing him no natural strength to performe any part of morall dutie. See how vncertaine the steps be of men that walke in darknesse, or that would seeme to communicate with the workes of darknesse. For if I mistake him not, he agreeth fully in this matter of Free will, with the Doctrine of the Catholike Church: for he putting down the point of difference, saith, that it standeth in the cause of the freedome of mans will in spirituall matters: allowing then freedome of will with vs in the state [Page 98] of grace, whereof he there treateth: for he seemeth to dissent from vs onely in the cause of that freedome. And as he differeth from Luther and Caluin, with other sectaries, in granting this libertie of will: so in the very cause also he accordeth with Catholikes, as appeareth by his owne words. For (saith he) Papists say, mans will concurreth with Gods grace by it selfe, and by it owne naturall power: we say, that mans will worketh with grace; yet not of it selfe, but by grace: either he vnderstandeth not what Catholikes say, or else accuseth them wrongfully: for we say, that mans will then onely concurreth with Gods grace, when it is stirred and holpen first by Gods grace. So that mans will by his owne naturall action, doth concurre in euery good worke, otherwise it were no action of man: but we farther say, that this actiō proceedeth principally of grace, wherby the wil was made able to produce such actions: for of it selfe it was vtterly vnable to bring foorth such spirituall fruite. And this I take to be that, which M. Perkins doth meane by those his words: that the will must be first moued and acted by grace, before it can act or will. He mistooke vs, thinking that we required some outward helpe onely to the will, to ioyne with it; or rather, that grace did but as it were vntie the chaines of sinne wherein our will was fettered: and then Will could of it selfe turne to God. Not vnderstanding how Catholikes take that Parable of the man wounded in the way, Luk. 10. betweene Ierusalem and Ierico, who was (not as the Papists onely say, but as the holy Ghost saith) left halfe, and not starke dead. Now the exposition of Catholikes is not, that this wounded man, (which signifieth all mankind) had halfe his spirituall strength left him; but was robbed of all supernaturall riches, spoyled of his originall iustice, and wounded in his naturall powers of both vnderstanding and Will, and therein left halfe dead, not being able of his owne strength, either to know all naturall truth, or to performe all moral duty. Now touching supernaturall workes, because he left all power to performe them; not being able so much as to prepare himselfe conueniently to them: he in a good sence may be likened vnto a dead man, not able to moue one finger that way of grace: and so in holy Scripture the father said of his prodigall Son, Luk. 15. He was dead and is reuiued. Yet as the same sonne liued a naturall life, albeit in a deadly sinne: so mans will after the fall of Adam, continued somewhat free in actions conformable to the nature of man, though wounded also in them, as not being able to act many of them, yet hauing still that naturall facultie of Free-will, capable of grace, and also able, being first both outwardly moued, and fortified inwardly [Page 99] by the vertue of grace, to effect and do any worke appertaining to saluation: which is as much as M. Perkins affirmeth. And this to be the very doctrine of the Church of Rome, is most manifestly to be seene in the Councell of Trent, where in the Session are first these words in effect, concerning the vnablenesse of man to arise from sinne of himselfe. Euery man must acknowledge and confesse, that by Adams fall we were made so vncleane and sinfull, that neither the Gentiles by the force of nature, nor the Iewes by the letter of Moses lawe, could arise out of that sinfull state. After it sheweth, how our deliuerance is wrought, and how freedome of will is recouered in speciall, and wherein it consisteth, saying: The beginning of iustification, in persons vsing reason, is taken from the grace of God, preuenting vs through Iesus Christ, that is, from his vocation, whereby without any desert of ours we are called, that we who were by our sinnes turned away from God, may be prepared by his grace, both raising vs vp, and helping vs to returne to our owne Iustification, freely yeelding our consent vnto the said grace, and working with it. So as God touching the heart of man by the light of the holy Ghost, neither doth man nothing at all, receiuing that inspiration, who might also refuse it: neither yet can he without the grace of God, by his Free will, moue himselfe to that, which is iust in Gods sight. And that you may be assured, that this doctrine of the Councell, is no other then that which was taught three hundred yeares before, in the very middest of darknesse, as Heretikes deeme: 12. q. 109. Art. 6. see what S. Thomas of Aquine one of her principall pillars, hath written of this point in his most learned Summe. Where, vpon these words of our Sauiour, Ioh. 6. No man can come to me, vnlesse my Father draw him, he concludeth it to be manifest, that man cannot so much as prepare himselfe to receiue the light of grace, but by the free and vndeserued helpe of God, mouing him inwardly thereunto. And this is all which M. Perkins in his pretended dissent auerreth here, and goeth about to proue in his fiue reasons following: the which I will omit, as being all for vs. And if any man desire to see more to that purpose, let him reade the most learned workes of that famous Cardinall, and right reuerend Archbishop Bellarmine.
R. ABBOT.
Here is another contradiction framed vpon the anuile of M. Bishops [Page 100] ignorance, whilest he vnderstandeth not, that workes morally good may be spiritually euill, and whilest theyLuk 16.15. are highly esteemed with men for the substance of the act, yet may be abhominable with God by the vncleannesse of the heart. Which if he had duly considered, he might well haue seene, that both these assertions may stand together, that man hath freedome of will to do the outward acts of morall vertues, and yet that all that man deuiseth, frameth or imagineth is wholy euill, because his morall vertues without grace are in Gods sight but so many corruptions of good workes, being poysoned in the roote of vnbeleefe, and wholy diuerted from their true and proper end, so that God hath no respect to them, because in them there is no respect at all to God. This followeth afterwards more fully to be handled towards the end of this question, but in the meane time we see how simply he collecteth of this latter point, that M. Perkins leaueth a man no naturall strength to performe any part of morall dutie, and as if he had very wisely handled the matter, addeth his epiphonema: So vncertaine are the steps of them that walke in darknesse, very fitly agreeing to himselfe, who neither vnderstandeth what the aduersarie saith, nor what he himselfe is to say for his owne part. Whereupon it is that he conceiueth that M. Perkins fully agreeth with the Romish Church in this matter of Free will, whereas they are as farre different one from the other, as heauen is from earth. The agreement forsooth is in that M. Perkins granteth Free will in the state of grace. But so did Luther & Caluin, and so do we all, as far as M. Perkins doth. The Papists say, that man hath in his owne nature a power of Free wil, which being only stirred and helped, can, and doth of it selfe adioyne it selfe to grace to accept thereof, and to worke with it. This is it that we denie: we say, that freedome of the will to turne to God, and to worke with him, is no power of nature, but the worke of grace; that it is in no sort of man himselfe, but wholy and onely the gift of God: that howsoeuer God do offer grace, yet that man hath no power in himselfe, or in his owne will to assent and yeeld vnto it, but it is God himselfe that withall worketh in him to accept thereof: that to the conuersion of a sinner, there ariseth nothing from the motion of his owne will, howsoeuer assisted and helped of God, but what God by his Spirit doth worke in it.
Vpon this point onely Luther and Caluin, and we all insist to [Page 101] chalenge all wholy vnto God. In this respect was it that Luther said, that Free will is, Res de solo titulo, a matter of name only, and a bare title, because of man himselfe it is nothing, and by it, or in it there can nothing be attributed vnto him. ForAugust. de bono perseu. cap. 13. & cont. 2. ep. Pelag lib. 4. ca. 6. we will indeed, it is true, but God worketh in vs to will; we worke, but it is God that worketh in vs to worke; we walke, but he causeth vs to walke; we keepe his commaundements, but he worketh in vs to keepe his commandements, so that nothing is ours of our selues, but all is his onely. And this M. Bishop in some shew of words here seemeth to affirme, but indeed he wholy ouerthroweth it. He saith, that mans will then onely concurreth with Gods grace, when it is first stirred and holpen by grace, and therefore that M. Perkins either doth not vnderstand them, or else doth wrongfully accuse them, in that he chargeth them to say, that mans will concurreth with Gods grace by it selfe, and by it owne naturall power. But M. Perkins vnderstood them well enough, and doth no whit wrongfully accuse them. For Andradius the expounder of the riddles of the councell of Trent, doth plainely tell vs,Andrad. orthodoxar. explicat lib. 4. Libere nostri arbitrij motto atque ad institiam ap [...]licatio non magis a gratia Deipendet, quam à diuina virtute stipitis exultio, &c. Cum diuina gratia iacentem libertatem erigat & confirmet viresque illi addat quibus oblata iustitiae ornamentae complecti possit, non secus quidem sui ad iustitiam applicationis causa efficiens dicenda est ac ea quae natura constant earum omnium operationum ad quas naturae impulsione feruntur. that the motion of Free will, and applying of it felfe to righteousnesse, doth no more depend vpon the grace of God, then the fires burning of the wood doth depend vpon the power of God; that grace lifteth it vp being fallen downe, and addeth strength vnto it, but that it is no lesse the efficient cause of applying it selfe to grace, then other naturall things are of all those operations whereto by force of nature they are caried. Therefore he comparethIbid. Non secus ac ligneis sole [...] deuincti qui incedendiquidem facultatem habent, etsi ingredi nullo modo possit ni vincula rumpantur priùs quae motum reprimunt ac retardam. Free will to a man made fast in the stockes, who hath a power and ablenesse in himselfe to go, if he be let go out of the stockes, and the bonds be broken that held him before that he could not stirre. Whereby he giueth vs to vnderstand their mind, that as the fire and other naturall things being by the power of God vpholden in that which naturally they are, do of themselues worke their proper and naturall effects, and as a man vnbound and let go out of the stockes walketh and goeth, not by any new worke that is wrought in him, but by his owne former naturall power; so Free will though entangled in the delights of sinne, and bound with the bonds thereof, yet hath a naturall power whereby it can apply it selfe to righteousnesse, if grace by breaking the bonds, and abating the strength of sinne, do but make way for it to vse and exercise it selfe; so that grace hauing wrought what concerneth it, they leaue it to the will by it selfe, and by it owne naturall power, to adioyne [Page 102] it selfe to worke therewith. And this Bellarmine plainely testifieth, when he affirmeth,Bellarm de grat. & lib. arb. lib 6 cap 15. Sicut auxilium generale ita concurrit cum omnibus rebus in actionibus naturalibus, vt tamē non impediat libertatem & conti [...]gē tiam, ita speciale auxil um ad [...] uans ita concurrit ad omnes actiones supernaturales vt non impediat hominis libertatem: quoniam eodē prorsus modo auxilia ista concurrunt. that grace doth no otherwise concurre to supernaturall actions, then vniuersall causes do to naturall, so that it doth no more in the worke of righteousnesse, then the Sunne and heauenly powers do in the act of generation, or the producing of other naturall effects yeelding an influence and inclination, but leauing the very act to the will and worke of man. All which in effect M. Bishop himselfe afterwards expresseth, teaching that man after the fall of Adam, hath still a naturall facultie of Free will, which being first outwardly moued, and inwardly fortified by the vertue of grace, is able to effect and do any worke appertaining to saluation; therby giuing to vnderstand, that there is still an abilitie left in nature, howsoeuer for the present ouerwhelmed and oppressed, which being excited and stirred vp, though in it selfe it be not sufficient to produce the effects of spirituall actions, yet hath a sufficiencie to apply it selfe to grace for the producing thereof. Which Costerus the Iesuite declareth, by the similitude ofCoster. Enchirid ca. 5. Sit quispiam lapsus in foueam tenebricosam ex qua ne (que) cogitete gredinec exire solus possit; sed in ea securus obdormiat: accedat ad eum amicus qui hominis miserius de somno exertatum ad egressum moneat multisque rationibus vt assintiatur inducat: tum ei manum vel funem potrigat & simul co [...]antem educat in lumen a man fallen into a darke and deepe pit, whence he cannot get out by himselfe, nor hath care to get out, but sleepeth securely therein, till his friend come, who awaketh him out of his sleepe, and wisheth him to get out, and by reasons perswadeth him to be willing thereto, and so giueth him his hand, or reacheth to him a cord, which he taketh and layeth fast hold on it, and yeeldeth his owne vttermost strength that he may be pulled out. To which purpose also he vseth another example, of a manIbid. Homo languidus qui ab igne vel à lumine solis facie auersus se ipse solus non potest cō uertere; sed si accedat amicus qui iuuet & languidus ipse conatum aliquens adhibeat sit tandem vt conuersus calore solis aut ignis fruatur. extremely faint and weake, lying with his face turned away from the fire or the Sunne, who is not able to turne himselfe to the fire or the Sunne, but if he haue one to helpe him, vseth his owne strength also for the turning of himselfe about to enioy the warmth thereof. Which comparisons do plainely shew, that they attribute vnto Free will a proper and seuerall worke beside that that is done by the grace of God. Whereby we see how guilefully M. Bishop speaketh, when he saith, that the wil is made able by grace to bring forth spiritual fruit, being of it self vtterly vnable therto, because he meaneth not hereby, that grace doth worke in the wil that whole ability that it hath, but that to the abilitie which the wil naturally hath grace offereth, and being accepted, yeeldeth only an assistance and helpe for the accomplishment of the work. Which he implieth in that he saith, that the worke proceedeth principally of [Page 103] grace: not wholy but principally; onely because grace first occasioneth and beginneth the same, whereas otherwise they make Free will parallel-wise, and as it were side by side concurre with grace to the effecting of that whereto it tendeth. Yet he will not haue vs thinke, that they require some outward helpe onely to the will, to ioyne with grace, or that grace doth but as it were vntie the chaines of sinne, wherein our will is fettered, and then will can of it selfe turne to God, when indeede he cannot well tell what he would haue vs thinke. We heare him and his fellowes talke of inward mouing, and inward fortifying, but in truth they make all this inward but onely outward, because they still deny, that grace worketh that intrinsecall act of the will, whereby it first applieth it selfe to God, and do leaueAndrad vt supra. Homini semper liberum relinquitur diuinae operationi praebere impedimentum, eamque vel amplecti vel repudiare. the will of man to make vp the worke of grace, by that that meerely and naturally is his owne. In respect whereof Costerus compareth graceCoster. vt supra. Est haec gratia in arbitrio voluntatis vt ea vti possit, & non vti retinere & abijcere: quemadmodum baculus in manu conualescentis, cuius auxilio si velit vtetur, sin minus poterit eum remouere. to a staffe in a mans hand, which at his owne will he either vseth for his helpe, or throweth away, still excluding that worke of God, whereby it is wrought in the will, to will and receiue the grace of God, and not to reiect the same. The necessitie of which worke herein plainly appeareth, for that man as touching spirituall life,Ephes. 4.18. the life of God is wholy dead, and therefore as the dead man hath no facultie or power left, whereby to do any thing for himselfe for recouerie of life againe, but his life and the life of all his parts must wholy and newly be put into him, so man hath nothing left in nature, whereof with any helpe whatsoeuer he can make any vse to returne to God againe, but this life must wholy and newly be wrought in him by the grace and power of God. Now in this point M. Bishop stutteth and stammereth, and knoweth not how or what to say. Man, he saith, is but halfe dead, not starke dead, and by and by after, he is halfe dead in his naturall powers of vnderstanding and will, but touching supernaturall workes, he may in a good sence be likened to a dead man, and yet presently saith againe, that in this state there is a naturall facultie of Free will, which is able being outwardly moued and inwardly fortified, to effect and do any worke appertaining to saluation. Whereby he wholy ouerthroweth the comparison of a dead man, because where there is remaining an actiue power that needeth onely to be stirred vp and strengthened, there cannot be affirmed the state of death. But the Scripture pronounceth man absolutely dead: The Iohn. 5 25. dead shall heare [Page 104] the voyce of the Sonne of God, and they that heare it, shall liue: Epes. 2, 1.5. Col. 2.13. Ye were dead in trespasses and sinnes; notLuk. 10.30. halfe dead, like the man that descended from Ierusalem to Iericho (to whom S. Ambrose more fitly resembleth man falling after Baptisme,Ambros. de poe [...]tit. lib. 1. cap. 10. and in the state of grace) but plainelyMat. 8.22. dead, likeIohn 11.39. Lazarus, foure dayes dead, and now stinking in his graue, in whose raising vp was Aug in Ioan. trail. 49 Surrexes, protessit. Jn v [...]roqu [...] potentia Domin. erat, non vires mortut. the power of Christ, not any strength of the dead man, so as that the recouering of a man to faith and spirituall life, is byE [...]nes. 1.19 the same working of the mightie power of God, which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead. Which if M. Bishop did acknowledge, according to the plaine euidence of holy Scripture, he would not thus halt betwixt grace and Free will, but would confesse, that whatsoeuer the will doth in the worke of saluation, the same is fully and wholy wrought therein by grace. But now he doth but dally with the name of Grace, as Pelagius the heretike did, onely to hide the venime and poyson of his false doctrine,August. cont. Pelag. & Celest. lib. 1. cap. 37. Gratiae vocabulo frangens inuidiam effensionem (que) decli [...]ians. to abate the hatred, and auoid the offence that should otherwise arise against him. And no otherwise doth the councell of Trent which he alledgeth for his warrant, the doctrine whereof is the very same with the Pelagian heresie, being taken with those corrections and limitations wherewith Pelagius and his followers did abridge and explaine themselues. For they denied not a necessitie of the grace of God, Pelagius himselfe plainely saying,Pelag. apud Aug. ibid lib. 1. cap. 31. Liberum arbitrium habere nos dicimus quod in omnibus bonu operibus diuino semper adiuuarur auxilio. We say that we haue a Free will which in all good workes is alwayes assisted with the helpe of God; Cap. 33. L [...]berum sic confitemur arbitrium vt dicamus nos indigere Dei semper auxilio. We so confesse Free will, as that we say that vve alwayes stand in need of the helpe of God: Cap. 35 Epistota nostra consitetur nos omnino nihil boni facere [...]asse sine Deo. We can do no good at all without God: Cap. 37. Inuemeni nos ita hominis laudare naturam vt Dei semper gratiae addamus auxilium. We so prayse nature, as that we alwayes adde the helpe of the grace of God. And that we may see that he first trod the path for the councell of Trent to follow, he sticketh not to pronounceCap. 1. A thema qui sentit vel docet gratiam Dei qua Christus vinit in hunc mun [...]um peccatores silu [...]s facere, non solum per singulas horas aut per singula momenta, sed etiam per singulos actus nostros non esse necessariam, & qui hanc conantur aufer [...]e, paenas sortiuntur aeternas. Anathema to euery one that thinketh or saith, that the grace of God whereby Christ came into this world to saue sinners is not necessarie, not onely euery houre and euery moment, but to euery act of ours, and they that go about to deny it shall be punished for euer. So doth the Pelagian heretike affirme to Hierome; Hieron. adis. Pelag. lib. 3. Su [...]t plerique nostrorum qui omina quae agimus dicant fieri praesilio Dei. There be very many of ours vvho say, that all things that vve do, are done by the helpe of God. By this acknowledgement of grace Pelagius deluded the Bishops of the Easterne Churches, before whom he was conuented, and [Page 105] by that meanes was acquitted and dismissed, as hauing taught nothing against the truth. For as Augustin noteth,August. epist. 95. His audius ver [...]is thommem Dei gratia adiunari, &.) Catholici antistit [...] nullam aliam Dei gratiam intelligere potuerunt, nisi quam in libris Dei legere & populis Dei praedicare consueuerunt. When they heard him confesse the grace of God, they could imagine no other grace, but what they were wont to reade in the booke of God, and preach to the people of God. Which grace by this occasion the same S. Austin in diuerse and sundrie places, defineth to be thatIbid. Gratiae qua Christiani & filij Dei sumus. Et postea: Qua praedesiinati vocamur, iustificamur, glorificamur. whereby we are Christians and the children of God; and being predestinate are called, iustified and glorified: Epist. 105. Qua iustificati sumus vt homines iusti essemus, whereby we are iustified to be iust men: Epi. 107. Agnoscamus gratiam quae facit proasse doctrinam. which maketh the doctrine of God profitable vnto vs: Cont. Pelag. lib. 1. cap. 13. Ʋt non [...]stendat tantummodo veritatem, verumetiam impertiae charitatem. whereby he doth not onely shew vs the truth, but also inspireth loue: Ibid. cap. 30. Qua iustificamur, id est, qua charitas Dei diffunditur in cordibus nostris, &c. whereby we are iustified, that is, whereby the loue of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the holy Ghost which is giuen vnto vs; Cont. 2. Epist. Pelag lib. 4. cap. 6. Haec est gratia Dei bonos faciens nos. whereby we are made good; Cont Pelag, &c. vt supra. cap. 10. Istam aliquando fateatur qua futurae gloriae magnitudo non solum promittitur, verumetiam creditur & speratur; nec reuelatur solum sapientia, verumetiam & amatur, nec suadetur solum omne quod bonum est, verumetiam pers [...]ad tur. wherby the excellencie of heauenly glorie, is not onely promised, but also beleeued and hoped for; nor wisedome onely reuealed, but loued, and euerie thing that is good is not onely aduised, but (fruitfully and effectually) perswaded. This onely grace and no other did they vnderstand to be the grace of Christ, whereby as touching the worke of our saluation, God is all in all whilest of him and by him, meerely by his gift we are whatsoeuer we are towards him, so that althoughDe grat. & lib. arb [...]t cap. 16. Certum est nos velle cum volumus sed ille facit vt velimus, &c. Certum est nos facere cùm facimus, sedille facit vt faciamus, &c, we will, and we worke, and we walke, and we runne, yet it is God that worketh in vs, to will, and to worke, and to walke, and to runne, and in all these things we haue nothing but what we haue of him, that there may be no exception to the Apostles question,1. Cor. 4.7. What hast thou that thou hast not receiued? and if thou haue receiued it, why doest thou boast as if thou hadst not receiued it? But this grace Pelagius could by no meanes endure: he thought it absurd, that all should be ascribed to God, and therefore would needes deuise a course of grace that might giue way to the Free will of man. The contriuing of which course, if we duly consider from point to point, we shall see, that it most fully correspondeth and accordeth to that doctrine of grace and Free will, which is now taught in the Church of Rome; onely the specialties thereof their schoole diuines haue directed them to expresse somewhat more distinctly then he hath done. And first they tell vs of grace preuenting, exciting and stirring vp, whereby saith the councell, without any desert of [Page 106] ours we are called, that by his grace raising vs vp, and helping vs, we may be prepared to returne to our iustification. Where we are to note M. Bishops errour in his owne principles, who sundry times calleth the grace of first iustificationOf Iustification. sect. 32. Of Merits. sect. 1 &c. the first grace, forgetting that there is a former grace, to which he himselfe referreth their workes of preparation, and here bringeth the councell describing it as precedent to iustification. But of this preuenting grace Costerus the Iesuite saith, thatCoster. de lib. arbit Haec gratia praeuenitas non est illa quae in anima nomina inhabitans usstū [...]onstitu [...]t & filium Dei efficit, sed impulsus tantùm & motio sp. sancti adhuc foris degentis, qui stat ad ostrum eordis pulsans nondum admissus ad eius domicilium. it is not that that dwelleth in the soule to make a man iust, but it is onely the impulsion and motion of the holy Ghost, being yet without, and standing knocking at the doore of the heart, not being as yet let in. This he expresseth by the comparison of a friend finding a man in a deepe pit, as before was sayd, and perswading him by diuerse reasons to be willing to be pulled out. Therefore Bellarmine saith, thatBellarm. de grat & li arbit. lib 6. cap. 15. Nihil est aeliud n [...]si su [...]sio quae non deter [...]t nat voluntatem sed in [...]linat per modū proponentis obiecti. it is but onely a perswading which doth not determine the will, but inclineth it in manner of a propounding obiect. This grace Pelagius describeth in this sort:Pelag apud a August cont. Pelag. & Celest. lib. 1. cap. 10. Operatur in nobis velle quod bonum est, velle quod sanctum est dum nos serrenis cupidit itibus deditor, mutorum more animalium taentummede presentia diligē tes futurae gloriae magnitudine & prae [...]orum pollicitatione succendit, dum reuelatione sapientiae in desiderium dei stupentem suscitat voluntatem: dum nobis suadet omne quod bonum est. He worketh in vs to will that that is good, to will that that is holy, whilest finding vs giuen to earthly lusts, and like bruit beasts louing onely present things (note that he excludeth all former merits as the councell doth) he enkindleth our minds with the greatnesse of the glorie to come, and with promise of reward: whilest by reuealing his wisedome, he raiseth vp our astonished will to the desire and longing after God; whilest he perswadeth and exhorteth vs to all good things. And againe to the same purpose he saith:Ibid ca 7 Adiuuat nos Deus per doctrinam & reuelationem suam dum cordis nostri oculos aperit, dum nobis ne praesentibus occupemur futura demonstrat, dum diaboli pandit insidiat, dum nos multiformi & ineffabili dono gratiae caelestis illuminat. God helpeth vs by his doctrine and reuelation, whilest he openeth the eyes of our hearts, whilest he sheweth vs things to come, that we may not be holden with things present; whilest he layeth open vnto vs the snares of the diuell; whilest he enlighteneth vs with the manifold and vnspeakeable gift of his heauenly grace. Thus hitherto they agree as touching this preuenting grace, both calling that by the name of grace, which the auncient Church disclaimed vnder that name, because they vnderstood grace to be meant of that onely, whereby God himselfe maketh vs to bee that that hee calleth vs to be, and here is nothing but propounding, perswading, exhorting, stirring, enkindling, enlightening, moouing, knocking, but leauing it to vs either to accept [Page 107] or reiect that that is propounded and perswaded, andJbid. cap. 4. Nostrum est, quia haec omnia vertere etiam in malum possumus Conc. Trid. Sess. 6. cap. 5. Neque homo ip. c nihil omnino agit, inspirationem ill [...] recipiens qu [...] pe qui illam & abijcere potest. both resting the act and effect of all vpon man himselfe, yeelding to his motion when it is at his owne discretion to doe otherwise. For M. Bishop here telleth vs out of their learning, that there is in vs a naturall facultie of Free will, to which this propounding & perswading is vsed,Coster. vt supr. Relicta voluntati libertate, quae fieri potest, vt vel suscipiantur influxus diuini vel repulsam patiantur. to which it is left to giue to these motions either admission or repulse. B llar de grat. & lib arbit. lib. 5. cap. 29. In potestate voluntatis relinquitur consentire vo [...]āti & sua senti vel non consentire. It is left in the power of the will, saith Bellarmine, either to consent to God calling and perswading, or not to consent vnto him. Now saith Costerus, Coster. ib. Qui hanc gratiam admittit, cadem aduitus progreditur vlterius, vt credendo. sperando, poenitendo, ad iustificationis gratiam se paret. [...] Of Iustification. Sect. 21. He that by Free will admitteth of this grace, by the helpe of it (not being yet any spirituall renewing grace, but onely as the friend (as before was said) reaching his hand, or giuing a coard to the man in the pit) he prepareth himselfe by beleeuing, hoping, repenting, and performing workes of pietie, to receiue the grace of iustification. So that before iustification, and without any inward or inhabitant grace of regeneration, euen by Free will receiuing onely a helpe which is without it, a man hath faith, hope, repentance, loue, by which, and for which (as M. Bishop afterwards disputeth) God is induced and moued to bestow vpon vs his iustifying grace. All this matter M. Bishop in the thirteenth Section of this question setteth downe thus: God by his grace knockes at the doore of our hearts: he doth not breake it open, or in any sort force it, but attendeth, that by our assenting to his call, we open him the gates, and then lo he with his heauenly gifts will enter in. Whereby it appeareth, that with thē the first intrinse call act of mans conuersion is of himselfe, and an act of his owne Free will, occasioned by God, but acted by man himself, because the act of grace on Gods part being complete, there remaineth a distinct and seuerall act of the will of man for admitting of that grace of God, vpon admitting whereof followeth the endowment of the gifts of God, by which thence foorth Free will worketh according to the will of God. All this Pelagius also taught as they do, affirming a power of nature consisting in Free will, Pelag apud August. contrae Pelag & Ce est. lib 1 cap. 4. Jpsā possi [...]ilitatem gratiae suae ad. [...] liat semper auxilio. which power (being not sufficient of it selfe) God alwaies assisteth with the helpe of the foresaid grace. August. Epist. 107. Per legem, per Scripturas suas Deus operatur vt velimus, sed eu consentire vel no consentire, ita nostrum est vt si velimus fiat: si autem nolimus, nihil in nobis operationem Dei valere faciamus. By his law, by his Scriptures, which we reade or heare, he worketh that we may be willing; but to consent or not consent, is so ours, as that if we will, we do so; if not, we cause that the worke of God auaileth nothing. Now thenContr. Pelag. vt supra cap. 32.33. Qui currit ad Deum, & ab eo seregi cupit, ad est, voluntatem suam ex eius voluntate suspendit, qui ei adherendo nigiter vnus eum illo fit spiritus, non hoc nisi de arbitrij efficit libertate. Qua qui benè vtitur, ita se totum trauit Deo omnem (que) suam mort ficat voluntatem, vt cum Apostolo possit dicere, Viuo autem, &c. ponti (que) cor suum in manis Dei vt illud quo voluerit Deus ipse declinet. he that vseth [Page 108] his Free will aright, saith he, he runneth vnto God, and desireth to be guided and directed by him, and hangeth his will vpon the will of God, to whom being ioyned by cleaning still vnto him, he becometh or is made one spirit with him: he so committeth himselfe wholy to God, and mortifieth all his owne will, that with the Apostle he may be able to say, Now I liue, yet not I, but Christ liueth in me: he putteth his heart into Gods hand, that God may incline it whither it shall please him. Here is Free will yeelding assent to God, and from thence (by assistance of grace which he also, as we haue heard, acknowledgeth in his meaning, which is the same with the Papists, to be necessarie alwaies, and in all things,) there follow the workes of preparation, which he expresseth by termes of running vnto God, desiring to be guided by him, mortifying our owne will, putting our heart into Gods hand, hanging our wil vpon Gods will. Now hereupon will he haue to ensue the iustifying grace and gift of God, which he signifieth by becoming one spirit with God, by hauing Christ to liue in vs, by hauing God to incline our hearts whither it pleaseth him. August ibid. Magnum profecto diuinae gratiae adiutorium, vt cor nostrum, quo voluerit Deus, ipse declinei: sed hoc tam magnū adiutorium, sicut ipse desipit, tunc mere mur, cùm sine vllo adiutorio nonnesi de arbitrij libertate ad Dominum currimus, &c. vs his praecudentibus meritis sic eius consequamur gratiam, vt cor nostrum quo voluerit, ipse declinet. A great helpe of grace indeed, saith Austine, that God incline our heart neither he will, but this so great helpe as he (Pelagius) doteth, we then merit (or obtaine) when without any helpe onely by Free will, we runne to God, desire to be guided by him, &c. That these merits going before, we may so obtaine grace, that God may incline our heart whither he will. And this is also the very selfe same dotage, that now possesseth the Church of Rome. For if M. Bishop will except, that they do not affirme their workes of preparations to be without any helpe of grace, onely of Free will, I answer him, that no more did Pelagius, who accursed them (as hath bene said) who held not the grace of God to be necessarie to euery act. But yet in that meaning, wherein S. Austine speaketh ofSee after in Sect 15. the helpe of God, as whereby the thing it selfe is wrought in vs, wherein we are said to be helped, they say, as S. Austine chargeth Pelagius to haue said, that their preparations are without any helpe of grace, and onely of Free will, because there is for the time of this preparation no inhabitant or renuing grace, no habitual qualitie or gift of grace that should be the worker thereof. They onely teach, as Pelagius did, a grace though internall in respect of the man, yet to the will onely externally assistant, mouing and directing it for the doing of these things, but meerely the will it selfe is the doer of them. Which hereby also is apparant, for that if they were properly the effects of [Page 109] they should by their doctrine be meritorio us ex condigno, whereas now they are denyed so to be, and therby are denied to be the proper effects of grace. And hence M. Bishop thinketh to haue another difference betwixt the Pelagians and them, because Pelagius affirmed merits before the grace of iustification, and they do not so. But this will not serue his turne, because Bellarmine confesseth, as the truth is, that the Fathers in condemning Pelagius for affirming grace to be giuen in respect of merits, did vnderstand merit Bellar. de grati & lib. arbit lib. 6. cap. 5 Gratiā Dei secundum merita nostra dari intolligunt Patres, cùm aliquid fit propri [...]s viribus ratione cuius datur gratia, etiamsi non sit illud meritum de condigno. when any thing is done by our owne power, in respect whereof grace is giuen, though the same be not merit ex condigno. Such are their workes of preparation, which are done by our owne power in that meaning as the Fathers spake, as hath bene said, because they are no proper effects of renewing grace, and are defended by thē to be the cause for which God bestoweth his grace vpon vs. They defend therfore that which was condemned in the Pelagians, that the grace of God is giuen according to our merits, August. contr. 2. Epist Pelag. lib 4. cap. 6. Priores vtique dore quod libet ex libero arbitrio vt sit gratia retribuenda pro proemio. that we first giue somewhat by Free will, for which grace is to be rendred for reward. They say as the Pelagians did,Ibid. Nos facimus vt mereamur, cum quibus faciat Deus. We worke to merit that God may worke with vs. Yea they professedly teach, that their preparations are merits, though not ex condigno, yet ex congruo, because by the rule of their schoolesThom. Aquin. 1. 2. q 114. art 6. in Corp Congrutem est, vt dum homo bene vtitur virtute sua, Deus secundum superexcellentem virtutem excellentiùs operetur, it is meete or standing with reason, that whilest a man well vseth his owne power, God according to his more excellent power do worke more excellently. They thinke themselues well discharged, for that they put no merits before the first grace, as they call it, whereas therein they say no more then Pelagius did. He made the first grace Aug. Epist. 106. Haec intelligitur doctore ipso gratia Dei, quae Paganis atque Christianis, napüs & pijs, fidelibus atque infidelibus communis est. a thing common both to the wicked and to the godly, to Pagans and Christians, to beleeuers and infidels, consisting in motions and illuminations, offered to all, and left to euery mans Free will, to accept or reiect them, euenBellar. de grat. & lib. arbit, lib. 2 cap. 3. Lumine gratiae nemo omnine priuatur. so do they. They say, that before that first grace there are no merits at al precedent; euen so said he, affirming the calling of God, whilest he findeth vs giuen to earthly lusts, and like bruite beasts louing onely present things, as his own words haue told vs. But the first grace or preuenting grace, before which the Fathers say there are no merits is iustifying grace, Aug contr. 2. Epist. Pelag. lib. 4 cap. 6. Ille facis vt ambulemus, vt obseruemus, vt faciamus. Haec est gratia bonos faciens nos: haec miscricerdia praeueniens nos. the grace whereby he maketh vs to walke, to obserue, to do what he commaundeth; whereby he himselfe worketh the effect of that which either by outward instruction, or inward motion and illumination he doth commend vnto vs. Before this grace they place their merits or workes of preparation, thereby to [Page 110] obtaine it, contrarie to the words of the Apostle, as S. Austin witnesseth:Contr. Pelag. & Celest lib. 1. cap. 23. Not of workes, lest any man should boast: and againe, If it be of grace, it is not of workes. And herein their iniquitie is the greater, in that they borrow the termes of a distinction ofEnchir. cap. 32 grace preuenient and subsequent from S. Austin, and apply it otherwise then he meant it, to the maintenance of an heresie, which he oppugned by it. Thus M. Bishop for his life cannot imagine a better accord, then there is betwixt Pelagius the Heretike and their Councell of Trent, both auouching, and by fraudulent deuices maintaining the power of nature and Free will against the truth of the grace of God. And to assure vs that they attribute thereto as much as Pelagius did,August dena. & grit. cap. 39 Po [...] [...]at item humo [...]ae naturae ita [...]st [...]dis, vt homo per Liberum ar [...]erium etiam sine Christi nomine salu a esse posse credatur. who so defended the power of nature, as that a man without the name of Christ might be saued by Free will, Andradius telleth vs, out of the secrets of that Councell, that they also hold,Andrad. Ortho. expli aedi 3. Sine lege Mos [...] & Euangelit vnobis per Christura data sola lige naturae perm [...]iltos puisse Dei gratia iustificatos & saluatos: & prius vmeum Deum religio [...]è venerati sunt; in ipso spes suas omnes collocarum; illi perpetuo placere studuerunt ab illo virtutum remunerationem sperarunt. that heathen Philosophers, hauing no knowledge of the law or of the Gospel of Christ, were iustified and saued onely by the law of nature; that they religiously worshipped one God, put all their trust in him, hoped for reward of their vertues from him, yet all this by the grace of God he saith, which Pelagius also would say, but both teaching no other grace but what the heathens themselues confessed, thatArist. de mundo. Cic. de Nat. Deer. Nemo vir magnus sine aliquo afflatud uino vnquam suit. Neminem nisi inuante Deo, talem fuisse creuō dum est. neuer any man proued great and excellent without some diuine instinct: so that Aristotle, and Tully, and such other acknowledging the same, must now be taken for Preachers of the grace of God. Wherein we may wonder at their impudencie, that doubt not to affirme a thing so plainely absurd, and so resolued against by S. Austin in his defences against the Pelagians, concluding by imitation of the Apostles words, thatAug de nat. & grat. cap. 2. Se [...]er uniturum iull [...]a sutilla f [...] d [...] assi [...]s Christi & resurrectious inst [...]tans) cego C [...]ss [...] gratis [...]us est. if by the law of nature there be righteousnesse without the faith of the passion and resurrection of Christ, then Christ died in vaine. And againe; thatIbid. cap. 9. Fece quod est crutem Chr sti eu [...]cuare sine illa quenquam per naturalem legem & voluntatis arbitrium iustificari posse contendere. to affirme, that a man may be iustified by the law of nature and Free will, is to make the crosse of Christ of no effect. But by all this we see, that their speech of grace for conuerting of man to God, is but collusion and meere Pelagian hypocrisie, as whereby indeed they attribute no greater a work to God in bringing man to righteousnesse, then to the diuell in bringing man to sinne. Which being condemned in theFrosp. de lib. arbit. Ostendere volun inter boni & mali contrarius suasiones, ita omnem h [...]minem proprie discretiom esse commissum [...]t c [...]mplus a Deo praesidij quàm a Diabolo fis periculi. Pelagians as a horrible impietie and blasphemie, yet by Costerus the Iesuite in his Enchiridion, is manifestly acknowledged to [Page 111] be their meaning,Coster. Enchirid. cap 5. Sicut daemon tentatione mentem nostram praua cog [...]tatione & concupiscentiae motu tangit ac pulsat afficere (que) conatur voluntatem vti [...] peccatum consentiat, quae sua libertate motiones has omnes & admittere potest & reijcere: tia sunt in nobis d [...]umi quidam insiuxus aliquddo quidem, aliquando constantiores qui cor nostrum pulsant relicta interim voluntati sua libertate qua fieri potest vt vel susciptan tur vel repulsam patiantur. that as the diuell by temptation and suggestion toucheth our minds, and knocketh at the doore of the heart, and seeketh to moue the will to consent to sinne, which notwithstanding is at it owne libertie to admit or reiect the same, so are the influences of Gods preuenting grace, whether sudden or more constant, which do beate and knocke at the hart, but so, as it is left in the libertie of the wil to accept or refuse, euen in as plain termes as Pelagius said,August. Epist. 107. Consentire hominis libero arbitrio constitutum est. &c. Libertate: naturali si vult facit; si non vult, non facit. that to consent to God consisteth in mans Free wil, and that by libertie of nature he doth so if he will. This paines I haue taken to vnhood M. Bishop and his Councell of Trent, and to make good that that I haue before affirmed, that the Church of Rome now maintaineth the heresie of Pelagius which anciently was condemned by the Church of Rome. That which he alledgeth out of Thomas Aquinas is of the same stampe, neither can his antiquitie of three hundred yeares adde any grace to that which eight hundred yeares before him was vniuersally condemned by the whole Church. Whether M. Perkins his reasons do destroy their assertion of Free will, vpon determining the state of the question in the next section it shall appeare.
6. W. BISHOP.
Now the verie point controuersed, concerning Free will, M. Perkins hath quite omitted, which consisteth in these two points, expressed in the Councell: First, whether we do freely assent vnto the said grace, when it is offered vs, that is, whether it lie in our power to refuse it; And secondly, when we concurre and worke with it, whether we could if we listed refuse to worke with it. In both which points we hold the affirmatiue part, and most sectaries of this time the negatiue. Of which our Author is silent: only by the way in his fourth reason, toucheth two texts out of Saint Paul, which are commonly alledged against Free will.
R. ABBOT.
This true point of the controuersie is contained in the proposition of the Pelagians, thatAug. ep. 107. Vt Euangelio consentiamus non est donum Dei sed hoc nobis est à nobis, id est, expropria voluntate, quam nobis in nostro corde non operatus est ipso. to consent to the Gospell is not the gift of [Page 112] God, but that this we haue of our selues, that is to say, of our owne will, which he hath not wrought for vs in our hearts. For thus you haue, M. Bishop, all this while affirmed, that grace hauing performed and done what appertained to it for the conuersion of man, there is behind a distinct and proper act of the will, which either by consenting and yeelding maketh good, or by dissenting and refusing maketh frustrate all that grace hath done. This you all inculcate & beate vpon that, that when God hath wholy done his part, it is in mans will either to make or marre, and so do plainly teach with Pelagius, that God doth helpeIdem de grat. Certisti to it. Pelag. & Celest. lib. 1. cap. 25. possibilitatem naturae, our naturall power, that we may be able to consent and will, but actually to consent and will, is left still free to our owne will and choise. And thus, M. Bishop, you your selfe informe vs, when propounding the first part of the question, Whether we do freely assent vnto grace when it is offered vs, that is whether it lie in our power to refuse it, you hold affirmatiuely, that by Free will we assent vnto grace, hauing it in our power and choise to refuse the same. Whether this be so or not is the point, and we resolue with S. Austin, Idem. ibid. Non solùm Deus posse nostrum donauit atque adiuuat, sid etiam velle & operatioperatur in nobis. that God doth not onely giue vs and helpe vs to be able to will and to worke, but also worketh in vs to will and to worke: he doth not so offer vs grace, as to leaue vs to assent vnto it if we will, but himselfe worketh also in vs to be willing and to giue our assent vnto it, whoDe praedest. sanct cap. 20. Cum Deus vult aliquid fieri quod non nisi volentibus hominibus oportet fieri, incitnantur eorum cordae vt hoc vt l [...]t eo scid [...]cet incli [...]ante, qui in nobis [...]urabilt modo & Ineffabili operatur & velli: & de bono pers [...]uer. cap. 23. sic in potestate habet cor nostrū, &c. so hath our hearts in his power, as that in wonderfull and vnspeakeable manner he worketh in vs to will that good that we cannot haue but with our will. And whereas you say that it lieth in our power to refuse the grace of God, you thereby subiectDe Praedest. sanct cap. 10 per ho [...] vt promissi sua Deus possit implere non est in Dei sed in hominis potestate. the accomplishment of the promise of the grace of God, to the power and will of man; so that if man list, it shall take place: if man list not, it shall not take place.Jbid. Filios, promisit Deus Abrahae quo [...]idei c [...]us vestig [...]a sect [...]rentur. God promised children to Abraham that should follow the steps of his faith. Prosp. de [...]ocat. gene. l b 1. cap. 3 Creditucos promisit, &c recr [...]cidi [...]dos promisit, obilituros, persiuerat [...] [...]os. &c. He promised them forgiuenesse of sinnes, obedience, perseuerance, the feare of him. He offereth grace to that purpose, where if it lie in mans power to refuse the same, then it must be in mans power whether the promise of God shall be fulfilled or not. But God didAugust. ibid. Non di nostrae voluntetis potestate, sed de sua praedestinatione promisit. Promisit enim quod ipse facturus fuerat, non quod homines; quia etsi faciunt h [...]mines bona quae pertinent ad cele [...]dum Deum ipse facit vt illi facia [...]t quae praecepit, non illi faciunt vt ipse faciat quod promisit. not make that promise vpon the power of our will, as foreseeing what we would do, but vpon his owne purpose, determining what he himselfe would do, causing men to do what he hath commanded, not hauing from men to performe [Page 113] what he hath promised, because he intended suchJdem. de corrept & grat. ca. 11. Secunda plus potest, qua fit etiam vt velit. a grace, not as whereby man may attaine to righteousnesse if he will, but whereby it is wrought in him to will and loue the same; Ibid cap. 14. Magis habet in potestate voluntates homi [...]um quàm ipsi sua [...]. he hauing in his power the wils of men more then they themselues haue. In a word, man by nature hath in him to resist and refuse the grace of God: to this his power serueth, and doth not serue to do otherwise. But God ouerruleth this power, and worketh in him not to refuse his grace, and when God worketh in man not to refuse, it cannot be said, that to refuse is in the power of man; not that God maketh man iust against his will, butDe praedest, sanct. cap. 8. A nullo duro corde respitutur. edeo quippe triburtur vt cordis duritia primitus auferatur. he taketh away from him hardnesse of heart, wherby he did refuse, and is De grat. & lib. arbit. cap 14. Cor lapideum aduersus Deum omnino inflexibile est. altogether inflexible towards God, and giueth him a new heart, a heart of flesh willing to obey, whereby a man groweth to be as aduerse to sinne, as he was before to righteousnesse, and entreth to that state which S. Iohn describeth,1. Iohn 3.9. Euery one that is borne of God sinneth not, neither can he sinne, that is, serue sinne, giue himselfe altogether ouer to sinne, because he is borne of God, which is here the happie beginning of the euerlasting blessed state of Gods elect,August. de corrept & grat: cap. 11. Prima libertas voluntatis erat posse non peccare: nouissima multò maior erit non posse peccare, &c. Non posse peccare, non posse bonum deserere, to be freed from all possibilitie of sinne, or forsaking that good that God hath yeelded vnto vs by Iesus Christ. Now hereby we see how absurdly M. Bishop propoundeth the second part of this question, when we concurre to worke with grace, whether we could, if we listed, refuse to worke with it. For who doubteth but if we list, we do refuse? but therefore the worke of grace is that we shall not list to refuse the worke of grace, but that our list shall be to submit our selues vnto it.August de corrept. & grat. cap 8, An audebis dicere etiam rogante Christone deficeret fides Petri, defecturam fuisse si Petrus eam deficere voluisset, hoc est, si cam vsque in sinem perseuerare noluisset. Quasi aliud Petrus vllo modo vellet quàm pro illo Christus rogasset vt vellet. Nam quit ignorat tunc suisse perituram fidem Petri, si ea quae fidelis erat voluntas ipsa deficeret, & permansuram si cadem voluntas maneret? sed quia praeparatur voluntas à Domino ideo pro illo non posset esse inanis oratio. Quando rogauit ergò nefides cius deficeret, quid aliud rogauit, nisi vt haberet in fide liberrimam, fortissimam, inuictissimam, perseuerantissimam voluntatem? Where Christ prayeth for Peter that his faith might not faile, will any man dare to say that it might faile if Peter list to haue it faile, that is, would not haue it to perseuere vnto the end? As if Peter could list or will in any sort otherwise then Christ had prayed for him that he might will. For who knoweth not, that Peters faith should faile if the will of faith should faile in him, and continue, if that should continue. But because the will is prepared by the Lord, therefore the prayer of Christ for Peter could not be in vaine, whereby he prayed that he might haue in the faith a most free, most strong, inuincible and perseuering will. This is the worke of grace to all the faithfull: it standeth [Page 114] not vpon their list to refuse the grace of God, for then they certainly giue it ouuer, butIerem. 32.40. he putteth his feare into their hearts, that they shall not depart from him. Now the question being truely and rightly propounded, whether God hauing fully done his part for the conuersion of a sinner, it remaine free to his owne will, either to accept or refuse this grace: the reasons vsed by M. Perkins are verie effectuall and strong to proue the contrarie, and it was M. Bishops cunning to passe by them, because he knew not any probable answer to giue vnto them. His first reason sheweth the vniuersall corruption of mans heart,Gen. 6.5. the whole imagination whereof God testifieth to be onely euill continually; so thatRom. 8.7. flesh sauoureth of nothing but enmitie against God, and is not subiect to the law of God, nor indeed can be. If mans heart be onely euill and enmitie against God, then can it not be truly sayd, that there is in it any naturall facultie of Free will, to assent and yeeld it selfe to the grace of God. If it be not subiect to the law of God, nor indeed can be, shall we say by plaine contradiction, that it hath in it whereby to assent and giue it selfe in submission vnto God? Free vvill requireth integritie in iudgement of vnderstanding, in election of will, in obedience of affection; but here man is vtterly disabled in all these. What facultie of iudgement hath he to conceiue and approue the things of God, who in all his thoughts is onely euill, and in his very wisedome is enemie vnto God?Ierem. 10.14. Euerie man is a beast by his owne vnderstanding, his mind altogetherEphes. 4.18. darknesse and ignorance; and as he auaileth nothing that offereth light to the blind, or bringeth him into the cleerest Sunne-shine, vnlesse he can make him see; so it booteth not that God doth set his light before man, and causeth it most cleerely to shine vnto him, vnlesse hePsal. 119.18.27. open the inward eye of the soule, and make him to vnderstand; not leaue him to vnderstand if he will, but make him to vnderstand. To this purpose is the second reason of M. Perkins, that1. Cor. 2 14. the naturall man perceiueth not the things of the spirit of God; that they are foolishnesse vnto him; that he cannot know them because they are only spiritually, that is,Vers. 10.12. by the spirit, to be discerned. If there be no free wil in spiritual things, without iudging & discerning, and vnderstanding thereof, and there be no discerning or vnderstanding thereof, but onely by theVers 16. spirit and mind of Christ, surely in nature there can be no Free will that can be helpefull vnto vs, to the attainment of spirituall life, and the power therof [Page 115] serueth but to condemne for folly the counsels and instructions thereto tending, the wisedom whereof it is not able to apprehend. Let grace do what may be done, yet nature perceiueth nothing of the spirit, if the same spirit of grace worke not therein to perceiue. Now where the vnderstanding is capable, yet what peruersenesse and crosnesse still remaineth in the will? It hood-winketh the mind, and maketh it seeme to it selfe not to see when it doth see; it shutteth the gates, and intercepteth the passages of the vnderstanding, shunning to admit any thing whereby it should be checked and interrupted in it course;August. de verb. Apost ser. 13. Im [...]a mens odit etiam ipsum intellectum, & homo aliquando nimium mente peruersa timet intelligere, ne cogatur quod intellexerit facere. it hateth and is afraid to vnderstand, that it may not he vrged to do when it doth vnderstand. Yea where the conscience is conuicted by knowledge and vnderstanding, yet the will being entangled with it owne respects, how mightily doth it struggle and fight against God? and neuer ceaseth fighting, till God doOse. 14.5. heale the rebellions of it, not by putting it in case to yeeld if it will, but working in it to will and to yeeld vnto him. And when will hath now begun to yeeld, what vnto wardlinesse doth it find in the affections, which as a swift and mightie streame, do euery while ouerbeare both the iudgement of the vnderstanding, and the resolution of the will, so thatGal. 5.17. we cannot do the things that we would. The peruersenesse whereof, if it preuaile so much with men iustified and in the state of grace, as that it causeth many bitter lamentations for ouersights thereby committed contrarie to the intendment of the will, how much more do they like flattering Dalilaes, bind all our strength, and ouercome all the power of nature, when the will as yet hath receiued no fortification of inward grace to resist and fight against them? Seeing therefore the heart is on the one side so blind that it cannot see, and on the other side so peruerse, as that one while it will not see, another while crosseth whatsoeuer it doth see, we may well say as S. Austin doth:August coneduas epist. Pelag. lib. 4. cap. 6. Quid potestis boni sacere de corde non bono? vt autem habeatis cor bonum; Daboinquit, &c. What good may a man do out of a heart that is not good? but to haue our heart good, we must looke to him that saith, I will giue you a new heart, and will put into you a new spirit, so that till the heart be renewed and made good, there is no doing good, and therefore no assenting to the grace of God. The third argument of M. Perkins he omitteth with the rest, and yet lighting vpon some idle deuice afterwards, he thought good to set it downe in steed of an obiection, which shall be examined in the place which he hath giuen [Page 116] it. The fourth reason is taken from that that the Scripture in the conuersion of a sinner ascribeth all to God, and nothing at all to mans Free will, as appeareth from the termes ofIohn. 3.3. new birth, Gal. 6.15. new creature, Tit. 3.5. regeneration, &c. Whereby is argued, that as man conferreth nothing to his generation and birth; so neither doth he to his regeneration and new birth. As man doth nothing for himselfe in his creation, so hath he nothing whereby to steed himselfe to become a new creature. Whereto agreeth the definition of the ancient Church:Fulge a ad Monimum lib. 1. Null itenus sinimus, immo salisbriter prohibemus tam in nostra fide quàm in nostro opere tanquam nostrum nobis aliquid vin licare. We in no wise suffer, nay according to wholsome doctrine we forbid, whether in our faith or in our workes, to chalenge to our selues any thing as our owne. We haue to chalenge nothing as our owne; and therefore it is not our act of Free will, but Gods worke in vs to assent to the grace of God. How then doth M. Bishop say, that this is nothing against him, who saith in effect the same that Pelagius did,Aug. cont Pelaeg & Celest. lib. 1. cap. 25. Quod possumus omne bonum facere, dicere, cogitare illius est qui hoc posse donauit; quod vero bené vel ag [...]mus vel loquimur vel cogitamus nostrum est. It is of God that we are able to do or speake or to thinke any thing that is good, but to do, or to speake, or to thinke it is our owne, because, if we beleeue him, the grace of God leaueth it to our owne Free will, either to accept or refuse, to do or not to do, to worke with it, or not to worke. M. Perkins fift reason is taken from the iudgement of the auncient Church; which how far it auaileth we shall see anone: but he that well weigheth these reasons, and the circumstances of them, as M. Perkins hath set them downe, will surely thinke, that either M. Bishop was not well awake, or his wits here in the beginning of his booke were not yet wel come to him, when he passed them ouer with this opinion, that they were all for them. But he thought he had a long way to go, and was loth in the beginning to put himselfe out of breath.
7. W. BISHOP.
1. Cor. 25. The first. I haue (saith he) laboured more abundantly then all they, yet not I, but the grace of God, which is in me, attributing the whole worke to grace. To which I briefly answer, that they do corrupt the text, to make it seeme more currant for them: the Greeke hath only, He son emoi, which is, with me, not, which is in me, so that the words in true construction, make much more for vs then against vs? S. Paul affirming the grace of God, which was working with him, to haue done these things: And so S. Augustine whom they pretend to follow [Page 117] most in this matter, expoundeth it. Yet not I,De grat. & lib. arb. cap. 15. but the grace of God with me; that is, not I alone, but the grace of God with me. And by this, neither the grace of God alone: neither he alone, but the grace of God with him, thus S. Augustine. The like sentence is in the booke of Wisedome. Send that (wisedome) from thy Holy heauen,Cap. 9. that it may be with me, and labour with me.
R. ABBOT.
Corruption of texts is not wont to be but for aduantage. It is no aduantage more to vs to readeCor. 15.10. the grace of God which is in me, then to reade the grace of God which is with me. The ancient father Hierome readeth it both wayes: one where,Hieron. adu. Iouinian. lib. 2. the grace of God which is in me: another where,Idem ad Princip. explanat. Psal. 44. & adu. Pelag lib. 2. the grace of God which is with me, as betwixt which in effect there is no difference. To reade, the grace of God which is in me, though it do not here literally answer the Greeke, yet hath no other meaning but what the Apostle elsewhere iustifieth by the same phrase of speech;Gal. 2.20. Now I liue; yet not I, but Christ liueth in me, yea and in the same place immediatly before, we haue literall example of it;1. Cor. 15.10. [...]. His grace which is in me. The words in true construction, saith M. Bishop, make much more for vs then against vs. And why so? Forsooth because S. Paul affirmeth the grace of God which was working with him, to haue done these things. But how is that for them? For if his meaning be, that because it is sayd, that grace did worke with him, therefore it must be also vnderstood, that he did worke with grace, he must remember that he hath sayd before,Ibid. By the grace of God I am that I am, and therefore that it was of grace it selfe, that he did worke with grace. As if he should haue sayd, I haue laboured more abundantly then they all, yet I can attribute nothing to my selfe herein, but all to grace, because it is the worke of grace in me whatsoeuer I haue done, in working with grace. Oecumen in 1: Cor. cap. 13. Veritus ne rectum opus sibi attribueretur, gratiae Dei ipsum fere acceptum. Fearing least the worke should be ascribed to himselfe, saith the Scholiast, he referreth it to the grace of God. To which purpose the same Apostle elsewhere saith:Rom. 15.17. I haue whereof to reioyce in Christ Iesus, in the things that pertaine to God: for I dare not speake of any thing which Christ hath not wrought by me, &c. Where Photius thus obserueth;Photius apud Oecumen. in Ro. cap. 15. Ostendit quòd nihil erat ipsius sed totum Christi. He sheweth that nothing is his, but all wholy is Christs. If all wholy be of Christ, then is no part to be ascribed [Page 118] to the Free will of man. The Pelagians vrged this place to the Corinthians with the same pretence that M. Bishop doth. Let him take the answer of Orosius as spoken to him:Oros. Apologet. de arbit. libert. Quid incaute praesumptor aspicis, quia dixerit, mecum Attende quia praemiserit, Non ego. Qua propter tu haec a [...]o verba, Non ego, & mecum, gratia Dei media est; cuius est verè & velle & perfi [...]cre pro bona voluntate et tamē volūtate hominis. Vnde & ille confisus est vt diceret, mecum, quia dixerat, Non ego. Jn voluntate ergo hominis gratia diuinae virtutis operatur, quae & hoc ipsum velle donauit. Ita conscientia hominis profitetur vt dicat, Non ego: gratia Dei largitur vt mecum. Thou heedlesse presumptuous man, what doest thou looke at that he saith, with me? Marke well that he hath first said, Not I. Betwixt, not I, and, with me, commeth in the middest, the grace of God, whose indeed it is both to will and to worke for the making of a good will, albeit the will be the will of man. Wherefore he was bold to say, with me, because he had sayd, not I. So then the grace of Gods power worketh in the will of man, which hath giuen to it to will the same. Whereupon the conscience of man professeth and saith, not I, but the grace of God giueth him that he may say, with me. Paul then saith and may say, with me, but it is not by any proper act of his owne Free will, but by the onely gift and worke of grace, whereby he attaineth to say, with me. And no otherwise would S. Austin haue spoken, if he had not fallen into hucksters hands, who vse him onely for aduantage, and not for truth. For hauing in hand to shew, that God calling vs, and iustifying vs onely by his grace, vseth thenceforth our will and worke to accompanie his grace, in going forward with the worke of our saluation, giueth for example hereof the Apostle S. Paul, who professing that by Gods meere grace he was all that he was towards God, sheweth that hauing receiued this grace, it was not idle in him, but he laboured more abundantly then all the rest, but adding, yet not I, but the grace of God with me; August. de grat. & li. arbit. cap. 5. Id est, non solus, sed gratia Dei mecum; ac per hoc nec gratia Dei sola, nec ipse solus sed gratia Dei cum illo. Vt autem de coelo vecaretur & tam magna & efficacissima vocatione conuerteretur, gratia Dei erat sola, &c. that is, saith Austin, not I alone, but the grace of God with me; and therefore neither the grace of God alone, nor he himselfe alone, but the grace of God with him. Now the next words are; But that he was called from heauen, and by that mightie and most effectuall calling was conuerted, Gratia Dei erat sola, it was onely the grace of God. Which words M. Bishop hath fraudulently concealed, as being expresly against him, and cleering this whole point most manifestly on our part. Our conuersion is onely by the grace of God, as Austin saith S. Pauls was; Free vvill hath no part therein. We say as he saith, that the will of man being conuerted and renewed by grace, doth afterwards apply it selfe to worke with grace, and so there is not onely the grace of God, nor onely the will of man, but the grace of God accompanied with the will of man, not as by any proper worke of the will it selfe, but by the [Page 119] worke of grace, by which it was first conuerted. Therefore the same S. Austin elsewhere mentioning those words, By the grace of God I am that I am, saith thereupon:De praedest. & grat. cap. 11. Haec est prima misericordia quam liberae voluntatis opera consequuntur. Sed vt Pauli vocationem bona opera sequerentur, quid ait; Et gratia eius, &c. This is the first mercie, after which do follow the workes of Free will. But that good vvorkes might follow after the calling of the Apostle, vvhat doth he say himselfe; And his grace vvas not in me in vaine. There is no Free vvill then to righteousnesse, before a man can say, By the grace of God I am that I am. Thereby the will is made free, and thereby it worketh with grace to bring forth the fruits of all good workes. So that Saint Austin leaueth vs this place very strong to prooue that both our conuersion, and our working with grace, when we are conuerted, is altogether and wholy to be attributed vnto grace. Hereby the other place is cleered, if it were ought worth.
8. W. BISHOP.
The second text is. It is God that worketh in vs,Phil. 2. v. 13. both to will and to accomplish. We grant that it is God, but not he alone vvithout vs, for in the next vvords before, Saint Paul, saith: Worke your saluation with feare and trembling. So that God worketh principally by stirring vs vp by his grace, and also helping forward our will, to accomplish the worke; but so sweetly and conformably to our nature, that his vvorking taketh not away, but helpeth forward our vvill to concurre vvith him. Againe, the vvhole may be attributed vnto God, considering that the habits of grace infused, be from him as sole efficient cause of them, our actions indued also vvith grace, being onely dispositions and no efficient cause of those habits: but this is an high point of schoole Diuinitie, verie true, but not easily to be conceiued of the vnlearned.
R. ABBOT.
S. Austin in expresse termes contradicteth M. Bishop saying,August. de grat. & li. arbit. cap 17. vt velimus sine nobis operatur: without vs he worketh in vs to will. And so S. Bernard also saith, thatBernard. de grat. & lib arbit. Creatio (in libertatem volūtatis) facta est & sine nobis. the creating of vs to freedome of will, is wrought without vs. Our will is the subiect wherein it is wrought, but the efficient cause thereof is onely the grace of God. This M. Bishop denieth, because the Apostle in the words immediatly before [Page 120] saith, Work out your saluation with feare and trembling. But the Apostle when he biddeth them to worke, biddeth them to do it with feare and trembling. And why is that?Aug. in Psal. 65. Subiecit causam, Deus est enim, &c. Si ergo Deus operatur in te, gratia Dei benè operaris non viribus tuis. The Apostle addeth the cause, saith S. Austine: for it is God that worketh in you to will and to worke, of his owne good will. If then God worke in thee, it is by the grace of God that thou workest well, not by thine owne power. How peruersly then doth M. Bishop deale, that when the Apostle vseth the latter words to expound the former, he will take the former words to crosse the latter. Men are to be called vpon by exhortation to do good workes, but yet they are to know, that the effect of exhortation, is the worke of grace. True saith M. Bishop, it is of grace, but not of grace onely: for Free will also hath a part. But S. Austin telleth, thatDe bono perseueran. cap. 6 Tutiores viuimus, si totū Deo damus, & non nos illi ex parte & nob [...] ex parte commuttimus. it is more safetie for vs to attribute all wholy to God, and not commit our selues partly to God, and partly to our selues: andTertul. aduers. Hermog. Veritas sic vnum Deum exigit defendendo, vt solius sit quicquid ipsins est. ita enim ipsius erit si fuerit solius. true faith requireth this in the defending of one God, that whatsoeuer is his, we make it onely his: for so shall it be accounted his, if it be accounted onely his. If God do worke in vs to will, let vs acknowledge it to be his onely, and none of ours. God worketh principally, saith M. Bishop, by stirring vs vp by his grace, and also helping forward our will to accomplish the worke, but so sweetly and conformably to our nature, that his working taketh not away, but helpeth forward our will to concur with him. Here is stirring vp the wil, and helping forward the will, and no more but what the Pelagians confessed, as I haue shewed before; but why doth he make it so daintie, to say as the Apostle saith, that God worketh in vs to will? He nameth grace, which is but a grace if we will, but we require the grace which the Apostle teacheth, whereby God worketh in vs to will. He saith, that God doth not take away our will. So did Pelagius say:August. contr. Pelag. & Celest. lib 1. cap 7. Dicimus eam sine voluntate nostra nequaquam in nobis perficere sanctitatem. that God doth not worke holinesse in vs without our will. We answer, that our will is the subiect wherein God worketh, as before was said, but it is no part of the efficient cause, whereby it is wrought in vs to will. The Arausicane Councell determineth,Concil Arausican 2. cap 4 Si quis vt à peccato purgemur voluntatem nostram, Deum expectare contendit. Non autem vt etiam purgari velimus per sancti Spiritus infu sionem & operationem in nobis fieri confitetur, resistit Apostolo, &c. that if any man do maintaine, that God expecteth our will that we may be purged from sinne, and doth not confesse, that by the infusion and operation of the holy Ghost it is also wrought in vs to be willing to be purged, he resisteth the Apostle, in that he preacheth according to wholesome doctrine, that it is God which worketh in vs, both to will and to worke, of his good will. This M. Bishop maintaineth: he saith that God offereth grace to that purpose, but expecteth our will to [Page 121] make good that grace to our selues: he confesseth that God stirreth and helpeth forward our will, but cannot endure to say, that it is God that worketh in vs to will. He answereth yet further, that the whole may be attributed to God, because the habits of grace infused, be frō him as sole efficient of thē, our actiōs endued also with grace, being onely dispositions, & no efficient cause of those habits. But herein he absurdly trifleth, by altering the state of the questiō, For the controuersie is not of the efficient cause of infused grace, but of the efficient cause of our receiuing that grace. We say, that the holy Ghost worketh the same immediatly in our will; they say, that the grace of God and the Free will of man makeAndrad Orth. explicat. li. 4 Ex gratia & libero arbitrio vnica causa conflatur nostrae ad iustiuā applicationis. one efficient cause of the receiuing thereof. They say, that God offereth his grace with condition if we wil; but we say, that God without putting vs to condition of our wil, worketh in vs to will, and where he expresseth a condition doth himself performe the same,Aug. Confess. lib. 10. ca. 29. Da quod [...]ubes. giuing what he commandeth, and De Praedest. sanct. cap. 11. Deus facit, vt illa faciamus. himselfe making vs to do what he requireth to be done. The words of the Apostle are plain for vs, and as plaine against thē. But I take it to be but a point of M. Bishops cunning thus to speake, yet his learning will gaine but small credit thereby.
9. W. BISHOP.
One other obiection may be collected out of M. Perkins third reason against Free will, which is touched, as he saith, by the holy Ghost, in these words: When we were dead in sinnes.Ad Ephes. 2.2, If a man by sinne become like a dead man, he cannot concurre with God, in his rising from sinne.
Answ. Sure it is, that he cannot, before God by his grace hath quickened, & as it were, reuiued him, to which grace of God, man giues his free consent. How can that be, if he were then dead? Marry you must remember what hath bene said before: that albeit man in sinne be dead in the way of grace, yet he liueth naturally, and hath Free will in naturall and ciuil actions: which will of his being by grace fortified, and as it were lifted vp vnto a higher degree of perfection, can then concurre and worke with grace to faith, and all good works necessary to life euerlasting. (As for example) a Crab-tree stocke hath no ability of it selfe, to bring foorth apples, & therfore may be tearmed dead in that kind of good fruite: yet let a siance of apples be grafted into it, and it will beare apples: euen so albeit our soure corrupt nature of it selfe be vnable to fructifie to life euerlasting, yet hauing receiued into it the heauenly graft of Gods grace, it is enabled to produce the sweete fruite of good workes: to which [Page 122] alludeth S. Iames:Cap. 1. Receiue the ingraffed word, which can saue our soules. Againe, what more dead then the earth? and yet it being tilled and sowed, doth bring foorth, and beare goodly corne: now the word and grace of God is compared by our Sauiour himselfe vnto seed, Mat. 13. and our hearts vnto the earth that receiued it: what maruel then if we otherwise dead, yet reuiued by this liuely feed, do yeeld plenty of pleasing fruite?
R. ABBOT.
This obiection M. Bishop saith, he collecteth out of M. Perkins third reason against Free will, whereas it is indeed the whole matter of that third reason. He wold haue kept due order, and haue answered the rest as well as this, but that he doubted he should haue answered the rest as badly as he hath done this. He propoundeth the obiection at his owne liking, and cutteth off what he list. If man by sinne become like a dead man, he cannot concurre with God in his rising from sinne. For this the words of the Apostle are alledged by M. Perkins, Ephes. 2.1. When we were dead in sinnes. M. Bishop answereth, sure it is that he cannot, before God by his grace hath quickened and as it were reuiued him, to which grace of God man giueth his free consent. Which answer, who is so blind as that he cannot see how absurdly it crosseth it selfe. Man must giue his free consent to grace, that he may be quickened thereby; and yet man cannot consent or concur with God, before he be quickened by grace. If man cannot consent or concurre with God before he be quickened, then the consent of of his owne Free will cannot be the efficient cause of his quickening, because that that cometh after, cannot be the cause of that that necessarily goeth before, and the effect is neuer the cause of it owne cause. And this is indeed the very truth, iustified by M. Bishops owne words, against his will. But his whole discourse driueth the other way, that a man not yet quickened, must by Free will giue consent to grace, and concurre with God, that he may be quickened; because though grace be offered, yet it taketh no effect vntill our Free will do make way for it, and do adde it owne indeauour and helpe to the worke thereof. Which is all one as to require of a dead bodie to giue consent, and to put to it owne helpe for the restoring of it selfe to life againe. Yet he thinketh to cleare the matter of all impossibilitie: for asking the question againe, How can that [Page 123] be, (namely, that man should giue his free consent to grace) if he were then dead? he answereth, Marry you must remember what hath bene said before, that albeit man in sinne be dead in the way of grace, yet he liueth naturally, and hath Free will in naturall and ciuill actions. But what is this to the purpose, seeing that spiritually he still continueth a dead man? Yea but this will of his being fortified and lifted vp to a higher degree of perfection, can then concurre and worke with grace to faith and all good works necessary to life euerlasting. Where he doth but runne in a ring, and in other words repeateth the same answer, still sticking fast in the briars, wherein he was tangled before. For how is this will to be fortified and lifted vp to a higher degree of perfection? He hath told vs before, by grace, and that to grace man must giue his free consent. So then he telleth vs that Free will cannot concurre and worke with grace, except by grace it be first fortified and lifted vp to a higher degree of perfection: and yet it cannot be fortified by grace, and lifted vp to a higher degree of perfection, except it first concurre with grace. I may here againe iustly returne vpon him his owne words, See how vncertaine the steppes are of men that walke in darknesse, &c. Now the Reader will obserue that the obiection is of man dead as touching Free will to righteousnesse, & he answereth of naturall Free will only fortified and lifted vp to a higher degree of perfection. What fortifying is there of a dead man, and how should he be lifted vp to a higher degree of perfection, except he first recouer life? Why doth he by babling and trifling bobbe his Reader, and make shew to say something, when indeed to the purpose he saith nothing at all? The argument still standeth impregnable. Man is not onely weake and vnperfect, but dead, not halfe dead, but wholy dead in sinne, and therefore by S. Austine likened to theAug. contra duas Epist. Pela. lib. 4 cap. 5. & de verbis Apost. Ser. 11. Shunamites sonne being dead, whom the Prophet Elizeus raised from the dead. He must be madeRom. 6.13. aliue from the dead, before he can concurre with grace. Which if M. Bishop confesse, or because he cannot deny, therefore he must confesse also, that as the dead man hath nothing whereby to helpe himselfe to receiue life againe, so man spiritually dead, August. de verb. Dom. Ser. 18. Mortuos eos vocat. Vbi nisi intus in anima? inwardly in soule dead, hath nothing in him, no facultie or power of the soule, whereby he can any way further the recouerie of his owne life. But to fill vp the measure of his folly, he will set foorth this matter vnto vs by a comparison. A Crab-tree flocke (forsooth) hath no abilitie of it selfe to bring foorth apples, and [Page 122] [...] [Page 123] [...] [Page 124] therefore may be tearmed dead in that kind of good fruite: yet let a siance of apples be grafted into it, and it will beare apples: euen so (saith he) albeit our sowre corrupt nature of it self be vnable to fructifie to life euerlasting, yet hauing receiued into it the heauenly graft of Gods grace, it is enabled to bring foorth the sweet fruite of good workes: Similes habent labra lactucas: as his doctrine is, so must his similitudes needes be, crabbed and crosse. Is the Crab-tree stocke dead to the bringing foorth of apples, which by it owne naturall life without alteration, continueth life, and giueth nouriture and increase to the siances and graffes of apples, that are engraffed and implanted vpon it? which receiueth nothing at all of the graffes or siances, but ministreth vnto them that, whereby they bring foorth fruite? Is this the condition of the grace of God in vs, that we giue it sappe and strength in vs to bring foorth good fruite vnto God? And yet the Crab-tree stocke in the receiuing of the new graffes is meerely and wholy passiue, and not actiue in any sort. The engraffing thereof is altogether the worke of the gardiner or husbandman. Yea and that they bring foorth such or such fruite, they haue it not of the stocke, but altogether and onely of their owne kind. Therefore we must likewise say, that the nature of man in the receiuing of the graft of grace, is altogether passiue and doth nothing thereto, and whenIam. 1.21. the superfluitie of maliciousnesse being cast away and cut off, the same grace vseth our naturall powers to the bringing foorth of the fruite of good workes, the commendation of the fruite ariseth onely frō the graffe, from grace it selfe and the power thereof, not by the stocke, but by it selfe, digesting and turning all to the nature and qualitie of it selfe. So that his owne comparison doth most effectually serue to strengthen our part, and to ouerthrow his owne. But as he vseth it, it sauoureth very rankly of the Pelagian heresie. For Pelagius made of the power of nature,August. contrae Pelag. & Celest. lib. 1 ca. 18. Habemus possibilitatem vtrius (que) partis à Deo insitam velut quandam, vt ita dicam, radicem fructiferā atque foecundam quae ex voluntate hominis diuersa gignat & paeriat, & quae possit ad proprij cultoris arbitrium vel nitere flore virtutum, vel sentibus horrere vieiorum. Vbi non intuens quid loquatur vnam eandem (que) radicē constituit bonorū & malorum concrae Euangelicam veritaetem, &c. a fertile and fruitfull roote, which out of the will of man did bring foorth diuersly, and might as the dresser thereof list, either be garnished with the flowers of vertue, or else grow wild with the thornes of vice. Whereby as S. Austine noteth, he made one and the same roote, both of good and euill workes, euen as M. Bishop doth by his Crab-tree stocke, contrarie to the truth of the Gospell, and the doctrine of the Apostle. For in the Gospel we reade ofMat 7.17.18. a good tree and an euill tree, and that the good tree cannot bring foorth euill fruite, nor the euill tree good fruite. Quid est bonus homo nisi voluntaus bonae, hoc est, arber raedicis bonae? Et quid est homo malus, nisi volū tatis malae, hoc est, arbor radicis [...]ale? The good [Page 125] tree is a tree of a good root, and the euill tree a tree of an euill root, not both of the same roote. The tree of a good root is the man of a good wil; the tree of an euill root is the man of euil will, not growing both vpon the Crab-tree stocke of M. Bishops Free will. Whereby we are giuen to vnderstand, that for the bringing foorth of good fruite, it sufficeth not to haue any thing ingraffed in vs, but we our selues must become graffes, to be implanted into a new stocke, and to grow vpon a new root. We must be engraffed into the Ioh. 15.1. true vine Iesus Christ, by him to be purged from the corruption that we haue drawne from our old root, and to liue wholy by his spirit, that we may bring foorth fruit, not according to our owne nature and kind, as other graffes do, but according to a new life and nature, that we receiue by being ioyned vnto him. M. Bishop is of another mind, he will haue Christ to be ingraffed vpon the Crab-tree stocke of our Free will, he seeth no necessitie to leaue his old roote to be engraffed into Christ. As for the place of S. Iames, Iam. 1 21. Receiue the engraffed word, &c. it auaileth him nothing at al: for it doth not import in any wise, that the word of God ingraffed in our naturall Free will, doth bring foorth fruite vnto God, but onely telleth vs in what sort the word of God is to be receiued of vs, that it may saue our soules: namely, that it must be inwardly wrought in our hearts, that it may become to vs1. Pet. 1.23. the immortall seed, whereby through saith we areIam. 1.18. begotten and borne againe, and Ephes. 2 10, created anew in Iesus Christ, which is not doneIoh. 1.13. by the will of man, that is, by Free will, but GodIam. 1.18. of his owne will hath begotten vs, and that so, as that though1. Cor. 3. [...]. 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 [Page 126] 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, August. contr. Pelag. & Celest. lib 1. cap. 7. & Epist 107. Gratiam Dei po [...] 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,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 Prech 36 26. stonie heart, that hisEsa. 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 washIerem. 13.23. an Aethiopian or a Leopard, to take away the blacknes and spots of them, or toAmos 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 doIoh. 6.45. heare and learne of the Father to come to Christ, August. de Praedest. sanct. cap. 8 Nihil est aliud quàm donum accipere à Patre quo credat in Christum. that is, vntill it receiue a gift of the Father whereby to beleeue in Christ, 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,Ose 10.12. the raine of righteousnesse, 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 obiectiōs 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 [Page 127] 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,August de ciuit. Dei. lib. 15. ca. 16 Spiritus sanctus operatur intrinsecus vt valeat aliquid medicina quc adhibetur extri [...]fecus. A [...]equm etiamsi Deus ipse vtens creatura sibi sub ect vinae [...]qua specie human [...] sensus alloquatur humanos, &c. nec interiore gratia mentem regat atque agat, nihil prodest homini omn [...]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 do not by inward grace rule and worke the mind, all the preaching of truth auaileth nothing, and that it is the holy Ghost that must worke inwardly, that the medicine may auaile that is outwardly applied. [Page 128] Which is a worke whereby God putteth difference betwixt the vessels of mercie and the vessels of wrath; so that the question why one receiueth the grace of God, and another doth not,Prosper. de vocat gent lib. 1. cap 9 Pr [...]sun litas illius quaestionis per liberi arbitrij velle & nolle non soluitur quia licet [...]sit [...] bonum nelle, tamen nisi [...]na [...]um non habet bonū velle. is not answered by the vvilling or nilling of Free vvill, as to say, one by Free vvill would when God offered grace, the other would not, but by Gods working that in the one which he worketh not in the other, who both haue by nature to nill and refuse, but neither haue to will but by the gift of God; whereas with M. Bishop, the worke of God is the same to both, neither doth God make the difference betwixt man and man, offering himselfe alike to all, but man by Free will either receiuing or refusing, maketh difference betwixt himselfe and other men. God himselfe spake to Cain, yet was he not the better for it. M. Bishop telleth vs, that the reason was in his owne Free vvill, whereby he had it in his owne power, at his owne list to conuert and turne to God, and that God did signifie so much by saying vnto him, that the desire of sinne should be vnder him, and he should beare dominion ouer it. Where he should haue had regard for proofe of his doctrine,Aug. de va [...]t. eccles cap. 5 Hoc prae [...]ico at (que) propono, vt qu [...]que aeperta & manifesta deligamus. & ca. 16. Nec itae vt ea colligant & commemorent quae obscurè vel ambiguè vel figuratè dicta sunt quae quis (que) sicut voluerit interpretur ad sensum suum. Talia enim recte intellige non possunt, nisi prius ea quae aperissimè dicta sunt firma fide teneantur. to make choise of plaine and manifest places, as S. Austins rule is, not of such as being figuratiue or obscure, may be expounded and taken diuersly. There are sundry expositions of this place deliuered by the ancient fathers, and therefore there is no necessitie to vrge vs to take that exposition which he alledgeth. First Chrysostome expoundeth the place according to the true meaning thereof, that God hauing byGenes. 3.16. the same phrase of speech constituted before the superioriuie of the husband oner his wife, doth here yeeld to the first borne a superioritie and kind of Lordship ouer the rest of his brethren, which here he signifieth to Cain, he would not infringe, to giue him occasion that way of offence towards his brother, howsoeuer he accepted his brothers sacrifice better then his, albeit readie to accept his sacrifice also if he offered in the like sort as his brother did.Chrysan Gen. hom. 18. Ne putes licet tuum aeduersatus sim sacrificiū ob prauam mentem frat [...]s (que) oblationem acceptā hab [...]aer. in ob s [...]nā intentio nē quod ideo primatu te destituā et primageniturae dig [...]t trem à te an [...]erant. Nam licet honore ego illum proficatus fuerins, accepta (que) fu [...]nt di [...]us do [...], veruma [...]ē ad te conuer [...]io illi [...] et in ipsi [...] dominabet [...], At (que), post peccati [...] per. [...]to vt primo. [...] priuile. [...] gandeas, illunque sub tua potestate & dominio esse [...]ubeo. Thinke not, that because I haue refused thy sacrifice because of thy corrupt mind, and haue accepted thy brothers sacrifice because of his vpright and sound heart, therfore I will d [...]priue thee of thy superioritie, and take away from thee the honour of thy birthright. For albeit I haue honoured him, and haue accepted his gifts, yet his turning shall be to thee, and thou shalt haue dominion ouer him. And albeit thou hast sinned, yet I yeeld thee to enioy the priuiledges of thy birthright, and do appoint that he shall be vnder [Page 129] thy power and rule. Against this exposition M. Bishop giueth an exception, that there is no mention of Abel, neither in that verse, nor in the verse next before; but expresse mention is made of sinne in the next vvords before: therefore those pronounes (that are to be referred to the next words before) must needs be referred to sinne, and not to his brother. But if his skill had serued him to consider, that the Hebrew word there for [...] sinne. sinne is in the feminine gender, and the pronoune relatiues in the [...] the desire of him, or his desire, and [...]: ouer him. masculine gender, he would haue learned thereby to except against this exception, and rather say, that the pronoune relatiues must needs be referred to his brother, and not to sinne. And so the Greeke translators did take it, [...]. the turning of HIM shalbe to thee, &c. So doth Arias Montanus translate it, being himselfe a Papist, yet that way incomparably more faithfull then commonly Papists are, The desire of HIM shalbe to thee, that is, in thy power, and thou shalt haue rule ouer HIM. Another exception he taketh from S. Austins exposition of those words, who not acquainted with the Greeke and Hebrew text, and finding in the Latine the pronounes eius and illius indifferent to the masculine or feminine gender, not thinking it fit in such meaning as he conceiued thereof, to attribute to Cain a dominion ouer his brother Abel, construeth the place as touching sinne, and deliuereth two interpretations thereof, but no way according to M. Bishops meaning, nor any way fit to serue his turne: the more lewdly doth he deale, to make S. Austin the patron of an opinion, which as appeareth in all this discourse, he did so highly and inwardly detest. One exposition of his is in the reading of the words thus;August. de ciuit. Dei. lib 5. ca. 7. Potestitae intelligi ad hominem conuersionem esse debere peccati, vt nulli alij sciat quam sibi tribuere debere quod peccat, &c. Tunc enim dominabitur quisque peccato, si [...]d sibi non defendendo praesumpserit sed poenitendo subiecerit, &c. Ad te conuersio cius sit: let the conuerting or turning of it be to thee, and thou shalt rule ouer it; as willing him to turne his sinne vpon himselfe, to accuse himselfe thereof, to know that he was not to attribute his sinne to any other but himselfe, and therefore not to defend it, but to repent and to aske pardon of it, and that this was the way to subdue it, and to become maister of it. Thus God left him not, as he saith, vvithout a commandement iust and holy and good, but in him giueth example, as was before said, how the commandement auaileth nothing from the mouth of God himselfe, where he himselfe worketh not within, that which he commandeth. To this agreeth in effect the exposition of Ambrose, though taking the words by way of accusation, which Austin construeth by way of precept or exhortation. [Page 130] Am [...]r, de Cain & Abel li 2. ca. 7. In te reuertitur crimen quod ae te c [...]pit. Non habes in quo necessit item magis quam mentē t [...]ā arguas. In te ret [...]rque tur improbitas tut, [...]u princeps ill [...]us es: Ben? a [...]t, Tit princeps es illius. Et enim impretas mater quaedā est delictoram, &c. The sinne, saith God, returneth vpon thee which began of thee. Thou hast not wherein to blame necessitie more then thine owne mind, Thy wickednesse is turned backe vpon thee; thou art the beginner of it. Rightly doth he say, thou art the beginner of it; for impietie is a mother of sinnes, &c. Thus he maketh God in those words to accuse Cain of sinne, not to attribute to Cain Free will for conuerting vnto God. The other exposition of Austin is in reading the place,Aug. vt supra. Cum commota fuerit pars ipsa carnalis ad aliquid perperam committendum, si acquiescatur, Apostolo dicenti, Ne exhibeatu membra, &c. ad mentem domita & victa conuertitur vt subditae ratio dominetur. Ad te conuersio eius erit, &c. The conuerting or turning thereof shall be to thee, and thou shalt rule ouer it, vnderstanding sinne to be meant of carnall concupiscence or lust, and making the construction thus, that when carnal concupiscence is moued or stirred to commit any wicked thing, if a man rest and harken to the Apostle saying, Let not sin reigne in your mortall bodies; giue not your members weapons of vnrighteousnesse vnto sinne, then it being tamed and ouercome, is conuerted and turned to be in subiection to the mind, that reason may haue the rule and dominion ouer it. Therefore he taketh it, as if God had willed Cain to giue ouer that which by his owne wicked desire and lust he had intended, and if he did resist it, it should turne and yeeld to him, and whilest it was not suffered to worke without, it might be the better accustomed not to stirre within. Prosper bringeth these latter expositions all into one, as if God had sayd to Cain, Prosper. de vocat. gent lib. 2. ca. 4. Tuus hic error est, enum (que) peccatum; qui [...]sce & noli in insontem fratrem movert: ad te potius tua culpa reuo [...]itur. Noli peccato regnum in te dare [...]sed tu potius in ipsum sume dominatū. Paenitendo enim nec in manus facinus progredieres, & ab eo in quo te doles displicuisse mundaberis. This is thy error and thy sinne; be quiet, and be not mooued against thy harmelesse brother; rather let thy sinne be charged vpon thy selfe: yeeld not to it that it shold reigne in thee, but do thou take on thee the dominion & rule ouer it. By repenting thou shalt not go to any further wickednesse, & thou shalt be reformed in that wherein thou shalt grieue that thou hast offended me. Thus here is counsell and commandement to Cain, but no assertion of Free will, and by Cains going forward in his wicked course, we see that Free will auaileth nothing to true obedience, and keeping of Gods commandement. Now then that M. Bishop can find nothing in Austin, let vs see what Hierome hath to iustifie Cains example to be the maintenance of Free will. Hierome hath indeed the words and exposition which he alledgeth:Hieron tradit. Hebrat. in Genes. Quia liberi arbitrises, monto vt non tibi peccatum sed tu peccato domineris. Because thou hast Free will, I admonish and warne thee, that sinne do not ouer-rule thee, but that thou ouer-rule sinne. But that this neither helpeth him nor hurteth vs, it will easily and plainly appeare, if we consider what was accorded before betwixt him and vs. For we deny not Free will in morall and ciuill outward actions, as hath [Page 131] bene before acknowledged by him. For in vaine were education and lawes, and exhortations, and all precepts and directions of life, if there were not left in man a power to conforme himselfe outwardly to the prescriptions thereof. God hath left in natureAugust. desp. & lit. cap. 28. Non vsqueadeo in anima humana imago Dei detrita est. vt nullae in ea velut lineamenta extrema remanserint. Origen. cont: Celsum lib. 4. Impossibile vt eius imaginis lineamenta in totum delcantur. &c. some outward most lineaments, some vnperfect shadowes and portraiture of his image, for the preseruing of publike order and societie amongst men, which could not stand, if men for feare or shame, or other respects could not containe and bridle themselues from those mischiefes and villanies, whereto corruption of nature doth incline them. To this the words of Hierome are to be referred. For Cain wasChrysost in Gen. hom. 18. Sciebat ab initio quòd fratrem hic adoriturus esset, & ideo antea verbu repr [...] mit. now contriuing and plotting the murder of his brother. There was now no law to terrifie him from the accomplishing of that which he had intended, but God himselfe taketh vppon him to set before him the horrour of his fact, and to reclaime him from proceeding any further. If therfore we do with Hierome referre the words here questioned to sinne, God speaketh to Cain to this effect: Why art thou so much offended that thy brother is better accepted then thy selfe? why art thou thus moued with enuie towards him, and intendest mischiefe against him? If thou doest well as he doth, assure thy selfe thou shalt be accepted as well as he. But if thou do wickedly, if thou go forward with that horrible villanie that thou hast conceiued, know for a suretie, that thy sinne shall lie waiting for thee at the doore, and shall neuer cease to attend and follow thee till it haue brought vpon thee iust reuenge. Wherefore I aduise thee to giue ouer, bridle thy passion, be maister thus farre of thine owne affections; let not enuie carrie thee forward to commit so monstrous and vnnaturall a fact: it is yet in thine owne power, and therefore stay thy selfe, and giue no further way to this bloudie designement to be sorie when it is too late. Thus much and no more, do Hieromes words expresse vnto vs, and we doubt not but Cain had Free will as touching committing of this cruell act. For if some man had stood in his way with a sword drawne to slay him if he should attempt the killing of his brother, who doubteth but that it would haue made him hold his hands; which he could not, if he had not had in him power and libertie to forbeare. And if M. Bishop meant no more when he speaketh of Cains power not to sinne, if he had listed, we would acknowledge the same with him, but he would hereby prooue a Free [Page 132] will to good, whereto he saith Cain had the assistance of Gods grace, which yet did not infallibly draw him to good, but left him to his free choise, whether he would follow it or not. For proofe whereof there is no shew of any syllable, either in the text, or in the other testimonies which he hath alledged. For as touching grace, we find here none but that which the Pelagians spake of, to counsell and aduise him, whereas the true grace inwardly worketh whatsoeuer outwardly is counselled or aduised. And whereas he saith, that grace doth not infallibly draw to good, it is true indeed of his Pelagian grace, which consisteth onely in the commandement, but the true grace of God doth infallibly draw to good. Iohn 6 44. No man, saith our Sauior Christ, can come vnto me, August. cont. duas epist. Pelag. lib 1. cap. 19. Venire ad me intelligitur credere in me. that is to say, beleeue in me, except my Father which hath sent me draw him, therby importing that all that are drawne of the Father do come vnto him, that is, do beleeue in him, becauseDe praedest. sanct. cap. 8. Nihil est aliud quā donum accipere a patre quo credat in Christum. to be drawne of the Father vnto Christ, is to receiue a gift of the Father wherby to beleeue in Christ; so thatProsper. de vocat. gent. lib. 2. cap 9. Qui non credant nec trahuntur omni [...]ò. they which beleeue not are not drawne at all. Therefore our Sauiour addeth in the next words; Euery one that heareth and learneth of the Father, that is, euerie one that the father draweth, commeth vnto me. Now M. Bishops drawing leaueth a man at his free choise whether he will follow or not. He saith as the Pelagians did;August epist. 107. Libertate naturali si vult, facit; si nonuult non facit. Verse. 45. If he will, he doth so, if he will not, he doth not; or as the Donatists,Idem de vnit. eccles. cap. 9. Cum arbitrio libero homo creatus est & si vult credit in Christum, si non vult, non credit. if he will, he beleeueth; if he list not, he beleeueth not: if he will, he perseuereth; if he will not, he perseuereth not. These were the progenitors and predecessors of his faith. But the true drawing grace, finding a manHieron. a. li. Pelag. lib. 3 Qui trahitur non spote currit, sed a [...]t retrectans & tardus aut inuitus adiucitur. resisting, drawing backe, vnwilling, persecuting the faith as Paul did,August cont. duas epist. Pelag lib. 1. ca. 19 Quis trahitur si tam volebat? Et tamen ne [...]io venit nisi velit. Trabitur ergo mires modis vt velit ab illo qui nouit t [...]tus in ipsis hominum cordibus operari, non vt homines quod fieri non petest nolentes credant, sed vt volemes ex nolentibus fiant. Et lib. 4 cap. 9. Ex repugnantibus consentientes, ex oppugnant [...]bus amantes. conuerteth his will to the faith; of vnwilling, it maketh him willing; of resisting, it maketh him consenting; of an oppugner of the faith, it maketh him a louer thereof. Let M. Bishop acknowledge this grace, if he will speake of grace as the Scripture speaketh: this is the onely true grace; and this grace Cain was neuer partaker of, and therefore being left to his owne will, he did not what he might haue done, in giuing eare to the warning and aduice that was giuen him of God.
11. W. BISHOP.
The second is taken out of this text of Deut. Cap. 30.19. I call this day (saith Moses) heauen and earth to witnesse, that I haue set before you, life, and death, benediction, and malediction, therefore chuse life, that thou mayst liue and thy seed. Which words were spoken in vaine, if it had not beene in their power, by the grace of God, to haue made choise of life: or if that grace would haue made them do it infallibly, without their consent.
R. ABBOT.
Moses saith,Deut. 30.19. I haue set before you life and death, &c. Therefore chuse life that thou mayst liue. These words, saith M. Bishop, were spoken in vaine, if it had not bene in their power by the grace of God, to haue made choise of life. Where he still goeth on with his Pelagian deuice, yeelding no more to grace, but onely adiuuare possibilitatem, to helpe the power of man, that whereas the power of man is not sufficient, it may by grace be made able to make choise of life, but yet so, as that still it resteth in the will, whether to make vse of this power or not. But by the true grace of God man not onely hath power to chuse, but indeed doth chuse the way of life. And although man haue no power in himselfe whereof he can make vse to make this choise, yet the words of God are not therfore spoken in vaine, because the word & the preaching thereof is the instrument wherby God worketh in man to chuse life, whilest through the spirit it taketh effect2. Tim. 1.9. according to the purpose and grace of God. He saith by the ministerie of the word, Chuse life, and by his graceAct. 16.14. openeth the heart to attend to that which he saith, and in the meane while2. Tim. 2.25. giueth repentance, Phil. 1 29. giueth faith, Ephe. 1.17. giueth the spirit of wisedome and reuelation, Mat. 13.11. giueth to know the mysteries of the kingdome of heauen, Ezech. 36.26. giueth a new heart, Ierem 32.40. giueth the feare of God, and all things wherein consisteth the choise of life. He saith, Chuse life, but so, as that he telleth vs also,Iohn. 15.16. Ye haue not chosen me, but I haue chosen you, as if he should say, that it is not by our Free will, but by his chusing of vs that we make choise of him.Prosper de voc [...]t. gent. lib. 1. ca. 9. Ex Deo est vt homo [...] Dei eligat & surgat à laps [...]s &c. Et post. Contra omnem electionem de [...]ero arbitri [...] vementens inuictissim [...] illa renitum sententia dir [...] [...] Apostoli; Quis te discernit, &c. It is of God, saith Prosper, that man maketh choise of the way of God, and ariseth from his fall; and against all election or choise proceeding of Free will inuincibly resisteth the sentence [Page 134] of the Apostle, saying, Who separateth thee? what hast thou that thou hast not receiued? M. Bishop saith, My Free will, my choise hath made difference betwixt me and another man; because when God made offer of life to vs both alike, I by Free will made choise thereof, and he refused. But the Apostle telleth him, no. If he haue made choise of life, it is no worke of Free will, it is a thing receiued.Aug. de praedest. sanct. cap. 5. A quo nisi ab illo qui te a [...] ceruit ab alio cui non donauit quod donauit tibi? Of whom, saith S. Austin, but of him who hath not giuen to another that which he hath giuen vnto thee? Who, as he also answereth the Pelagian heretike obiecting the same place, [...]acu [...]. de perfect. instit. prepe fi [...]em. [...]p rat [...]. inspireth the loue whereby we chuse. He addeth further, that vainely it should be sayd, Chuse life, if grace would haue made them do it infallibly without their consent. Where we may wonder at his absurd manner of speech. Who was euer so mad, as to say that God maketh a man to chuse life without his consent, which is the same as if he should say, that he should make him consent without consent, for how should chusing be without consenting? We deny not consent, but we say with S. Austin, Aug. ep [...]st. 107. V [...]catione illa alta atque secre [...]a si [...] eius agit se sunt vt eidem lege at (que) doctrin [...] accommodet assensum It is God who by his secret calling worketh the mind of man to giue consent. We say with S. Bernard, Bernard de grat. ex l b arbit Non quod vel ipse consensus ab ip [...]so fit. &c fecit volentem, no [...] est volunt vt: su [...] consentientē. Consent is not of man himselfe, but God maketh a man willing, that is, consenting vnto his will. In Cant [...]er. 57. Illius disider [...]ū tuum creat, & quod tu eius properas sermonē admittere inde est quòd ipse festinit inirare. It is his desire of thee, that causeth thy desire of him, and that thou art forward to receiue his word, it commeth of his forwardnesse and hasting to enter into thee.
12. W. BISHOP.
Vnto these two places of the old Testament (one vnder the law of Nature, and the other vnder Moses law) l [...]t vs couple two more out of the new Testament.
The first may be those kind words of our Sauiour vnto the Iewes: Ierusalem,Math. 23. Ierusalem, &c. how often would I haue gathered together thy children, as the hen doth her chickens vnder her wings, and thou wouldest not: Which do plainly demonstrate, that there was no want, either of Gods helpe inwardly, or of Christs perswasion outwardly, for their conuersion: and that the whole fault lay in their owne refusing, and withstanding Gods grace, as th [...]se words of Christ do plainly witnesse, And thou wouldest not.
R. ABBOT.
If M. Bishop were put to the framing of an argument from this [Page 135] place, and to bring in this conclusion, that man hath Free vvill to conuert and turne to God, I suppose it would trouble him very sore. The words do rather import, that howsoeuer Christ himselfe be amongst vs and speake vnto vs, yet our Free will auaileth nothing to make vs to hearken to him, but we still refuse and rebell, vntill God do worke it in vs to obey and to hearken to his call. And thus Moses to giue a reason why the people of Israel profited not by the sight of so manifold signes and wonders, which the Lord had done before them and for them, sayth,Deut. 29.4. The Lord hath not giuen you an heart to perceiue, and eyes to see, and eares to heare vnto this day. Christ speaketh those words out of his humane affection; he sheweth his loue towards them as man, he signifieth his paines and labour bestowed amongst them, and what occasion he had to complaine, as Esay had foretold,Esa. 49.4. I haue laboured in vaine, I haue spent my strength in vaine and for nothing. The words do no more import Free will then all other places of Scripture, that do declare and set forth the rebellion of mans nature against God. But yet M. Bishop telleth vs, that hereby it is signified that God vsed all meanes that concerned him for the sauing of them, & they by their Free will crossed his purpose herein. The words, saith he, do plainly demonstrate that there was no want either of Gods helpe inwardly, or of Christs perswasion outwardly, for their conuersion. But they do not demonstrate so much, yea by diuerse places of the Gospell we see they are very farre from that demonstration. For if there wanted no inward helpe for their conuersion, how was it sayd by our Sauiour Christ,Mat. 11.25. Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent of the world: Cap. 13.11. To them it is not giuen to know the secrets of the kingdome of heauen: Mar. 4.11.12. all things are to them in parables, that they seeing may see and not discerne, and they hearing may heare and not vnderstand, least at any time they should turne, and their sinnes should be forgiuen them. How was it sayd by the Euangelist S. Iohn: Iohn 12.39. Therefore could they not beleeue, because Esay saith againe: He hath blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, that they should not see with their eyes, nor vnderstand with their heart, and should be conuerted and I should heale them? How doth S. Paul say;Rom. 11.7. The election hath obtained, but the rest haue bene hardened, according as it is written, God hath giuen them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, &c. These things being so apparant and plaine, how doth M. Bishop tell vs [Page 136] that there wanted no helpe of God inwardly for their conuersion, but the want was onely in their owne Free will? SurelyAug. de corrept. & grat. ca. 14. Cui vol [...]nti saluu [...] f [...]cere nullum hominū resistit arbitriū. sic enim v [...]lle & nolle in volentis aut nolentis est potestate vt diuinam volumtatem non impediat nec superet potestatem De his enim qui faciunt quae non vult facit ipse quae vult, &c. De ipsis voluntatibus hominum quod vult facit. where God is willing to saue, as S. Austin saith, there no will of man resisteth. For to will or to nill, is so in the power of him that willeth or nilleth, as that it neither hindereth the will of God, nor ouerruleth his power, because euen of the wils of men he maketh what he will. Euchirid. ad Laurent. ca. 103 Dum tamen credere non cogamur aliquid omnipotentem Deū voluisse fieri factum (que) non esse qui sine vllu am [...]iguitatibus si in coelo & in terra quaecunque voluit fecit, profectò facere noluit quodcunque non fecit. In no wise may we thinke, saith he, that the Almightie God would haue any thing to come to passe, and that the same doth not come to passe; who if he do whatsoeuer he will both in heauen and earth, as the truth instructeth vs, surely had no wil to do whatsouer he hath not done. If therfore God had willed the conuersion of the people of Ierusalem, and had inwardly yeelded them grace for their conuersion, it had followed infallibly that they had beene conuerted, neither should the frowardnesse of their will haue defeated the purpose of his will.Esa 46.10. My counsell shall stand, saith he, and I will do whatsoeuer I will: therefore of the children of Ierusalem, whomsoeuer God would gather, he certainly did gather. His will was to gatherRom 11.5. a remnant according to the election of grace. Ierusalem would not, but resisted the will of God, and hindered so much as in it lay, the gathering of this remnant of her children. August. Euchir [...] cap. 97. Vbi est illa omn [...]potentia, &c. si colligere filios Hierusalem voluit & non f [...]cit? An potius & illa quidem filios sis [...]s ab ipso c [...]lligi neluit, sede: quoque relente filios eius c [...]llegit ipse quos voluit, quia in coelo & in terra non quaedam v [...] luit & fecit, quaedam vero veluit & non fecit, sedomnia quaecunque vol [...]t fecit But though Ierusalem would not, yet God gathered whom he would, and to them he yeelded his infallible sauing grace, whereby he worketh to will and to do, and giueth the gifts before mentioned of repentance, faith, knowledge and such like, without which there is no conuersion, and the giuing whereof is our conuersion vnto God. Which seeing God gaue not to Ierusalem, saue only to his remnant, it is absurdly sayd by M. Bishop, that there was no want of Gods helpe inwardly for their conuersion. Their refusing and withstanding was the fruit of Free will, which howsoeuer God do otherwise offer grace, hath nothing in it selfe, wherof to do otherwise.
13. W. BISHOP.
Cap. 3.The last testimonie is in the Reuel. where it is sayd in the person of God: I stand at the doore and knocke if any man shall heare my voyce and open the gates, I will enter in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. Marke well the words: God by his grace, knocks [Page 137] at the doore of our hearts, he doth not breake it open, or in any sort force it, but attendeth, that by our assenting to his call, we open him the gates, and then, lo he with his heauenly gifts will enter in: otherwise he leaues vs. What can be more euident in confirmation of the freedome of mans will, in working with Gods grace?
R. ABBOT.
Here M. Bishop doth somewhat plainly shew himselfe, and assureth vs that it is not without cause that we haue hitherto accused him of the Pelagian heresie. The grace which for fashion sake he speaketh of, is no other but such as whereby God knocketh at the doore of our hearts, but worketh nothing in our hearts, till we first of our selues assent to let him in. He attendeth till we open him the gates, and then he with his heauenly gifts will enter in, which was the damnable errour of the Pelagians, that Gods grace and gifts are bestowed vpon the precedence of our will and workes. But we haue heard before out of the Arausicane councell, thatArausican. Concil. 2. cap 4. Supra. sect 8. if any man say that God exspecteth or attendeth our will, and doth not confesse that God worketh in vs to will, he gainsayth the doctrine of the Apostle. Which is the same as to say, If any man say that God attendeth for our opening the gates vnto him, and doth not confesse that God himselfe openeth the gates vnto himselfe, he is contrarie to the doctrine of the Apostle.August cont. duas epist. Pelag. lib. 4. cap. 6 Aditus diuinae vocationis ipsa Dei gratia procuratur. The entrance of Gods calling is wrought or procured by the grace of God himselfe; he knocketh with one hand, & openeth with another,Psal. 107.16. breaking the gates of brasse, and smiting the barres of iron in sunder, and howsoeuer mightily he knocke, we neuer heare, we neuer open till he open and make entrance for himselfe. It is he thatAct. 16.14. openeth the heart, he Luk. 24.45. openeth the vnderstanding, he Psal. 119.18. openeth the eyes, he openeth Iob. 33.16. the eares, he openeth Psal. 50.15. the lips, he openeth Act. 14.27. the doore of faith, and why then doth M. Bishop say, that he attendeth till we open? He doth not attend our assenting to his call, butAugust. de praedest sanct. cap. 19 Deus operatur in cordibus hominum vocatione illa secundum proposi [...]um, vt non inarater aud [...]nt Euangelium sed eo aud [...]to cont [...]er tā tur & credant, exerpientes non vt verbu [...]a hominum, sed sicum est verò verbum Dei. by his calling which is according to his purpose, he worketh in the harts of mē, that they heare not the Gospel in vaine, but do conuert, and turne, & receiue it not as the word of man, but as it is indeed, the word of God. And whereas he saith, that God doth not break open the doores, it is not alwaies true. For God somtimes with great violence assaulteth the hart, &Iude, vers. 23. by terror & feare pulleth men out of the fire, & as with a mighty hammer breaketh the pride & rebelliō of the wil, fighting & stirring against him. [Page 138] When men are in the height of their insolencie madly raging against him, he striketh them to the ground, as he did the ApostleAct. 9.4. S. Paule, and by astonishment ouercometh and subdueth them vnto himselfe, thus,August contr. duas Epist. Pel [...]. lib. 1 cap. 19. Non ait duxerit, vt illic ali quo modo intelligamus praecedere voluntatem. Quis trah [...]tur, &c vt supra Sect 10 not leading them as vpon their precedent will, but drawing them; not to beleeue against their wils which is vnpossible, but of vnwilling to become willing. In a word, when God knocketh,Idem de Praedest sanct ca. 20. Ostrum ergo apertum est in [...]is, quibus datū est, aduersarij autem multi ex eis quibus non est datū. the doore is opened in them onely to whom it is giuen, but they to whom it is not giuen are still aduerse, and they neuer open: and therefore M. Bishop saith amisse, that God attendeth that we open him the gates, or otherwise leaueth vs. Neither do the words alledged serue for confirmation of the freedome of mans will, telling vs onely what must be done that God may enter, but not importing, that we do it by any power of Free will.
14. W. BISHOP.
To these expresse places taken out of Gods word, let vs ioyne the testimonie of those most auncient Fathers, against whose workes the Protestants can take no exception. The first shall be that excellent learned Martyr Iustinus in his Apologie, who vnto the Emperour Antonine speaketh thus: Vnlesse man by Free will could flie from foule dishonest deedes, and follow those that be faire and good; he were without fault, as not being cause of such things as were done. But we Christians teach, that mankind by free choice, and Free will, doth both do well and sinne.
To him we will ioyne that holy Bishop and valiant Martyr Irenaeus, who of Free will writeth thus: Lib. 4. cap. 72. Not onely in workes, but in faith also, our Lord reserued libertie and freedome of will vnto man: saying, Be it done vnto thee according to thy faith.
I will adde to that worthie companie S. Cyprian, who vpon those words of our Sauior, Ioan. 6. Lib. 1. Epist. 3. Wil you also depart? discourseth thus: Our Lord did not bitterly inueigh against them, which forsooke him, but rather vsed these gentle speeches to his Apostles, will you also go your way: and why so? Marry obseruing and keeping (as this holy Father declareth) that decree, by which man left vnto his libertie and put vnto his free choice, might deserue vnto himselfe, either damnation or saluation. These three most auncient, and most skilfull in Christian religion, and so zealous of Christian truth, that they spent [Page 139] their bloud in confirmation of it, may suffice to certifie any indifferent reader, what was the iudgement of the auncient and most pure Church, concerning this article of Free will: specially when the learnedst of our Aduersaries confesse all Antiquitie, (excepting onely S. Augustine) to haue beleeued and taught Free will. Heare the words of one for all. Mathias Illiricus in his large, long lying historie, hauing rehearsed touching Free will, the testimonies of Iustine, Irenaeus, and others, saith, In like maner Clement Patriarch of Alex. doth euery where teach Free will,Cont. 2. cap. 4. col. 59. that it may appeare (say these Lutherans) not onely the Doctors of that age to haue bene in such darknesse but also that it did much increase in the ages following. See the wilfull blindnesse of heresie. Illyricus confessing the best learned in the purest times of the Church, to haue taught Free will: yet had rather beleeue them to haue bene blindly led, by the Apostles and their best Schollers who were their Masters, then to espie and amend his own error. These principall pillars of Christs Church were in darknesse belike as Protestants must needes say: and that proud Persian, and most wicked Heretike Manes (of whom the Manichees are named) who first denied Free will, began to broach the true light of the new Gospell.
R. ABBOT.
M. Bishop held it to be the best course for him clanum clauo pellere, to driue out one naile with another, not answering the places which M. Perkins alledged out of the Fathers, but o [...]ely crossing them with other places. Nay, he so passed them ouer, as that fraudulently and falsly he would make his Reader beleeue, that they made all for him. But marke I pray thee gentle Reader, when M. Bishop driueth all to this, that when God hath done his worke for mans conuersion, it is left to mans free choice, whether to will the same or not, doth it make for him, or is it not against him which M. Perkins citeth out of Austin, thatAug. de correp. & grat. cap. 12. I [...]o sic volunt, quia Deus operatur vt veli [...]t. man therefore willeth, because God worketh in him to will? Surely if man therefore will, because God worketh in him to will, then Gods worke doth not leaue man to the free choice of his owne will. When M. Bishop saith, that there is in man a naturall facultie of Free will, which being stirred vp and fortified is able to do any act appertaining to saluation, doth the same S. Austine agree with him when he affirmeth,Epist. 107. L [...]cerum arbitrium ad diligendum Deum prin [...]s peccati gra [...] ditate per [...]emu [...], that man lost Free will to the [Page 140] loue of God by the greatnesse of Adams sinne? When he attributed mans conuersion but onely principally to grace, and blameth vs for that we attribute the whole worke to grace, doth S. Bernard agree with him, when he saith,Bernard. de grat. & lib. arb. Totum ex gratia that it is wholy of grace that we are new created, healed, saued? By these it is easie to make application of the rest; but we may looke for good answers at his hands herafter, who in the beginning being so directly oppugned, would seeke thus in a cloud to steale away. But if M. Perkins were able to say nothing against him, we must thinke he is able to say for himselfe exceeding much. Yet his first authoritie out of Iustinus Martyr, maketh nothing at all for him: for being written to an heathen Emperour, it toucheth onely morall and externall actions, in which we deny not but that God hath left some freedome and liberty to mans will, as before hath bene declared. His veryJustin. Martyr Apol. 2. Ne quis nostra dicta sic acciptat, quasi Fati necessitatē asseramus, & quae fiunt ideò fieri, quiae praedicta sunt exp [...]ica bonus hoc quo (que) &c drift there, is to condemn the wicked fancies of Astrologers and Stoicke Philosophers, who did hang all vponAug. contra duas Epist. Pela. lib. 2. ap. 6. & in Psal. 1 [...]0 & de ciuit. Dei. lib. 5. cap. 1. destinies and constellations, and fatall necessitie, and thence sought excuse of their lewd and abominable actions. And if we wil more largely extend the words, yet are they nothing for M. Bishops turne.Hominem libero arbitrio, libera (que) voluntate & peccare & rectè agere docemus. We Christians, saith he, do affirme, that by free choice, and Free will, mankind doth both do well and sinne. And so much we affirme also, that man by free choice and Free will doth well, for thereProsper de voc [...]t. Gent lib 2. cap. 9. Virius nolenuum nulla est is no vertue where a man hath no will to that he doth, but we say still against M. Bishop, that this is not that Free will that he requireth: it is not a power of nature, but wholy the effect of grace:Aug. Epi. 107. vt supra Sect. 1. It is the grace of God whereby mans will is made free, both to eschue euil and do good, and they that teach any other Free will, they areIdem de grat. & lib arbit. cap. 14. Non defensores, sed inflatores & praecipitatores liberi arbit. not the defenders, but the puffers vp and break-neckes of Free wil. And no otherwise did Iustine Martyr conceiue thereof, as appeareth by these words in the same Apologie:Iustin. vt supr. [...]. In like sort as God created vs when we were not, so do we thinke that he vouchsafeth them of immortalitie and being with him, who willingly make choice to do those things that are pleasing vnto him. But to haue being at the first, it was not of our selues. In like sort then to choose and follow what is pleasing to him by those reasonable powers which he hath giuen vs, it is by his perswading and mouing of vs 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 [Page 141] 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,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 isNon de violentia cogens. not by any compelling violence that a man either beleeueth or worketh, butAugust. 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, August. Retract. lib. 1. ca. 22 Sedea potestas nulla est nisi à Deo detur; but that power is none, except it be giuē 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, isEphes. 2.8. the gift of God. And as the places that he alledgeth are far from any such purpose,Mat. 8 13. According to thy faith be it vnto thee: Mar. 9.23. All things are possible to the beleeuer, so he himselfe elsewhere out of the words of the Apostle,Rom. 7.18. I know that in me, that is, in my flesh dwelleth no good thing; plainely affirmeth,Iren. lib 3. cap. 22. Sign [...]ficans quoniam non à nobis sed à Deo est bonum salutis nostrae. Et iterū: 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, thatIbid. cap. 46. Nos precamur non perseuerare eos in fou [...]a quā ipsi foderunt, sed segregari ab nutusmodi matre, &c. & legitimè eos generari, cō 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 [Page 142] ye also go away? Lib. 1. Epist. 3 Seruans legem qua homo libertati suae relictus, & in preprio arbitrio constitutus fi [...]m [...]tipsi, vel [...]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 wordsAug. 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: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. Lib. 2. Epist. 2. Dei est, Dei est omne quod possumu [...] inde v [...] 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 therebyCyprian. in Orat. Dominic. Admonemur infirmitatu & imbecillitatis nostrae dum si [...] rogam [...]s ne quis se insolenter extollat, ne quis sibi superbè atque arroganter aliquid assumat [...] ne quis aut confessionis aut passionis gloriam suam dicat, &c. vt dum praecedit & submissi confessio, & datur [...]um Domino, qu [...]quid suppli [...]ter petitur, i [...] st [...]s pictate praest [...]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, thatAug de bono perseuer. cap. [...]7 Nihil nobi [...] reliqu [...]t, in qu [...] ta [...] quam in nostro gloriemu [...]. Siqu [...]dem & vt [...] disced [...]mus à D [...]o n [...]n estend [...]t, da [...]dum esse nisi à Deo, cùm pascendum estendat à Deo. Qui enivi non in errur in tentationem, non disc [...]dit à Deo. Non est hoc omnino in viribus Liberi arbi [...]r [...] quales nunc sunt, fuera [...]us [...] antequam caderet, &c. Post casum autem hominis nonnisi ad gratiam suam Deus voluit pertinere, vt hom [...] accedat ad eti [...] neque nisi ad gratiam suam pertinere voluit, vt homo non recedat ab eo. Cyprian leaueth vs nothing wherein to glorie as our owne; that he sheweth, that not to depart from God, is no otherwise but giuen of God, in that he teacheth, that it is to be begged of God: for he that is not led into temptation, doth not depart from God. This saith he, is not in the strength of Free will as now it is. It was in man before his fall, but after the fall of man, God would not haue it belong saue onely to his grace, that we come vnto him; neither would he haue it belong saue onely to his grace, that we do not depart from him. Thus he conceiued and obserued as touching Cyprians meaning out of Cyprians owne words, and bereaueth M. Bishop of Cyprians warrant for that, which he would father vpon him by some words obscurely vttered in another place.Jbid cap. 6. T [...]res vi [...]us si totum Deo damus, non autem nos illi ex parte & nobu ex parte commutimus. Quod vidit iste venerabil [...] Martyr, &c. Cyprian that worthy Martyr saw well enough, saith he, that we liue most in safetie, when we ascribe all to God, and do not commit our selues partly to God, and partly to our selues. By these three therefore M. Bishop hitherto hath gained nothing, but by Cyprian whose words seeme to make most for him, he gaineth least of all. But now he vrgeth the confession of some of our [Page 143] best learned, that all Antiquitie (excepting onely S. Austin) beleeued and taught Free will. To this purpose he alledgeth a place out of the Centuries, which he calleth a large long lying historie, marry speaking but by roate as children do, or as the clowne did of Aristides, who giuing his voyce to the banishment of the same Aristides, and being asked of him vnknowne,Plutarch. Apophiheg. whether he knew him against whom he gaue his voyce, answered, that he knew him not, but it was trouble vnto him to heare him tearmed a iust man. For so M. Bishop knoweth not the Centuries, (alas poore man, what should he meddle with such great bookes?) but he hath heard that Protestants were the Authors thereof, and that is enough to warrant him to giue his voyce against them. But his fellowes know, that they haue good cause to speake well of the Authors of those Centuries, because by them they haue bin able to say more for themselues then euer they were before: so faithfully did those men deale in the compiling of that storie. Now they say indeed, as he alledgeth from his Author, that Clement Alexandrinus doth euery where teach Free will, and that not onely the Doctors of that age were in such darknesse, but also that it did much increase in the ages following. Where taking the matter to be simply, as they say, and as M. Bishop doth obiect, what doth he gaine more by that obiection, then the Pelagians did?Prosper. Epist. ad August. Obstinationem suā vetustate defendunt. A nullo vnquam ecclesiasticorum ita esse intellecta ve nunc sentiuntur, affirmant. who defended their obstinacie by antiquitie, and affirmed, that none of all the ecclesiasticall Writers that were before, did so expound the Scriptures, as Austin did, namely, against the Free will and merits of man: and that examining the opinions of the more auncient Fathers, they were found to be in a manner all of one mind against him. But this he tooke to be no sufficient argument, but freely professeth of his doctrine,Aug. de bono perseuer. cap 18. Hoc sc [...]oneminē contra istam Praedestinationē, &c. nisi errando disputare potuisse. I know that no man without error could dispute against it. He excuseth the ancients that were before him:De Praedest. sanct. cap. 14. Priusquam ista Haeresis oriretur, non habuerunt necessitatem in hac difficili ad soluendum quaestione versari, &c. vnde factū est, vt de gratia Dei quid sentirent, breuiter quibusdam scriptorum suorum locis & transeuntèr attingerent, immorarentur vero in eis quae aduersus alios inimicos Ecclesiae disputabant, &c. frequentationibus aut orationibus simplicitèr apparebat Dei gratia quid valeret. Non enim poscerentur à Deo quae praecepit fieri, nisi ab illo donaretur, vt fierent. that before the heresie of the Pelagians began, they had not any such need to deale much in that question, and therefore what they thought of the grace of God, they touched but briefly and by the way, in some places of their workes, but stood more vpon those things which they handled against other enemies of the Church. Yet he saith, that by their supplications and prayers it plainely appeared what grace doth, because they would not haue asked of God those things [Page 144] which he hath commanded to be done, but that they held that the doing thereof is the gift of God: De bono perseuer. cap. 23. No oraret Ecclesia, vt daritur infidelibus fides, nisi Deum crederet & auersas & aduersas hominū ad se conuertere voluntates; nec oraret Ecclesia vt perseueraret in fide Christi, nisi crederet Dominum sic in potestate habere cor nostrum, vt b [...]ū quod non tenemus nisi propria voluntate, non tamen teneamus, nisi ipsi in [...]o [...]is operetur & velle that the Church would not haue prayed to God, as it alwaies did, to giue men repentance, faith, obedience, perseuerance, but that it beleeued, that God so hath our heart in his power, as that he worketh in vs to will the good that we cannot haue without our will. He further obserueth, thatIbid cap. 20. Didicimus singulas quas (que) haereses intulisse Ecclesiae proprias quaestiones: cotra quas di [...]igentiùs defenderetur S [...]riptura diuina quam si nulla talis necessitas cogeret. Quid autē coegit loca Scripturarum, quibus Praedestinatio commendata est copiosiùs & enucientius i [...]o nostro libere defendi, nisi quod Pelagiani dicunt, &c. all heresies haue brought their seuerall questions into the Church, by occasion whereof as touching those points, the truth of Scripture was the more diligently defended, and that by occasion of the Pelagian heresie, the places of Scripture concerning Predestination and grace of God, were by his labour more plentifully and plainely defended then they were before. And to conclude, out of all Antiquitie before him, he bringeth onelyIbid cap 19. foure or fiue testimonies out of Cyprian, Ambrose, and Gregorie Nazianzene, whereby to iustifie what he taught. Now by this answer of Austin to the Pelagians, M. Bishop and his fellowes must receiue their answer. If it were no preiudice to him, that the Fathers before him taught otherwise then he did, it is no preiudice to vs teaching the same that he taught. He professed himselfeDe nat. & gra. cap. 61 to be free in the writings of any such men, and that it was the Scripture onely to which he was bound, without refusall to giue consent: why then doth M. Bishop seeke to bind vs in a matter wherein S. Austin refused to be bound? Prosper being vrged by the Pelagians with a sentence out of the booke of the Pastor, reiected itProsper. de lib. arbit Nullius authoritatis testimonium de libello Pastoris. as a testimonie of no authoritie, albeit Antiquitie hadRuffi [...] [...]n exposit. Symb. apud Cyprian. so accounted of that book, as that they had ioyned it to the books of the new Testament, & did reade it publikely in their Churches, and doth M. Bishop thinke it much, that we reiect some few testimonies alledged by him of farre lesse authoritie then that was? But yet Austine found in these few testimonies of the more auncient Fathers, sufficient to iustifie both for him and vs,Aug. de bono perseuer. cap. 19. Istitales tanti (que) doctores dicentes non esse aliquid de qu [...] tanquam de nostro, quod nobis De [...] [...] [...]ed [...]rit gloriemur, nec ipsum cor nostrum & cogitationes nostrari [...] potestate nostra esse, & tetum dant [...]s Deo atque ab ipso nos acc [...]pere confitentes, vt permansu [...] conuertamur ad cum, vt id quod bonum est, nobis quoque videatur [...]um, & quod velimus illud, vt honoremus Deum, & recipiamus Christum: vt ex indenotis efficiamur deu [...]i & religiosi, vt in ipsam Trinitatem [...]redamus, & confiteamur etiam voce quod credimus, haec vtique gratiae Dei tribuunt, &c. that we haue nothing whereof to glorie as ours, which God hath not giuen vnto vs; that our heart and thoughts are not in our owne power but Gods: that all is to be ascribed vnto God, and that we must confesse, that we receiue all wholy of him, as touching our conuersion to God, and continuing with him: that it is wholy the gift of grace, the gift of God, which of him we haue, and [Page 145] not of our selues to will that that is good: to receiue Christ, to beleeue in God, and by voice to confesse that which we beleeue. And surely howsoeuer those more ancient Fathers spake obscurely of Free will, and some of them questionlesse meant amisse, yet for the most part their speeches being applyed, as I said before, against heathen Astrologers, and wicked heretickes, excluding mans will wholy from being any cause either of good or euil, they spake worse then they meant, and if we will take their words with those qualifications and constructions, wherwith S. Austin cleared some speeches of his against the Manichees, asSect. 6. before was shewed in the answer to M. Bishops Epistle, they shal easily be recōciled to the truth. Therfore i [...]arhem also that speake most amisse, we find somtimes a right and true acknowledgement of the grace of God. Who was a greater Patron of Free will then Origen who yet notwithstanding confesseth,Origen. contra Ceisum lib 7. Nostrum propositum non est sufficiens ad hoc, vt mundum cor habeamus, sed Deo est opus qui tale nobis creet: ide [...]rcò, qui scit precari dicit Cor mundum, &c. that our will sufficeth not for the hauing of a cleane heart, but that we haue need of God to create the same in vs, and that therefore he that knoweth how to pray, saith, Create in me a cleane heart, O God: Jbid. Bonitate ac humanitate Dei, & diuina ipsius gratia conceditur cognitio Dei duntaxat his qui ad hoc praedestinat [...] sunt vt cognito Deo dignè viuāt, &c that the true knowledge of God by his mercie and grace is graunted onely vnto them who are praedestinate to liue worthy of him whom they know: Jn Mat. cap. 13. Quod gloriatione dignum est, id nostrum non est, sed domō est Dei. that whatsoeuer is in vs worthie our reioycing, is not our owne, but the gift of God. Yea where he affirmeth, that there is in euery soule a strength of power and freedome of will whereby it may do euery thing that is good: yet further to expresse his mind he addeth,In Cantic. Homil. 4. Se [...] quia hoc naturae bonū praeuaricationis occasione deceiptum, vel ad ignomimam, vel ad lasciuiam fuerat inflexum, vbi per gratiam reparatur, & per doctrinam verbi Dei restituitur, odorem reddit sine dubio illum quem primus conditor Deus indiderat, sed peccati culpa subtraxerat. that this benefite of nature was cropped by meanes of sinne, and was turned aside to shame and lasciuiousnes; but that the same being repaired by grace, and restored by the doctrine of the word of God, doth giue that sweet sauour which God the first Creator put into it but the trespas of sin had takē away. Where it appeareth plainely, that in speaking of Free will, his purpose was to shew what mans will is by condition of creation, and to what it may be repaired by the grace of God, not what power it hath of it selfe in this state of corruption, to open to God when he knocketh, or to assent to God when he calleth. And thus Clemens Alexandrinus affirming Free will against the heretikes Ʋalentinus and Basilides, who thought that men by an essential state of nature were some good, some euill, some faithfull and some vnfai [...]hfull, so as that the will of man is nothing at all either way, yet reserueth due [Page 146] place to the grace of God, saying:Clem. Alexan. Strom [...]t. lib 5. Oportet mentem habere sanam, &c. ad quod maximè diuina opus habemus gratia recta (que) doctrina casta (que) & munda animi affectione, & Patris ad ipsum attractione. We haue speciall need of Gods grace, and true doctrine, and of chast and pure affection, and of the Fathers drawing vs to himselfe. Where by affirming the Fathers drawing vs to himselfe, he plainely excludeth the voluntarie opening and assenting, and yeelding of Free will, because drawing (as before was shewed out of Austin) importeth that there is no will in vs, till God of vnwilling do make vs willing. Let one speech of Austine serue to cleare all this matter,Augu. de corrept. & grat. ca. 1 Liberum arbitrium & ad malum, & ad bonū faciendum confitendum est nos habere sed in ma lo faciendo liber est quisque iustitiae, peccati autē seru [...]m bono autem liber esse nullus potest, nisi fuerit liberatus ab eo qui dixit: Si vos filius, &c. We must confesse (saith he) that we haue Free will both to do euill and to do good. This is the common assertion of the Authors whom M. Bishop opposeth against vs: but let vs take the w [...]rds following withall, and by them expound the same assertion. For euil-doing euery man is free from righteousnesse, and the seruant of sinne, (there he hath alreadie Free will) but in that that is good no man can be free, except he be made free by him that saith: If the Sonne shall make you free, then are ye free indeed. If any of them thought otherwise, they erred in that they thought: neither learned they so to thinke of the Apostles, or their best scholers, as M. Bishop idlely talketh, but either borrowed it of heathen Philosophers, or presumed it of themselues. And whatsoeuer they thought or meant, their manner of speaking was not Apostolike, neither learned they it by the word of God: and therefore those times were not the purest times, which had thus in phrase and speech varied from thatRom 6.17. character and forme of doctrine, whereto the Church was first deliuered. And if M. Bishop will say, that they learned these things of the Apostles, then he must condemne S. Austine, and the whole Catholike Church of that time in which Austine liued, for teaching otherwise then they taught: which if he will not do, he must perforce acquit vs as well as him, and let the blame rest vpon them to whom it doth appertaine. Whom we account no further to be pillars of Christs Church, then they themselues continued built vpon the Gospell, which Christ hath madeIren lib. 3. ca 1. Euangelium nobis in Scripturis tradiderunt Apostoli columnā & f [...]d amentū f [...]aci nostrae futurum. the pillar and fortresse of our faith, neither doubt we to say of them that they were in darknesse, where theEsa. 8.10. word of the law and testimony did not giue them light. Now for conclusion, he vpbraideth vs againe with the heresie of the Manichees, onely to shew himselfe a perfect scholer of the Pelagian schoole. For so did theAug. contra 2. Epist. Pelag li 3 cap. 9. Excogitaverunt Ma [...] chaeorū detestabili nomine imperitos quos potuerint d [...]terrere ne aduersus eorū dogmata peruersissima aures accommodent veritati. Pelagians obiect to Austine and other teachers of the Catholike Church, that they tooke part with the Manichees, and defended their heresie in [Page 147] the denying of Free will. They called them Manichees, and of thē selues said,Ibid. lib. 2. ca. 1 Pro Catholica fide contra Manichaeorum sicut loquuntur profa nitatem consensionem Orientalium Episcoporū videntur exposcere, &c. that they dealt for the Catholike faith against the prophane opinion of the Manichees, onely to colour their owne heresie and enmitie against the grace of God by falsly vpbraiding their aduersaries with another. But S. Austin answered them:Ibid. cap. 2. Manichaei negant homini bono ex libero arbitrio fuisse initria mal [...]. Pelagiani dicunt etiam hominem malum sufficienter haebere liberum arbitrium ad faciendum praeceptū bonum. Catholicae vtrosque redarguit, &c. The Manichees deny, that to man being made good, Free will became the beginning of euill: the Pelagians say, that man being become euill, hath a will sufficiently free for the doing of the commandement of good. The Catholike Church condemneth them both, saying to the Manichees, God made man iust: and to the Pelagians, If the Sonne shall make you free, then are you free indeed. Let M. Bishop turne the name of the Pelagians into Papists, and take this answer to himselfe. The Pelagians and Papists are not therefore to be approued, because they condemne the heresie of the Manichees, but are therefore to be detested, because they haue set vp another heresie of their owne.Ibid. possunt duo errores inter se esse contrarij, sed ambo sunt detestandi quia sunt ambo contrarij veritati. Two errors (saith S. Austine) may be contrarie one to the other, and both to be detested, because they are both contrarie to the truth. So is it with the Manichees and Papists, and we take the course that the auncient Church did to condemne them both. But of this matter I haue spoken sufficiently before in answering his Epistle, and therefore need not here to stand vpon it.
15. W. BISHOP.
Here I wold make an end of citing Authorities, 2. Inst. ca. 2. q 4. were it not that Caluin saith, that albeit all other auncient writers be against him, yet S. Augustine as he vaunteth, is clearely for him in this point: but the poore man is fouly deceiued, aswell in this, as in most other matters. I wil briefly proue, and that out of those workes which S. Augustine wrote after the Pelagian heresie was a foote: for in his others, Caluin acknowledgeth him to haue taught Free will. De spi. & lit 34. De gra. Chr. 14 Ad Simpli. q. 2. Tract. 72. in Ioan. Epi. 47. Of our Freedome in consenting to Gods grace, he thus defineth: To consent to Gods calling, or not to consent, lyeth in a mans owne will. Againe: Who doth not see euery man to come, or not to come by Free will? but this Free will may be alone, if he do not come, but it cannot be holpen, if he do come. In another place, that we will (do well) God will haue it to be his & ours; his, in calling vs; ours, in following him. Yea more: To Christ working in him, a man doth cooperate, that is, worketh with him, both his owne iustification, and life euerlasting: will you heare him speake yet more formally for vs. We haue dealt with your brethren [Page 148] and ours, as much as we could: that they would hold out and continue in the sound Catholike faith; the which neither denieth Free will, to euill or good life, nor doth attribute so much to it, that it is woorth any thing without grace. So according to this most worthie Fathers iudgement, the sound Catholike faith doth not deny Free will, as the old Manichees, and our new Gospellers do; nor esteeme it without grace able to do any thing toward saluation, as the Pelagians did. Lib 4. contr. Iul. c. 8. And to conclude, heare S. Augustines answer vnto them, who say, that he, when he commendeth grace, denyeth Free will. Much lesse wold I say, that which thou lyingly dost affirme me to say, Free will to be denyed, if grace be commended, or grace to be denyed, if Free will be commended.
R. ABBOT.
Caluin indeed confesseth as the truth is, that theInstitut lib. 2. cap. 2. Sect. 4. auncient Writers saue onely Austin, haue written so diuersly and intricately, or obscurely of Free wil, as that hardly a man can gather from them any certainty as touching that point. But yet he saith further, thatIbid. Sect. 9. albeit they went too farre sometimes in extolling Free will, yet he dareth to affirme, that they aimed at this marke, to turne man altogether away from the confidence of his owne strength, and to teach him to make the repose of his strength in God onely. But whereas Caluin thinketh that Austin is cleare for him in this point, M. Bishop saith, the poore man was fouly deceiued as well in this, as in most other matters. Where I cannot but smile to see, how euery ignorant brabler will haue a snatch 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 remē ber that Caluin professeth, thatIbid. 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 [Page 149] forbeare it. But this Free will in true meaning, is no facultie of nature, as M. Bishop will needs haue it, butAug de pecca. mei & remiss. lib. 2 ca. 6 Ipsum liberum arbitriū ad gratiam Dei, hoc est, ad dona Dei pertinere nō amb [...]go, nec solū 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, thatIbid 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, thatDe 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? AndIpsum 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: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: 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,De Praedest. sanct. cap. 3. Vt praedicato nobis Euangelio consentiremus nostrū 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: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 Pelagiās, thatEpist. 107 Cō sentire, vel non consentire, ita nostrum est vt si velimus. to consent, [Page 150] 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.Contra Pelag. & Celest. lib 1. cap. 14 Quis nō videat & venire quenquam & nō 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 cānot 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: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:August. Quomodo venisti? &c Veni, [...]quis, libero arbitrio: voluntate propria ven [...]. Quid turgescu? v [...] 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 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 an vnspeakable and wonderfull sort worketh in him to will. But M. Bishop perhaps groundeth vpon that that S. Austin saith, that the wil of man is helped if he do come, as importing that man doth somwhat of himselfe, but yet is not fully sufficient without helpe. Whereto I answer againe, that man doth somwhat, but not of himself, & God helpeth man doing somwhat, but so, as that that wherein he helpeth him is of God also, so that Gods help [...]ng of vs doth alwaies presuppose a worke of his owne in vs, which he alone and wholy doth without vs.De grat. & li. arbit. cap. 17 Vt velimus sine nobis operaturicùm autem voluntus, nobiscum cooperatur. Without vs (saith Austine) he worketh in vs to will, and worketh with vs, or helpeth vs when we do will: Jbid. cap. 20. Ex mala mutatur in bonam, & cùm bona fuerit adiu [...]atur. the will is chaunged from euill to good, and helped when it is good. Enchir cap. 32. Hominis voluntatem bonam & praeparat ad iuuandam. & adiuuit praeparatā. He prepareth the good will that is to be helped, and helpeth it when it is prepared. C [...]ntra duas Epist. Pelag. lib. 3. cap. 8. Ad iustitiam nisi diunitùs liberatum adiutum (que) non valet. Free will to righteousnesse is first made free, and then helped. Herein then standeth M. Bishops error, that he ioyneth man to God in the first framing of the wil to come to God so that for the performance hereof, as God is mans helper, so man is also Gods helper, not by that that God hath now wrought in man, but by that that man hath naturally of his owne: and therefore [Page 151] God helpeth man for his saluation, if man by his Free wil help God for the sauing of himselfe: but if man withdraw his helpe, the helpe of God auaileth nothing. But the true helpe of God which S. Austine teacheth, is that whereby God himselfe worketh in vs, that whereby we are helpefull vnto him, neither doth he helpe any thing in vs, but what he himselfe hath wrought and prepared in vs to be helped. And therefore he maketh a distinction of two kindes of helpe. De corrept, & grat cap 12. Aliud est adiutorium, sine quo aliquid non fit, & aliud est adiutorium, quo aliquid fit. There is a kind of helpe, without which a thing is not done, and there is another kind of helpe by which a thing is done. There is a helpe without which a thing is not done, but though that helpe be had, it followeth not thereupon that the thing is done, because some other helpe is wanting, without which that helpe auaileth not. Without food we cannot liue, and yet though food be had, he liueth not thereby that will die, or maketh away himselfe. Such was the helpe of God to Adam in Paradise,Jbid. cap. 11. Adiutorium per quod posset (si vellet) & sine quo non posset per seueranter bonū tenere quod vellet. without which he could not continue though he would, by which he might continue if he would; but was left to his owne will, either to continue by this helpe, or by forgoing it to fall away. Such the Papists say the helpe of God is to vs, by which we come to Christ, and continue if we will: but both for coming and for continuing it is left to our Free will, either to vse it, or refuse it: so that it is in vs whether it shall be a helpe or not. ButIbid. Est in nobis per hanc gratiam non solùm posse quod volumus, verumetiā velle quod possumus. the helpe of the grace of Christ is such, as whereby the thing is certainly effected, for which it is a helpe; not such as whereby we come to Christ, or continue with him if we will, but which maketh vs to will: so that it is first a meere gift of that, of which afterwards it becommeth a helpe. For example hereof Saint Austine saith, thatCap. 12. Beatitudo cùm daia fuerit continuò fit beatus: adiutorium est enim nō solum sine quo non fit, verumetiam quo fit propter quod datur. blessednesse is a helpe by which when it is giuen, a man is foorthwith blessed. Thereby giuing to vnderstand, that this helpe is the giuing of the thing wherein God is said to helpe vs. So that Gods helpe for our coming to Christ, is the gift of God whereby we do come: his helpe for our beleeuing, is his very gift whereby we do beleeue: hisIbid. Sanctis tale adiutotium perseuerantiae datur, vt eis perseuerantia ipsa donetur, non solùm vt sine isto dono perseuerantes esse non possint, verumetiam vt per hoc donum nonnisi persiuerantes sint. helpe for our perseuering and continuing with Christ, is his gift, whereby we do perseuere, and no other but perseuere and continue to the end. And this helpe doth Saint Austine meane in the place cited by M. Bishop. The will cannot but be holpen, if a man come to Christ, meaning, that mans will cometh not to Christ, [Page 152] except God giue vnto the will to will and to come, that is, to beleeue in him. And therefore he addeth,Et sic adiutum vt non solum quid facientum sit sciat, sed quod scierit et [...]am faciat. And so helped, as that he not onely know what is to be done, but do also that which he knoweth: which in the Chapter before he hath thus expressed, thatCont Pelag. & Cel [...]st lib. 1. cap. 13 Si docet eos Deus qui secundum propositum vocati sunt simul donans & quod agant scire, & quod sciunt agere. to them which are called of purpose, God at once giueth both to know what they should do, and to do what they know. Gods helping therefore is no other but his giuing, and by this second place M. Bishop gaineth as little as he gained by the first.
As little aduantage hath he by the third place, nay, we see therin a notable peece of fraud and falshood in concealing the former part of the words, which should cleere the latter.Ad Simplic. q. 2. Alitèr Dius praestat vt velimus, alitèr praestat quod voluerimus: vt velim [...]s & suum voluit esse & nostrum: suum vocando, nostrū sequēdo. Quod autem voluerimus solus prae [...]at, id est posse benè agere & semper beatè vinere. In one sort, saith Austin, God yeeldeth to vs to will; in another sort he performeth the thing that we will. That we will, he would haue it to be his and ours: his in calling; ours in following. But the thing that we will he alone performeth, that is, to be able to do well, and for euer to liue in blisse. Where plainly he affirmeth, that it is God that doth or performeth both the one and the other; he maketh vs to will, and he maketh good to vs the thing that our will desireth. How then will he haue it to be ours that we will or are willing, but by his working it in vs to be ours? It is the act of our will when we do will, and so ours, but yet it is Gods, because he worketh in vs to will. It is his in calling, ours in following; but it is his also that we follow, because he maketh vs to follow. For how do we folow when he calleth, butProsper. de v [...]cat gent lib. 2. cap. 9. sequaces fide & voluntate by willing and beleeuing? And no man can beleeue,August cont. duas epist. Pelag. lib 1. cap. 19. except it be giuen to him to beleeue, andAd simplic. q. 2. Vt sit nutus voluntatis ille tribuit, ille largitur. that there is a yeelding or assenting of the will, it is he that giueth it, saith Austin in that very treatise, it is he that granteth it; so that although we will, and we runne, and this willing and running be ours, yet as the Apostle saith;Rom. 9.16. it is neither of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. Concerning which words, it is worth the while to obserue what Saint Austin writeth in the same discourse, whence M. Bishop taketh this obiection, and within a very few lines after, and thought worthie to remember in diuerse places of his workes. M. Bishop saith as all his fellowes, that all is not of God, but somewhat belongeth to mans Free will for his conuersion vnto God, which yet sufficeth not vnlesse it be helped by the grace of God. But S. Austin saith, [Page 153] Ad Simplic. q. 2 si propterea solum dictum est, Non volentis, quia voluntas hominis so [...]a non suffi it vt iustè rectè (que) viuamus nisi adiuuentur misericordia Dei. potest & hoc modo dici. Igitur non miserentis est Dei sed volentis est hominis, quia misericordia Dei sola non sufficit nisi consensus nostrae voluntatis addatur At illud manifestum est frustra nos vell nisi Deus misereatur. Illud. autem nesc [...]o quomodo dicatur frustra Deum misereri nisi nos velimus. If therefore onely it be sayd, It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy, because the will of man alone is not sufficient, except it be helped by the mercy of God, it may be also thus sayd, that it is not of God that sheweth mercy, but of man that willeth, because the mercy of God alone sufficeth not, vnlesse there be adioyned the consent of the will of man. More effectually doth he expresse it in another place.Enchirid cap. 32. Si propterea dictum est. Non volentis. &c. quia ex vtroque fit, id est, ex voluntate hominis & misericordia Dei, vt si [...] dictū accipiamus, Non volentis, &c tanquam diceretur non sufficit sola voluntas hominis si non s [...]t etiā misericordia Dei, non sufficit ergo sola misericordia Dei si non sit etiam voluntas hominis: ac per hoc si rectè dictum est, Non volentis hominis sed miserentis est Dei quia id voluntas hominis solae non implet, cur non & è contrario rectè dicitur, Non miserentis est Dei sed volentis est hominis, quia id miserecordia Dei sola non implet? Porro si nullus Christianus dicere audebit, Non miserentis est Dei sed volentis est hominis ne Apostolo apertissimè contradicat, restat vt propterea recte dictum intelligatur, Non volentis, &c. Vt totum Deo detur qui hominis voluntatem bonam & praeparat adiuuandam & adiuuat praeparatam. If therefore it be sayd, It is not of him that willeth, or of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy, because it is done by both, that is, by the will of man, and by the mercy of God, as if it were sayd, the will of man alone sufficeth not, if there be not also the mercy of God, then also the mercy of God sufficeth not, if there be not also the will of man: and by this meanes, if it be rightly sayd, It is not of him that willeth, but of God that sheweth mercy, because the wil of man alone auaileth not, why is it not on the contrarie rightly sayd, It is not of God that sheweth mercy, but of man that willeth, because the mercy of God alone auaileth not? Now if no Christian man will dare to say so, it remaineth that we vnderstand it therefore sayd, It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy, Vt totum Deo detur, that all vvholy may be attributed to God, vvho prepareth or maketh the good wil of man. What could be more notably spoken to ouerthrow all Popish assertion of mans Free will, which seeing S. Austin gaue M. Bishop occasion to note in the verie place whence he tooke his obiection, we must needs thinke him a man of a seared conscience, that would thus wilfully bend himselfe against an apparant truth. In a word, I answer his obiection out of Austin by the words of Hierome, hauing reference to the same sentence of the Apostle:Hieron epist. ad Demetriad. Velle & nolle nostrum est, ipsumque quod nostrum est sine Dei miseratione nostrum non est. To will, and to nill (according to godlinesse) is ours; but euen that that is ours, is not ours vvithout the mercy of God.
His fourth place of Austin, is thatAugust. in Ioan. tract. 72. Operante in se Christo cooperatur sa [...]utem aeternam ac iustificationem suam. Christ vvorking in man, man himselfe doth cooperate, that is, vvorketh together vvith him his owne iustification and life euerlasting. An idle obiection, because by that very place, if it were discussed, it should appeare which the same S. Austin for a full answer expresly saith elsewhere,Jn Psal. 77. Dei gratia non solum operatur remissionem peccatorum, sed etiam cooperantē sibi facit spiritum hominis in opere bonorū factorū, that God maketh [Page 154] the spirit of a man to cooperate, or vvorke together vvith him in doing of good vvorkes, so that this cooperating, or vvorking together vvith God, attributeth nothing to the will of man, but what is the proper effect of the grace of God.
In the fifth testimonie he saith, that Austin speaketh yet more formally for them, but let him conceiue of the forme as he will, we are sure he is farre from the matter of S. Austins speech.Epist 47. Catholica [...]ides [...] (que) liberum arb triū negat siue in [...]itam malam, siue in bonam, neque tantum eitribuit vt sine gratia Dei valeat aliquid siue vt ex malo cōuertatur in bonum, siue vt in bono perseuerantèr proficiat, siue vt ad bonū sempiternum peruentat. The sound Catholike faith, saith he, neither denieth Free will, vvhether to euill life or to good, neither attributeth so much to it, as that it auaileth any thing vvithout grace, either to be conuerted from euill to good, or by perseuerance to go forward in that that is good, or to attaine to the euerlasting good. Now we whom M. Bishop termeth new gospellers, but yet out of the old Gospell do affirme, according to the true meaning of S. Austin, that there must be a Free will either in euill or good life. For a man cannot be either good or euill against his will, and if he be willingly that that he is, it is by Free vvill, because the vvill is alwayes Free, and cannot but be Free in that that it willeth. But the will of man is of it selfe Free in that that is euill; to that that is good,Retract. lib. 1. cap 15. Intantū l [...]bera est 1 quatum liberata est. it is so farre onely Free, as it is made Free; Cont. duas ep. Pelag. lib 1. ca. 3. Et De corrept. & grat. cap 1. Liberum in bono non erit quod liberator non liberauerit. In bono liber esse nullus potest nisi fuerit liberatus. neither can any man in this respect be free, vvhom the purchaser of freedome hath not made free. We say therefore, that the Free vvill of man auaileth nothing vvithout grace, that is in S. Austins construction, auaileth nothing but by that that grace vvorketh in it, either for conuerting vnto God, or perseuering in that whereunto it is conuerted. And therefore as S. Austin in the epistle cited speaketh,Epist. 47. Boni ipsam bonam voluntatē per Dei gratiam consecuti sunt Et post; Gratia intelligitur voluntates hominum ipsus ex mala bonas facere, ipsas etiam quas fecerit custodire: & ante, Omnia quae ad mores nostros pertinent quibus rectè viuimus à patre nostro qui in coe [...]i [...] est do [...]uit esse poscenda, ne de libero praesumentes arbitrio à diuina gratia decidamus. It is by grace that good men haue obtained a good vvill, and grace must be vnderstood to make the wils of men of euill good, and to preserue the same when it hath so made them; and of our Father vvhich is in heauen vve are to begge all things whereby vve liue vvell, least presuming of Free vvill, vve fall away from the grace of God. If all things, then are we to begge of him to open, to yeeld, to assent, to receiue his grace, and therefore these things cannot be attributed to the power of our owne Free will. Now M. Bishop meerely abuseth Austin, as if he had meant, that Free will hath a power and abilitie of it owne to righteousnesse, but that this power is not sufficient, is not strong enough vvithout grace adioyned to it, whereas S. Austins meaning is to chalenge wholy to grace, whatsoeuer the will of man doth, so that it doth nothing but what grace worketh [Page 155] in it to do.De verb Apos. ser. 11 Nihil ex eo quod aliqu [...]d sumus. si tamē in eius side aliquid sumus quantum cunque sumus [...]ih [...]l nobis arrogemus, ne & quod accepimus perdamus; sed in eo quod accepimus, illi gloriam demus. Of that as touching which we are somewhat in the faith of Christ, how much soeuer it be, we may take nothing to our selues, but we must giue the glorie of all vnto God. The new gospellers therfore according to the doctrine of the auncient Gospell, detest the Manichees for denying Free will in sinne and euill; and detest also Pelagians and Papists, for attributing to Free will an abilitie and power of it owne, wherby to apply it selfe to righteousnesse, which whereas M. Bishop saith the Pelagians affirmed vvithout grace, I haue before shewed, that he saith vntruly, and that the Papists do now teach in that behalfe the very same that the Pelagians did. To the last place the answer is readie by that that hath bene sayd. Free vvill and grace, are not the one excluded by the other, neither is the one denied in the affirming of the other, if we make the one the cause of the other, as Austin doth, and teach it to be the worke of grace to make the will Free. But grace is denied in the preaching of Free will, if as touching saluation it be affirmed to haue any freedome which it hath not of grace, or any thing at all be attributed vnto it which is not the effect of grace. ForDe corrept. & grat. ca. 8. Voluntas humana non libertate cō sequitur gratiam sed gratia potius libertatem. man doth not by freedome of will attaine to grace, but by grace obtaineth freedome of vvill; and though it be in the will, and by the will, that we receiue grace, yetProsper de vocat. gent lib. 1. cap. 5. Omnibus hominibus percipiendae gratiae causa voluntas Dei est. in all men the will of God himselfe is the cause of the receiuing of the grace of God.
16. W. BISHOP.
Now in fevv words I will passe ouer the obiections which he frameth in our names. But misapplyeth them.
First obiection. That man can do good by nature, as giue almes, do iustice, speake the truth, &c. and therefore will them vvithout the helpe of grace. This argument we vse to proue libertie of vvill in ciuill and morall matters, euen in the corrupted state of man, and it doth demonstrate it: and M. Perkins in his third conclusion doth graunt it. And his answer here is farre from the purpose, for albeit (saith he) touching the substance of the vvorke it be good, yet it faileth both in the beginning, because it proceeds not from a pure heart, and a faith vnfained: and also in the end, which is not the glorie of God.
Answer. It faileth neither in the one nor other: for that almes may issue out of a true naturall compassion, which is a sufficient good fountaine [Page 156] to make a worke morally good: faith and grace do purge the heart, and are necessarie onely for good and meritorious workes: Againe, being done to releeue the poore mans necessitie, God his Creator and Maister, is thereby glorified. And so albeit the man thought not of God in particular: yet God being the finall end of all good, any good action of it selfe, is directed towards him, when the man putteth no other contrarie end thereunto.
R. ABBOT.
It was a caution giuen by the Pelagians,Prosper de lib. arbit. Proclamat cauendum esse ne ita ad Deum omnia sanctorū merita referamus, vt nihil n si quod malum est humanae ascribaemu [...] naturae. that vve may not so attribute to God all the merits or good workes of holy men, as that we ascribe to the nature of man nothing but that that is euill. This caution the Papists, not willing in any thing to swarue from the Pelagian heresie, do very religiously obserue. For the prouing of Free will they obiect vnto vs that man can do good by nature, as giue almes, do iustice, &c. and therefore can will these things without the helpe of grace. M. Bishop saith they vse this argument to proue libertie of will in ciuill and morall matters. But therefore very lewdly do theyCoster. Enchirid. cap. 5. vse it against vs, and exclaime that we by deniall of Free will, make lawes and exhortations and instructions of no effect, when as we deny not libertie and freedome of will in morall and ciuill actions. Yet of such workes we say, that although in morall and ciuill life they stand for good, yet spiritually and with God they are not good workes but euill, because howsoeuer there is the outward matter and substance, yet there wanteth the inward forme and life whereby they should haue the condition of good workes. Hereof M. Perkins saith, that the good thing done by a naturall man, is a sinne in respect of the doer, because it failes both for his right beginning, which is a pure heart, a good conscience, and a faith vnfained, as also for his end, which is the glorie of God. But saith M. Bishop, it faileth neither in the one nor in the other, for that almes may issue out of a true naturall compassion, which is a sufficient good fountaine to make a worke morally good. Where I wonder whether he did well aduise of that he saith. For if naturall compassion be a sufficient good fountaine to make a worke morally good, then because bruit beasts haue true naturall compassion, and true naturall affections, we must needs attribute to them vertuous and morall actions. But S. Austin was not of M. [Page 157] Bishops mind when he sayd,Aug in Psal. 31. Crede in cum qui iustificat impium, vt possint opera tua esse opera bona: nam nec bona illa appellauerim, quā que non deradice bona procedunt. Beleeue in him that iustifieth the vngodly, that thy workes may be good workes. For I will not call them good workes, so long as they proceed not from a good roote. Faith then by S. Austins iudgement, is the good roote whence good workes must grow, and if they grow not from this roote, they cannot be called good. And this he learned of the Apostle, teaching vs thatHeb 11.6 without faith it is vnpossible to please God, and that Rom. 14.23. whatsoeuer is not of faith it is sinne. And therefore of naturall compassion, he saith, thatAug contra Iulian li 4 ca 3. Etsi misericordia ipsa per seipsam naturali compassione opus est bonam, etiam isto bono malè v [...]tur qui infideliter v [...]m, & hoc bonum malè facit qui infideliter facit. Qui autē in [...]s [...] pacit aliquid prefecto pec cat. Ex quo colligitur etiam ipsa bona opera quae [...] faciunt infi [...]e [...]es, non ipserum esse, sedillius qui benè v [...]tur malis ipsorum autem esse peccata, quibus & bona malè faciunt, quia ea non fideli sed [...]fideli, hoc, est, stul [...]a & noxta faciunt voluntate although in it selfe it be a good worke, yet he vseth this good worke amisse that vseth it vnbeleeuingly, and doth it amisse that doth it vnbeleeuingly. Now he that doth any thing amisse, saith he, sinneth therein, and therefore the good workes which vnbeleeuers do are Gods, who vseth to good purpose them that are euill: but to them that do them they are sinnes, in that they do good things amisse, because they do them with an vnbeleeuing, that is, with a foolish and corrupt will. Wherin he accordeth with the Apostle saying, thatTit. 1.15. to vnbeleeuers all things are vncleane, because euen their mind and conscience is defiled. And thereto Prosper alluding saith, thatProsp. de lib. arbit. Patet in impiorum animis nullam habitare virtutem, sed omnia opera eorum immunda esse atque polluta, &c. dum ea ipsa quae non haberent, nisi dante Deo subduntur ei qui primus recessit à Deo. Et post. Multa laudabilia reperiuntur etiam in ingenijs [...]orum quae ex na [...]a [...]uidem prodeunt, sed quoniam ab eo qu [...] [...]aturam condidit, recesserunt virtutes esse non possu [...]t. in the minds of the vngodly albeit there be found many commendable things, yet there dwelleth no vertue, but all their workes are polluted and vncleane, whilest therein they are subiect to him who did first fall by apostasie from God. Therefore M. Bishops distinction of good workes and meritorious worke, is an idle and vaine presumption, there being no workes meritorious at all, nor any workes good, but onely such as are done in the faith of Christ. The other circumstance required by M. Perkins in good workes, is the end whereto they are referred. For Austin rightly saith,Aug. cont. Julian lib 4 cap. 3. Noueris non officijs sed finib [...]s a vitijs d [...]s [...]e [...] nendas esse virtutes, &c. Cum itaque facit homo aliquid vbi peccare non videtur, si non propter hoc facit, propter quod facere debet, peccare conuincitur. that workes are not esteemed by the actions, but by the ends, so that when a man doth a thing wherein he seemeth not to sinne, if he do it not for that end for which he should do it, that which he doth becommeth thereby sinne. Now the true and proper end of all good workes, and which maketh them good, is the glorie of God, of which the Apostle saith,1. Cor. 10.31. Whether ye eate or drinke, or whatsoeuer ye do, do all to the glorie of God, and of which Prosper telleth vs, thatProsp [...]r. de vocat. gent. lib. 1. cap. 2. etiamsi in bonis moribus. agat, malè adhuc viuit, si non in gloriam Dei viuit, albeit a [Page 158] man liue in good behauiour, yet he liueth still an euill life, if he liue not to the glorie of God. But hereto belongeth the knowledge of God, which isArnob. cont. gent. lib. 2. Cognitio Dei fermē tum quoddam est vitae as it were the leauen that seasoneth the whole life of man. And this knowledge of God, must be by the word of God, so thatClem. Alexand. in Protrepi. Qui absque verbo veritatis operantur aliquid vel loquuntur, sunt similes ijs qui conantur in gredi absque pedibus. they who without the word of truth do worke or speake any thing, are as they that striue to go without feete. And it must breed the loue of God, becauseJdem Stromat. lib. 3. Nec castitas est bonū & ex virtute, nisi fiat propter delectionem in Deum chastitie, and so the like, are not vertues except they be done or obserued for the loue of God. And in the loue of God consisteth the worship of God, Prosper. de vocat. gent. lib. 1. cap 3. Sine cultis veri Dei etiam quod virtui videtur esse peccatum est, nec placere vllus Deo sine Deo potest. without which worship of the true God, euen that that seemeth to be vertue is sinne, and therefore it offended Austin, and he retracted it as a thing mis-spoken, that he had saydAugust. Retract. lib. 1. cap. 3 Displi [...]et mihi quod philosophos non vera pietate praeditos dixi virtutis luce ful [...]se. that the Philosophers shined with the light of vertue, who were not endued with true pietie or religion towards God. A part of which pietie it is in all our good workes, to haue a respect vnto him, to do them for his sake, thereby intending to serue, and obey, and to please him, so thatOrigen. in Numer. hom. 25. Inanis est omnis actus, & omnis sermo in quo non est intrinsecus aliquid pro Deo & pro mandato Dei. vaine is euerie action, and euerie speech that hath not somewhat inwardly for God, and for the commandement of God, andAugust. De ciuit Dei. lib. 19. cap. 21. Virtutes cum ad se ipsas referuntur, nec propter aliud expetuntur, etiam tunc inflatae & superbae sunt. when vertues are referred to themselues, and desired onely for themselues, and not for some other respect (to God) they are swelling and proud, and are not to be accounted for vertues but vices. And this respect to God must acknowledge him to be the giuer of all our vertue and goodnesse, and that we do but serue him with his owne, so thatIdem. cont. Iulian. Pelag. lib. 4 cap. 3. Non quia per seipsum factum quod est operire nudum peccatum est, sed de tali opere non in Domino gloriari solus impius negat esse peccatum. Et ante: Cum non ad suum authorem referu [...]tur donae Dei hoc ipso mali his vtentes afficiuntur iniusts although to cloth a naked man, or any other such like worke, by it selfe be not a sinne, yet of such a worke not to glorie in the Lord, and not to referre it to him as the author of it, none but a wicked man will denie it to be a sinne. Now these conditions and circumstances being required to make a worke good, Arnob. in Psal. 26. Fieri poterit vt obsequendi voto offendam si qualitèr debeant ante non discam. it may be that a man minding to do a seruice may commit an offence, if he do not first learne in what sort he should do it. Which a man cannot learne by Free vvill, and by the law of nature, and therefore offendeth euen in those things wherein he seemeth outwardly to do well. But M. Bishop telleth vs, that in such workes God is glorified, because albeit the man thought not of God in particular, yet God being the finall end of all good, any good action of it selfe is directed towards him, when the [Page 159] man putteth no other contrarie end thereunto. Where we may iustly wonder, that so absurd a fancie should preuaile with him, that God should be glorified there where he is neither thought of nor knowne, and that actions should be directed to God, where there is nothing to direct them; that mens actions are the directors of themselues, and that though a man haue no meaning to glorifie God, yet he doth glorifie him so long, as he propoundeth not to himselfe a contrarie end. These are M. Bishops dreames, and vpon the credit hereof we must beleeue that the Gentiles not knowing none but idol gods, yet did glorifie God in those workes wherein they did not put a contrarie end, nay, the bruit creatures do direct their workes of naturall compassion to the glorie of God, for their naturall compassion is a sufficient good fountaine to make their workes good, and they propound no end contrary to the glorie of God. But S. Austin telleth vs, thatAugust. in Psal 31. Bonum opus intentio facit: imentionem fides dirigit. it is the intent that maketh the worke good, and that it is faith that directeth the intent, and therefore where there is neither intent to glorifie God, nor faith to direct the intent thereto, there cannot be any glorifying of God, neither can the worke that is done be called a good worke. M. Bishop therefore doth amisse to ioyne with the Pelagians,Cont. Iulian. Pelag. lib. 4. cap. 3. Introducens [...] hominum genus quod Deo placere pessit sine fide Christi lege naturae. Hoc est vnde vo [...] maximè Christiana detestatur ecclesia. to bring in a kind of men, which without the faith of Christ, by the law of nature can please God. This is it, saith S. Austin to them, for which the Church of Christ most highly doth detest you. I will end this point with the resolution of Origen: Origen. in Iob. lib 1. Omne opus bonum quod visi fuerint homin [...]e facere, nisi in Dei cultura, nisi in Dei agnitione atque confessione fecerint, sine causa faciunt & superuacuè. Audē tèr dicam, omnia gratis faciunt, si non in fide fecerint: sine causa agunt nisi in agnitione vnius Dei patris, & in confessione filij eius Domini nostri Jesu Christi, & illuminatione Sp. Sancti hoc fecerint. Omnem iustitiam qui foris a vera Dei cultura atque vera fide fecerit, gratis facit, in perditione facit, non prodest ei, non adiuuat eum in die trae, &c. Ad quod testis est Apostolus: Omne quod ex fide, &c. Quare? Quia bona fecisse videntur non quaesita fide, non quaesita agnitione eius propter quem hoc fecerint A quo enim accipiet mercedem? Ab eo quem non requisiuit, quem non agnouit, cui non eredidit, quem non est confessus, non accipiet ab eo remunerationem nisi iudicium & iram & condemnationem, &c. Sicut enim nihil est delectabile hominibus sine luce, sic nihil est delectabile neque acceptum Deo absque fidei lumine. Euerie good worke, saith he, which men seeme to do, except they do it in the worship of God, in the acknowledgement and confession of God, it is but bootlesse and vaine. I will boldly say that they do all in vaine, if they do it not in faith: they do all to no purpose, except they do it in the acknowledgement of one God the Father, and in the confession of his onely begotten sonne Iesus Christ, and by the enlightening of the holy Gbost. He that doth a worke of righteousnesse being a stranger from the true worship of God, and from true faith, he doth it to no good, he doth it in destruction, it profiteth him not, it helpeth him not in the day of wrath. Whereof the Apostle is witnesse, saying, Whatsoeuer [Page 160] is not of faith is sinne. Why so? because he hath not the faith and knowledge of him for whose sake he should do it. For of whom shall he receiue reward? Of him whom he hath not sought after, whom he knoweth not, whom he beleeueth not, nor confesseth? He shall receiue no reward of him, but iudgement, and wrath, and condemnation. For as nothing is delightsome to vs without light, so is nothing delightsome or pleasing to God without the light of faith. Onely this I will adde, that God to such actions amongst the Gentiles gaue temporall rewards for temporall respects, not to shew any approbation thereof in respect of himselfe, to whom the doers thereof had no respect, but onely to entertaine the liking thereof, for the common good of mankind, and for the maintenance of ciuill order and societie, which God would vse to such ends, and in such sort as pleased him for the benefit of his Church. And therefore euen them who most excelled in the renowme and commendation of these vertues, God sometimes gaue ouer temporally also to such ends as to the world seemed vnworthie to their former life, to shew that he stood not in any sort bound to them for the vertues, if we so call them, wherein they had not respected him, in that he would neither be the defender of them in this world, nor the rewarder of them in the world to come.
17. W. BISHOP.
2 Obiection. God hath commanded all to beleeue and repent, therefore they haue naturall Free vvill, by vertue whereof being helped by the spirit of God, they can beleeue. The force of the argument consisteth in this, that God being a good Lord, vvill not commaund any man to do that, which he is no way able to do.
Answer. M. Perkins answereth in effect (for his vvords be obscure) that God commandeth that, vvhich vve be not able to performe, but that vvhich vve should do: Then I hope he vvill admit that he vvill enable vs by his grace to do it, or else hovv should vve do it? God surely doth not bind vs by commaundement to any imposble thing, he is no tyrant, but telleth vs, that his yoke is sweete, and his burthen easie.M [...]th. 1 [...]. Iohn 5. And Saint Iohn vvitnesseth, that his commandements are not heauie. He vvas farre off from thinking that God vvould tie any man by lavv, to do that vvhich he vvas altogether [Page 161] vnable to performe. This in the end M. Perkins himselfe approueth.
R. ABBOT.
Where they obiect that God commaundeth all to beleeue and repent, and therefore that all haue Free will to do that which he commandeth, M. Perkins answereth, that the argument is not good, because God by such commandements doth not shew what men are able to do, but what they should do, though of themselues they cannot do it. Which answer why M. Bishop calleth obscure, I know not, but that his head haply fell out to be somewhat cloudie when he came to consider of it. Yet he replieth; then I hope that he will admit, that he will enable vs by his grace to do it, or else how should we do it? We will admit, that God by his grace enableth whom he thinketh good, to do his commaundements for the state of his life so farre as he thinketh good, and to them onely the yoke of Christ is sweete, and his burthen easie, and his commandements not grieuous, because of himAug. de perfect. iustitia. Cui grauia sunt intelligat se nondum accepisse donum quo grauia non sint. they receiue a gift whereby they become not grieuous vnto them. And to these the vse of the law and commandements doth properly belōg, which God did not deliuer as exspecting that any man could fulfill the same,Ambr in Gaelat. cap. 3 Lex ad hoc data est, vt peccatores reos se scirent apud Deum. Manifestatu enim peccatis suis conclusi sunt vt se excusare nō possēt, sed quaererent misericordiam. &c. but thereby to bring men to the knowledge of sinne, and of condemnation thereby due vnto them, that by this meanes he might moue them whom he would call, to apprehend that meanes of saluation which he had promised in Iesus Christ; who by his spirit giuen vnto themRom. 7.22. delight in the law of God as touching the inner man, but by the rebellion of the law of sinne, are holden backe in this life from attaining to the perfect righteousnesse of the law. To the rest the law is a conuiction of sinne, no helpe of righteousnesse; whilest GodAugust. de bono perseuer. cap. 14. by vnsearchable, but iust iudgement, denieth to them that grace, which to others he vouchsafeth, becauseRom. 9.18. he sheweth mercie to whom he wil, and whom he wil he hardeneth. Albeit that man is vnable to fulfill the law, it is not any default of God, but of man himselfe, and therefore there was no cause whyAugust. de peccat. merit. & remiss. lib. 2. cap. 16. Neque peccatum erit siquid erit si non diuinitus iubeatur vt non sit. Et iterū, Quomodo non vetatur pe [...] iustitiam si peccatum est? the iust God should diminish any thing of the rule of righteousnesse, though vnrighteous man had by sinne disabled himselfe of the performance thereof; the righteousnesse of God I say required, that God should iustifie himselfe from seeming to approue any sinne by the defect of the commaundement, howsoeuer [Page 162] man could not iustifie himselfe from sinne by the keeping of it. But of the end of Gods giuing the law and the possibilitie of keeping it, there will be occasion afterwards to entreate more largely, and therefore with this briefe answer I referre that point to his due place.
18. W. BISHOP.
3. Obiect. If man haue no Free will to sinne, or not to sinne, then no man is to be punished for his sinnes, because he sinneth by a necessitie, not to be auoided.
He answereth, that the reason is not good; for, though man cannot but sinne, yet is the fault in himselfe, and therefore is to be punished. Against which, I say that this answer supposeth that which is false, to wit, that a man in sinne, 3. Pet. 3. cannot chuse but sinne: For by the helpe of God, who desireth all sinners conuersion, and thereunto affoordeth grace sufficient; a sinner in a moment, may call for grace and repent him: and so chuse whether he will sinne or no, and consequently hath Free will to sinne, or not to sinne: And that example of a bankrupt is not to purpose; for he cannot when he will, satisfie his creditors, who content not themselues with his repentance, without repay of their money, as God doth.
Now concerning the force of this argument, heare Saint Augustines opinion. De duab. animab. cont. Manich. in these words. Neither are we here to search obscure bookes to learne, that no man is worthie of dispraise or punishment, which doth not that, which he cannot do: for (saith he) do not shepheards vpon the dounes, sing these things? Do not poets vpon the stages act them? Do not the vnlearned in their assemblies, and the learned in their libraries acknowledge them? Do not maisters in their schooles, and Prelats in their pulpits, and finally all mankind throughout the whole world, confesse and teach this, to wit, that no man is to be punished, because he did that, which he could not chuse but do. Should he not then (according to S. Augustines censure) be hissed out of all honest companie of men, that denieth this so manifest a truth, confessed by all Mankind? How grosse is this heresie, that so hoodeth a man, and hardneth him, that be he learned, yet he blusheth not to deny roundly, that which is so euident in reason, that euen naturall sence doth teach it vnto shepheards. God of his infinite mercie, deliuer vs from this strange light of the new Gospell.
R. ABBOT.
As touching ciuill and outward actions, we doubt not, as before is sayd, but that God hath left a libertie and power to the will of man, and therefore iustly are they punished, who runne wilfully into enormous actions from which it is in them to forbeare. And this addeth much to the iust condemnation of man, that euen in those things wherein he hath power to do otherwise, yet he carieth himselfe frowardly and rebelliously against God. And yet of outward actions in some degree, Hierome rightly obserueth,Hieron. cont, Pelag. li. 3. Dicimus posse hominem non peccare si ve lit pro tempore, pro loco, pro imbecillitate corporea, quamdus intentus est animus, &c. Quòd si se paululum remiserit, &c. discit fragilitatē suam & multa se non posse cognoscit. that a man can forbeare to sinne if he will at a time or in some place, or by some let of bodily weaknesse, or so long as the mind is intent and heedie, but he soone findeth, that wholy not to sinne it is not possible. To speake then indefinitely of sinne, it is true that man left in the power of his owne Free will cannot chuse but sinne. For how can he chuse but sinne, who of himselfe is nothing but sinne? Yea we know, that the corruption of sinne lieth as a punishment vpon the whole nature of man, and therefore is sayd to haue befallenAugust. de nat. & grat. ca. 34. by the iust reuenge of God, and is calledIdem. de perfect. iustit. Rat. 9 Poenalis vitiositas, a poenall vitiousnesse, or subiection to sinne. Now if it be as it were a prison or punishment, it is not in our choise to be rid thereof, because a man cannot rid himselfe of a prison or punishment, which he hath drawne vpon himselfe. And therefore doth Saint Austin affirme it to beDe nat. & grat. cap. 67. ex lib. 3. de lib. arbit. cap. 18. Approbare falsa pro veris vt erret inuitus, & resistente atque torquente dolore carnalis vinculà non posse à libidinosis operibus tē perare, non est natura instituti hominis sed poen [...] damnati. the punishment of man by condemnation, to approue falshood for truth, so as to erre against his will, and being vexed with the griefe of the bond of the flesh, yet not to be able to temper himselfe from libidinous actions. Thus haue we heard him before to auouchSect. 3. a necessitie of sinning, and this necessitie he acknowledgeth in some part to continue still in the state of grace,De nat. & grat. cap. 66. alledging thereof the words of the Prophet Dauid. Psal. 24.18. De necessitatibus meis educ me: deliuer me from all my necessities. And therefore vainely doth M. Bishop except, that by the helpe of God a sinner may call for grace and repent him, and chuse whether he will sinne or no. For in men conuerted it is true that they cannot chuse but sinne; in repentant men it is still true that they cannot chuse but sinne. For the forbearing of this or that action doth not put a man in case to chuse to sinne, but though he arise one way, yet the law of sinne holdeth him still vnder a necessitie to fall another way, vntillAugust de nat & grat. cap. 66. Opitulante gratia, &c. & mala necessitas remouebitur, & libertas plena tribuetur. this euill necessitie be taken away, and full [Page 164] libertie granted, which shallIdem. in Ioan. tract. 41 Quando plena atque perfecta libertas trit? Quando nullae inimicitiae, quādo nouissimae inimica destructur mors. then be, when we shall see him face to face. Or if M. Bishop will say otherwise, let him bring vs foorth the man that can chuse to sinne; the man that can do more then euer Patriarch, or Prophet, or Apostle, or Euangelist could do. For if they could chuse to sinne, why did they sinne? or if they did not sinne, why did they say, Forgiue vs our trespasses? If he will needs follow the Pelagian deuice, that Hieron. epist. ad Cresiph: Licet alius non fuerit, tamen potest esse qui esse voluerit. though no man be indeed without sinne, yet a man may be so if he will, I will answer him with Hieromes words,Ibid. Quae est argumentatio ista, posse esse quod nunquam fuerit, &c. & dare cui libet quod in Patriarchis & Prophetis & Apostolis nequ [...]as approbare. What a reason is this, that that may be that neuer was, and that he should yeeld that to I know not whom, which in the Patriarchs, and Prophets, and Apostles he cannot proue? Repentance therefore and conuersion so altereth the course of a mans life in the maine, as that euen in the way of righteousnesse it still leaueth in him a necessitie of sinne. Neither doth this conuersion stand indifferent to all, as he dreameth, nor doth God affoord to all sinners grace sufficient to bring them to repentance. He noteth for his purpose the place of Peter, that God would not haue any to perish, &c. but let him take the whole words, and they will cleere themselues,2. Pet. 3 9. He is patient TOVVARDS VS, not willing that any (namely of vs) should perish, but that all (of vs) should come to repentance. He speaketh of Gods elect, of them whom he hath chosen to make vp the body of his Church, of whom our Sauior Christ saith,Iohn. 6.39. This is the will of the Father that hath sent me, that of all that he hath giuen me I should loose nothing, but should raise it vp at the last day. Of these he will haue none to perish, but doth patiently beare till he haue accomplished the nū ber that he hath decreed for himselfe. So did God say by the Prophet,Ezech. 33.11. As I liue, saith the Lord, I desire not the death of a sinner, but rather that he be conuerted & liue; but he said it to the house of Israel; he said it not to the Philistims; he said it not to the Babylonians, the Ammonits, the Moabits, &c. It was not for their sakes that he sware, butHeb. 6.17. willing to shew to the heires of promise the stablenesse of his counsell, he bound himselfe by an oath. Therefore to those peoples he gaue not the meanes of conuersion,Psal. 147.19. he gaue his word vnto Iacob, his statutes and ordinances vnto Israel; he dealt not so with any other nation. How then doth M. Bishop say, that God affordeth to all sinners grace sufficient for their conuersion? Will he say that the beholding of heauen and earth, and such other naturall motiues, were sufficient to bring men to repentance? He may dally with vs, that in themselues [Page 165] they were such as might sufficiently auaile to moue men; but what is that to the purpose, so long as to the state and condition of man they were not sufficient? The light of the Sunne is a sufficient light, and yet it is not sufficient to make a blind man see. What were al those motiues and occasions whatsoeuer they were, but euen as a good lesson to a dead man? And what, will he terme those meanes of conuersion by the name of grace? Away, away with this Pelagian conceipt, and let vs acknowledge the truth as S. Austin doth;August. de verb. Apost. Ser. 11. Communis est omnibus natura, non gratia: Nature is common to all, but grace is not so. It is butVidere acumē sed vitreum. Qu [...]si lucet vanitate sed frangitur veritate. a glassie tricke of wit, as he saith, to deuise a grace that is common to all: it maketh a faire shew, but it is soone crackt.
Now M. Perkins, alledging that because it is by mans owne default that he cannot chuse but sinne, therefore he is notwithstanding iustly punished, bringeth for declaration thereof the example of a bankrupt, who is not therfore freed from his debts because he is not able to pay them, but the bils against him stand in force, because the debt comes through his owne default. But M. Bishop saith, that this example is not to the purpose, because the bankrupt cannot, when he wil, satisfie his creditors, who content not themselues with his repentance, without repay of their money, as God doth. How many miles to London? a poke-full of plummes. What is this to the purpose, that God is content to remit his debtors without satisfaction? for so creditors also deale sometimes with bankrupts when they haue nought to pay: but is this any thing against that which M. Perkins saith, that by the example of a bankrupt, it appeareth that a man may iustly be punished for that which now he cannot helpe, because by his owne default he is runne into it? The creditor may remit all if he will, but otherwise the bils of debt are iustly liable against him who by default and negligence is come to that passe that he hath nothing to pay. And yet in his exception there are two absurdities implied. For it is absurd that he saith that God doth remit and pardon his debtors without satisfaction. There is no man reconciled to God, but by tendring a full and perfect satisfaction, which because he hath not to do of his owne, therefore by faith he pleadeth the payment of his suretie Iesus Christ,1. Pet. 2.24. who bare our sinnes in his body vpon the tree; that inEph. 1.7. him we might haue redemption through his bloud, euen the forgiuenesse of our sinnes. [Page 166] Now2. Thess. 3.2. all men haue not faith, and therefore all men cannot pleade this satisfaction for themselues, and yet without this faith there is no repentance that can auaile to bring vs vnto God. And seeing bothEphe. 2.8. faith andAct. 5.31. & 11 18. repentance are the gifts of God, whichAug. de praedest. sanct. cap. 6 & de bono perseuer. ca. 14. Alijs praeparatur, alijs non praeparatur voluntas à Domino. Illis qui veritatis exhortationem obedienter audiunt, ipsum donum Dei datum est, hoc est, obedientèr audire: illis autem qui non sic audiunt non est datum. he giueth to some, and to other some doth not giue, it is another point of absurdity to subiect the gift of God to the arbitrarie will and power of man, as if man haue in him to beleeue and repent whensoeuer himselfe will. But against this M. Bishop for conclusion bringeth a place of Austin against the Manichees, thatAugust. de duabus animab. cont. Manich. ca. 11. Nemo vitu [...]ratione suppliciovè dignus est qui id non faciat quod facere non potest. Nonnè ista cantant & in montibus pastores & in theatris poetae, &c. shepheards and poets, and learned, and vnlearned, and schoolemaisters, and prelats, and all mankind confesse, that no man is worthie of dispraise or punishment, which doth not that which he cannot do. Nay, to helpe the man somewhat, I will adde more out of the next chapter to that which he citeth;Ibid. cap. 12. Peccati reum teneri quenquam quia non fecit quod facere non potuit summae iniquitatis est & infantae. That a man should be holden guiltie for not doing that which he could not do, it is a point of iniquitie and madnesse to affirme. Now what a strange matter is this, that shepheards and poets, and all sorts of men, should see reason to affirme this, and yet M. Bishop perforce should be driuen to deny it? For let vs aske him in his owne profession and doctrine what he thinketh of children dying vnbaptized? He will giue vs a peremptorie answer, that questionlesse they are damned. But what haue poore infants done why they should be damned, or how could they auoid that for which they are damned? Tell vs M. Bishop, how could they chuse to be other then they be, and if they cannot chuse but be that they are, how can it stand with your rule, that they should be condemned for being that which they cannot chuse but be? Perforce he must take a fall in his owne trippe, neither can he giue an answer as touching this point, which doth not yeeld vs a full answer against himselfe. But S. Austin himselfe cleereth this point for vs, who, vsing the words cited by M. Bishop to iustifie a definition of sinne which he had set downe against the Manichees, thatIbid. cap 11. Peccatum est voluntas retinē di vel consequē di quod iustitiae vetat est & vnde liberum est abstinere. sinne is a desire of retaining or obtaining that which iustice forbiddeth, and whence it is in a mans libertie to abstaine, telleth his Reader in the perusing of that place in his Retractations, that he spake there of thatRetract lib 1. cap. 15. Id definitum est quod tā tummodo pecca tum est, non quod est etiam poena peccati. Nam quando tale est vt idem sit & poena peccati quantum est quod valet voluntas sub dominante cupiditate, nisi fortè si piae est vt oret auxilium, &c. which is onely sinne, and is not also the punishment of sinne. For in that sinne which is also the punishment of sinne, how little is it that the will can do against concupiscence or lust hauing dominion ouer it, [Page 167] and therfore by reason hereof a man cannot do that that he should do, neither can he but do that that he should not do, which yet ceaseth not to be a sinne and subiect to punishment, because he hath purchased this condition to himselfe, by the merit of a former sinne. For Adam had it in his power not to sinne, and yet did sinne by doing that which he ought not to do, and was in his power and libertie not to do, and for this cause was giuen ouer as a prisoner to sinne, that thenceforth he could not do what he ought to do, nor could chuse but do what he should not do. Therefore the same Austin asking, if that rule that he hath set downe be true, howIbid. Cur paruuli tenentur rei? Respondetur, quia ex eius origine tenentur qui non fecit quod facere potuit, diuinum scilicet seruare mandatum. infants become guiltie, and are so holden, answereth that it is by being borne of him who did not that that was in his power to do. In a word, man is not worthie of punishment for not doing that which he cannot do, except he haue disabled himselfe for the doing of it; but if he haue disabled himselfe, as indeed he hath by the first sinne, then is he iustly punished, both for not doing that which he once could, but now cannot do, and for doing that which he once could, but now cannot chuse but do. Which being a case very euident, and sundrie times deliuered by S. Austin, in retracting the like places against the Manichees, may we not wonder at the absurd folly of this man, who for conclusion braueth in his termes, as if he had caried the matter very cleere, when indeed like an ignorant cauiller, he himselfe vnderstandeth not what he saith. We respect not what natural sence doth teach to shepheards, but we cannot but thinke him an ill shepheard ouer the flocke of Christ, who taking vpon him to be a doctor of Diuinitie, is so ignorant in a principle of religion, which by the word of God euery shepheard should know. God make him wise to see his owne folly, and then he will submit himselfe in obedience to that truth which now in his ignorance seemeth vnto him a strange light of a new Gospell.
CHAPTER. 2. OF ORIGINALL SINNE.
1. W. BISHOP.
M. PERKINS FIRST CONCLVSION.
Pag 28.THey say, naturall corruption after Baptisme is abolished, and so say we: but let vs see, how farre forth it is abolished. In Originall sinne are three things. First, the punishment, which is the first and second death: second, guiltinesse, which is the binding vp of the creature vnto punishment: third, the fault, or the offending of God: vnder which I comprehend our guiltinesse in Adams first offence, as also the corruption of the heart, which is a naturall inclination and pronenesse to any thing that is euill, or against the law of God. For first we say, that after Baptisme in the regenerate, the punishment of Originall sinne is taken away:Rom. 8.1. For there is no condemnation (saith the Apostle) to them that are in Christ Iesus.
For the second, that is guiltinesse, we further condescend and say, that it is also taken away in them that are borne anew. For considering there is no condemnation to them, there is nothing to bind them to punishment. Yet this caueat must be remembred, namely, that the guiltinesse is remoued from the person regenerate, but not from the sinne in the person, But of this more hereafter.
Thirdly, the guilt in Adams first offence is pardoned. And touching the corruption of the heart, I auouch two things. First, that the verie power and strength, whereby it raigneth in man, is taken away in the regenerate. Secondly, that this corruption is abolished (as also the fault of euerie actuall sinne past.) So far forth as it is the fault and sin of the man in whom it is. Indeed it remaines till death, and it is sinne, considered in it selfe, so long as it remaines; but it is not imputed to the person. And in that respect, is as though it were not, it being pardoned. Hitherto M. Perkins.
Annotations vpon our Consents.
First, vve say not, that the punishment of Originall sinne is in it, [Page 169] or any part of it, but rather a due correction, and as it were an expulsion of it: this is but a peccadilio: but there lurketh a serpent in that caueat; that the guiltinesse of Originall sinne is remoued from the person regenerate, but not from the sinne in the person. The like he saith afterward of the fault, that it is a sinne still in it selfe, remaining in the man till death, but it is not imputed to him, as being pardoned. Here be quillets of very strange Doctrine: the sinne is pardoned, and yet the guiltinesse of it is not taken away. Doth not a pardon take away from the fault pardoned, all bond of punishment due vnto it, and consequently all guiltinesse belonging to it? Who can denie this, vnlesse he know not, or care not what he say? If then Originall sinne be pardoned, the guiltinesse of it is also remoued frō it selfe. Againe, what Philosophie, or reason alloweth vs to say, that the offendor being pardoned for his offence, the offence in it selfe remaineth guiltie? as though the offence separated from the person, were a substance subiect to law, and capable of punishment: can Originall sinne in it selfe die the first and second death, or be bound vp to them? What senslesse imaginations be these? Againe, how can the fault of Originall sinne remaine in the man renewed by Gods grace, although not imputed? Can there be two contraries in one part of the subiect at once? Can there be light and darknesse in the vnderstanding, vertue and vice in the will at the same instant? Can the soule be both truly conuerted to God, and as truly auerted from him at one time? Is Christ now agreed to dwell with Belial? and the holy Ghost content to inhabite a bodie subiect to sinne? All which must be granted contrarie to both Scripture and naturall sence, if we admit the fault and deformitie of sinne to remaine in a man renewed, and indued with Gods grace: vnlesse we would very absurdly imagine that the fault & guilt of sinne were not inherent and placed in their proper subiects, but were drawne thence, and penned vp in some other odde corner.
Remember also gentle Reader, that here M. Perkins affirmeth the power, whereby the corruption of the heart raigneth in man, is taken away in the regenerate: which is cleane contrarie vnto the first proposition of his first reason following, as shall be there proued.
R. ABBOT.
It was not M. Perkins intent here to set downe any exact or formall description of Originall sinne, but onely so to touch it, as might [Page 170] serue to leade him to the point that was to be disputed of. But out of that which he saith it ariseth, that originall sinne is a common guilt of the first sinne of man, inferring as a iust punishment, an vniuersall distortion and corruption of mans nature, and euerlasting destruction both of bodie and soule. Concerning the matter therfore he propoundeth three things in Originall sinne to be considered, the sinne, the guilt, and the punishment. Where M. Bishop being like a man of glasse, afraid of being crackt where he is not touched, would for more assurance giue vs a note, and I warrant you it is a wise one. We say not, saith he, that the punishment of Originall sinne is in it or any part of it, but rather a due correction, and as it were an expulsion of it. Where he putteth me in mind of a speech that I haue heard concerning an outlandish Mathematicke Reader, whose tongue hauing out-runne his wits, and making a discourse of he knew not what, asketh his hearers at length, Intelligitisne? Do ye vnderstād me? they answered him, No. Profectò nihil miror, saith he, neque enim ego intelligo meipsum: Marrie I do not maruel, for neither do I vnderstand my selfe. Such a lecture doth M. Bishop here reade, which no man else vnderstandeth, nor he himselfe. If he had vnderstood what Originall sinne is, and that concupiscence being a part of Originall sinne, is also a punishment thereof, (corruption of nature which is one part, arising from the guilt of the first sinne, which is the other part) he would not so vnaduisedly haue denied, that the punishment of Originall sinne is also a part thereof, especially finding S. Austin in so infinite places affirming, that concupiscence is in such sort a sinne, as that it is also a punishment of sinne; and of what sinne, but that which Adam in person committed by action, and is ours originally by propagation? But that either this punishment of Original sinne which is the corruption of nature, or the following punishment thereof, which is the first and second death, should be called expulsion of Originall sinne, we lacke some Oedipus to resolue vs: sure I am that M. Bishop vnderstood not what he said, nor can giue vs anie answer to make it good. Such learned men haue we to do with, which are so deepe in their points, that they know not what they say. Now he that vttereth such riddles himselfe, might easily pardon another man in a speech though distasting to him, yet in it selfe verie easie to be vnderstood. What a stirre doth he make at that that M. Perkins saith, that in the regenerate the guiltinesse is remoued from the [Page 171] person, but not from the sinne in the person. The meaning is plaine, that the sinne is pardoned to the man regenerate, and therfore cannot make him guiltie, but yet in it self and in it owne nature, it continueth such, as that setting aside the pardon, it were sufficient still to make him guiltie and to condemne him, as shall be afterwards auouched out of Austin, to euerlasting death. The pardon acquitteth the man, but yet it cannot alter the nature of the sinne: it setteth a barre against the effect, but take away the barre, & the cause is as strong as it was before. His idle and wast words, and fighting with a shadow, I let passe: if he were not a senslesse man, that, that M. Perkins saith in the plaine meaning thereof, would neuer seeme to him any senslesse imagination. But he goeth further; How can the fault of Originall sinne remaine in the man renewed by Gods grace, although not imputed? Why M. Bishop? what hindereth I pray you? Can there be two contraries, saith he, in one part of the subiect at once? And why not? What? hath not his Philosophie taught him, that contraries are incompatible onely in their extremes? Did he neuer reade, that contraries when they striue to expell one another, do it not in a moment, but by degrees; and though one be stronger then then the other, yet the weaker stil hath that latitude which the strō ger hath not gained? Thus are there in the regenerate man,Rom. 7.23. the law of sinne and the law of the mind, the former rebelling against the latter;Gal. 5.17. the flesh and the spirit the one contrary to the other, as the Apostle speaketh, and that in one part of the subiect, as shal appeare. Can there be light and darknesse in the vnderstanding, saith he? Why, did M. Bishop neuer reade ofZephan. 1.15. a darke day? or will he reason therof, if it be day, it cannot be darke; or if it be darke it cannot be day? And if he can see that light and darknesse may meete together in a day, can he not see that light and darknesse may also be together in the vnderstanding? One where our Sauiour Christ commēdeth the light of his Disciples;Matth. 13.16. Blessed are your eyes, for they see: another where he condemneth their darknesse,Mark. 8 18. Haue ye eyes and see not? By light of vnderstanding Peter saith,Matth. 16.16. Thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God. Blessed art thou Simon, saith Christ, for flesh and bloud hath not reuealed this vnto thee, but my Father which is in heauen. The same Peter by and by also bewrayeth darknesse of vnderstanding, giuing Christ occasion to say vnto him,Ibid. vers. 23, Get thee behind me Satan; for thou vnderstandest not the things that are of God, but the [Page 172] things that are of men. Orig. in Mat. tract. 3. Contraria sibi adhu. erant in Petro, veritas & mendaecium. De veritate dicebat, Tu es Christus, &c. Ex mendacio dixit, Propitius tibi esto &c. Contraria erant adhuc in Petro: There were contraries as yet in Peter, saith Origen, truth and falshood: he spake by truth one way; he spake by falshood another way. In a word the Apostle telleth vs, that1. Cor. 13.9.12 we know but in part, we prophecie but in part, we see through a glasse darkly, or as the maisters of Rhemes translate it, in a darke sort. How can that be, but that there is still some darknesse in the vnderstanding which yet in part hath receiued light? He goeth further, Can there be vertue and vice in the will at the same instant? Yes M. Bishop, for whatsoeuer is wanting of perfect vertue,August. epist. 29. Id quod minus est quàm debet, ex vitro est. ex vitio est, saith S. Austin; it is by reason of vice. So long therefore as there is not perfect vertue, there is vice remaining together with vertue. The inner man wherein is the will of man, is renewed as the Apostle telleth vs, from day to day. S. Austin verie rightly argueth thereof,August. de peccat. merit. & remiss. lib. 2. cap. 7. Qui de die in diē reneu [...]ur, nondum totus est renouatus, & inquantum nondū est renouatus, intantum adhu [...] in vetustate est. that he that is renewed from day to day, is not yet all renewed, and therefore in part he is old stil. Now from what is he renewed but from vice, and whereto is he renewed but to vertue? If then the will be not yet wholy renewed to vertue, then vice as yet in part remaineth with vertue in the will, from whence as yet in part the will remaineth to be renewed. Therfore our wil carieth vs still contrarie wayes;Idem in Ioan. tract. 81. Al [...]ud volumus quia sumus in C [...]risto, & aliud volumus quia sumus adhuc in hoc seculo. One way we will because we are in Christ: another way we will because we are still in the world. Therfore the Apostle calling the Corinthians Saints, yet anone after telleth them, that they are carnall and walke like men. Therefore our Sauiour saith to his Disciples one where,Iohn. 15 3. Ye are cleane by the word that I haue spoken vnto you. Another where he saith:Math. 7 11. You being euill do know to giue good gifts to your children. Yet againe, Can the soule be truly conuerted to God, saith he, and as truly auerted from him at one time? No M. Bishop: but yet in the soule conuerted to God, remaineth a part of that infection, wherebyGen. 19.26. Lots wife being gone out of Sodome, looked backe to the place from whence she came; so thatAugust. Enchirid. cap. 64. Sic spiritu Dei excitantur & tanquā filij Dei prof [...]tiū [...] ad Deū vt etiam Spiritu suo maximè aggrauante corruptibili corpore tā quam si [...] hominum quibusdam moribus [...]umanis deficiant ad seipso [...], & ideb peccēt the children of God albeit they be moued by the spirit of God, and as the children of God do go forward towards God, yet by their owne spirit, as the children of men, through some humane motions, they fall backe to themselues, and thereby commit sinne. Therefore they of whom we cannot doubt but that they were conuerted vnto God, yet found somewhat in themselues, for which they saw that they had cause stil to prayPsal. 85.4. Lament 5.21. to be conuerted. Againe, Is Christ, saith he, agreed to dwell with Belial? We answer him, No:2. Cor. 6.15. there is no agreement betwixt Christ and Belial, [Page 173] and therefore doth Christ come to dwell in vs, that Belial may be dispossessed & driuen out. And therforeBernard. in Cantic. Serm. 6. Vbi peccatum remittitur, ibi proculdubio diabolus de corde peccatoru expellitur. Et Aug. contra Iulian. lib. 6. cap. 8. Expulsio daemoniorum est remissio peccatorum, &c. where there is (by Christ) forgiuenesse of sinnes, the diuel without doubt is expulsed out of the heart of the sinner. But yet there remaine still the venimous feedes of his planting,August. de nat. & grat. cap. 66. Certamen est aduersus tentatorem de ipsa cō tra nos necessitate pugnantem. a necessitie of sinne, by the aduantage whereof this tempter fighteth against vs: Bernard. in Cantic. Ser. 58. Velu nolu, intra fines tuos habitat Ie [...]usaeus: subiugari potest sed non exterminari [...] will we, nill we, this Iebusite for the time dwelleth within our borders: he may be subdued, but he cannot vtterly be destroyed. Last of all, Is the holy Ghost, saith he, content to dwell in a bodie subiect to sinne? Againe we answer him, No: forRom. 6.12. sinne doth not reigne in the bodies of the faithfull, that they should be subiects vnto it, in obeying the lusts thereof. August. in Ioan. tract. 41. Quamdus viuit necesse est esse peccatum in mē bris iuis. For so long as they liue, sinne must needs haue a being in them; it is tempting, it is entising, it neuer ceasseth vrging and prouoking frō day to day: but yetRom. 8.2. the kingdome thereof is abolished, because the law of the spirit of life hath freed them from the law (that is, the kingdome and power) of sinne and of death. But if he meane subiect to sinne, of the hauing of sinne, then the Apostle telleth him,Rom. 7.14. I am carnall, sold vnder sinne, Vers. 23. a captiue vnto the law of sinne that is in my members, so that1. Ioh. 1.8. if we say we haue no sinne, we deceiue our selues, and there is no truth in vs. So then some of his collections we denie, not being consequents of our doctrine, but his owne vaine and idle amplifications: the rest that are direct to the point we affirme, as I haue declared, and whatsoeuer his naturall sconce conceiueth thereof, the Scripture iustifieth, that the fault and deformitie of sinne (though not in former degree) remaineth in a man renewed and endued with Gods grace. And what doth he thinke of himselfe I maruell? is he a man renewed and endued with Gods grace? What, and no fault? no deformitie of sinne remaining in him? no spot? no wrinkle? We wonder that a troupe of Angels cometh not from heauen to applaud him, and to conuey him as a great iewell out of the world. But had he grace to know himselfe, he would soone perceiue, that this fault of sinne is not penned vp in an odde corner of him, but possesseth all his corners, and spreadeth it selfe as an infection ouer the whole man. And surely he that well considereth this booke of his, will be of opinion, that doubtlesse there is some deformed matter in him, that could yeeld so much absurditie and vntruth as he hath contained therein. As for his Remember, he telleth vs that we shall meete with it againe, and therefore I will referre it to his due place.
3. W. BISHOP.
Let vs now come vnto the difference which is betweene vs. The Catholikes teach, that Originall sinne is so far foorth taken away by Baptisme, that it ceasseth to be a sinne properly: the effects of it remaining, are an imperfection and weakenesse, both in our vnderstanding and will, and a want of that perfect subordination of our inferiour appetite vnto reason, as was, and would haue bene, in Originall iustice: which make the soule apt and readie to fall into sinne, like vnto tinder, which although it be not fire of it selfe, yet is fit to take fire: yet say they, that these reliques of Originall sinne be not sinnes properly, vnlesse a man do yeeld his consent vnto those euill motions. Maister Perkins teacheth otherwise. That albeit Originall sinne be taken away in the regenerate in sundrie respects, yet doth it remaine in them after Baptisme, not onely as a want and weakenesse, but as a sinne, and that properly, as may be proued by these reasons,1. Rom. 7. S. Paul saith directly: It is no more I that do this, but sinne that dwelleth in me, that is, Originall sinne; The Papists answer, That it is called there, sinne improperly, because it cometh of sinne, and is an occasion of sinne. I approue this interpretation of S. Paul, as taken out of that ancient and famous Papist S. Augustine, who saith expresly: Lib. 1 contr duas Epist. Pelag. c. 10 Concupiscence, (whereof the Apostle speaketh) although it be called sinne, yet it is not so called because it is sinne, but for that it is made by sinne: as writing is called the hand, because it is made by the hand.Lib. 1. de nuptijs & Concup. c. 23. And in another place repeating the same, addeth: That it may also be called sinne, for that it is the cause of sin: as cold is called slouthful, because it makes a man slouthfull: so that the most profound Doctor S. Augustine is stiled a formall Papist by M. Perkins, and shall be as well coursed for it by the plaine circumstances of the place: For, saith he, that S. Paul there takes sinne properly, appeares by the words following, That this sinne dwelling in him, made him to do the euill which he hated. How proues this, that sinne there must he taken properly? it rather proues, that it must be taken improperly: for if it made him do the euill which he hated, then could it not be sinne properly: for sinne is not committed, but by the consent and liking of the will: But S. Paul did not like that euill, but hated it, and thereby was so farre off from sinning, that he did a most vertuous deed in resisting and [Page 175] ouercoming that euill. As witnesseth Saint Augustine, saying: Reason sometimes resisteth manfully, and ruleth raging concupiscence;Lib. 2. de Go [...]. cont. Mani [...]. cap. 14. which being done, we sinne not, but for that conflict are to be crowned.
The first circumstance then alledged by M. Perkins, doth rather make against him, then for him.
R. ABBOT.
M. Perkins alledging the words of S. Paul,Rom. 7.17. It is no more I that do it, but sinne that dwelleth in me, thereby to proue that concupiscence in the regenerate still retaineth the nature of sinne, saith that the Papistes answer that it is called sinne there improperly, because it cometh of sinne, and is an occasion of sinne. M Bishop saith, that he approueth this interpretation, as taken out of that ancient and famous Papist S. Austin, and addeth, that the most profound Doctor S. Austin is by M. Perkins stiled a formall Papist. But he speaketh this out of a weake head and shallow wit, that cannot vnderstand so profound a Doctor as S. Austin is. What S. Austins opinion was as touching this point, we shall examine hereafter in the ninth section, where occasion is more fully offred to speake thereof; in the meane time that S. Austin was no Papist, is plainly shewed in theAphrican. Cō cil. cap. 101. 105. Affricane Councell, where were assembled two hundred and seuenteene Bishops of those parts, and Austin one of them, to whom Boniface the first, then Bishop of Rome, sent his Legates, desirous to haue an oare in their boate, and chalenging to himselfe a supremacie ouer their Churches. But they all with one consent (let him remember that Austin was one of them) resisted this proud attempt, and whereas the Bishop of Rome alledged & shewed the Nicene Canons yeelding him that supremacie, they smelling his fraud, and perceiuing that he had falsified and corrupted the Canons, sent as to others, so namely to the Patriarches of Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople, for the certain & vndoubted copies therof. Vpō the sight whereof this peece of knauery being discouered, they wrote backe first to Boniface, and after to Celestinus, that they would not admit any such iurisdiction; that they would end their causes within thē selues; that they wold allow of no appeales to the bishop of Rome; and wished him, that he would thencefoorth forbeare to trouble [Page 176] them any more with his Legates. Wherein they crossed a speciall point of Poperie, which is the maine prop of all the rest: and this act of theirs was held to be so preiudiciall to the Sea of Rome and authoritie of the Pope, as thatBonifac. 2. Epi. ad Eulal. Concil. tom. 2. Aurelius Carthaginensis Ecclesiae olim Episcopus cum collegis suis instigante Diabolo superbire temporibus praedecessorum nostrorum Bonifacij atque Celestini contra Romanam Ecclesiam coepit. Boniface the second affirmed, that in pride they did that which they did against the Church of Rome, by the instigation of the diuell. It appeareth then hereby, that S. Austin was no Papist, neither was he so, as shall appeare in that point which we haue here in hand. In the meane time against the answer of the Papists, that sinne is improperly taken by the Apostle, when he calleth concupiscence by the name of sinne, M. Perkins alledgeth the circumstance of the place, as first that S. Paul saith, that this sinne dwelling in him, made him do the euill which he hated. Where to proceed orderly, and to giue light to his whole disputation, it is first to be resolued what concupiscence is, and what sinne is, for verie vncertainly shall we argue that concupiscence is sinne, vnlesse by definition of both we make it appeare how they accord in one. By concupiscence therefore we vnderstand the remainder of the originall corruption of nature, after baptisme, in the state of regeneration and new birth. For man by nature is wholy vncleane and sinfull, there is nothing in him but that that is euill, nothing butRom. 8.7. enmitie against God. Whence it is that Chrysostome saith, thatChrysost. op. imperfect. in Mat. hom. 3 [...]. Omnis homo naturaliter non solùm peccator est, sed etiam totum peccatum. Idem habet ex varijs in Mat. locis homil. 23. man naturally is not onely a sinner, but also wholly sinne, andJbid. op imperf. homil 24. Homo omnia mala haebet in se. hath in him all manner of euil. Now this corruption which naturally ouerfloweth and drowneth the whole man, by the spirit of regeneration is abated, and the strength thereof broken, but so, as that still there remaineth a grieuous infection of it, which continually crosseth and resisteth the worke of the holy Ghost, and1. Pet. 2.11. fighteth against the soule, by soliciting & enticing it vnto sinne. In this remnant of corruption which we call by the name of concupiscence or lust, we are to consider both the habite, which is the confirmed euill qualitie, and also the immediate actions, and affections, and motions thereof. ForAugust. contr. Julian. Pelag. lib 6. cap. 8. Praeter istum motum inest [...]omi [...]i malum, vnde surgit hic motus. beside the euill motion, as S. Austin saith, there is within an euill, from whence this motion doth arise. And this euill continueth when there is no act or motion thereof; as when a man is asleepe, and the mind & thought no way stirreth, yet the inward corrupt qualitie sticketh still, euen as a man is truly said to beJbid. Sicut inest timiditas ho mini t [...]ido etiā quando ne sumet timorous & fearfull, when yet for the present time he feareth nothing. Now the question here is of both these, both the sticking euill qualitie, and the first and immediate [Page 187] motions and stirrings thereof, before they be apprehended and consented vnto by the will. For many times euill cogitations and thoughts arise in the heart, which yet a man checketh, and for which he is grieued at himselfe, and reproueth himselfe, and by no meanes will yeeld way vnto them. Of these therefore together with the fountaine whence they spring, the controuersie is, whether they do properly vndergo the name of sinne. Now what sinne is, the Apostle Saint Iohn briefly instructeth vs, saying, that1. Ioh. 3.4. sinne is the transgression of the law. His word is [...], which signifieth all priuation or defect, whereby we come short of that that is commaunded or required by the lawe. To which purpose the Apostle Saint Paule telleth vs, thatRom. 3.20. by the lawe is the knowledge of sinne, and thatCap 7.7. he had not knowne sinne, but by the law. For how is sinne knowne by the lawe, but by that we vnderstand it to be sinne, whatsoeuer declineth or swarueth from the lawe, euen as the Apostle for example addeth, that he had not knowne lust to be sinne, except the lawe had said, Thou shalt not lust, presuming it as graunted, that it is sinne whatsoeuer is forbidden by the lawe. And this the Apostle Saint Iohn further confirmeth, in that he saith, that1. Ioh 5.17. all vnrighteousnesse is sinne. For what is vnrighteousnesse, but the transgressing of the lawe, which is the rule of righteousnesse? If then all vnrighteousnesse be sin, and all transgression of the lawe be vnrighteousnesse, then all transgression of the lawe is sinne. The heathen Orator Tully could say, thatTul. Paradox. 3. Est peccare tanquam transire lineas. peccare, to sinne, is as a man would say, to go without, or beyond the bounds or lines. We are listed and bounded by the lawe of God: it draweth vs lines, within the compasse whereof we are to keepe our selues. What is it then to sinne with vs, but to breake the bounds prescribed vnto vs, and to go beside that which we are directed by the law? Therfore saith Origen Origen. in Ro. cap 7. Peccati natura hac est, si fiat quod lex fieri vetat. This is the nature of sin, if any thing be done, which the law forbiddeth to be done. Oecumenius out of the ancient Commentaries of the Fathers saith to the like purpose, thatOecum. in 1. Joan cap. 3. Conueniunt inter se, & circa idem sunt. Rectè discipulus Domini vtrunque in idē commutauit. sin and transgression of the law do agree together, and that rightly S. Iohn did make them both one. SoGrego. Moral. lib. 11. cap. 21. Inter peccatum & iniquitatem nihil distare perhibet Ioannes, qui ait; peccatū est iniquitas. Gregorie Bishop of Rome calling transgression of the law by the name of iniquity, as the vulgar Latin translateth it, saith, that betwixt sin and iniquity, that is, betwixt sin and the transgression of the law, S. Iohn doth witnesse that there is no difference. In like sort Bede saith, thatBeda in 1. Ioā. 3. Omne quod ab aequitatis ratione discrepat in peccatis numeratur. all that swarueth from the rule of righteousnesse is sinne. Caesarius the brother of Gregory Nazianzene telleth vs, thatCaesar. dialog. 3. apud Nazianz. Peccatum mihi esse videtur omnis aduersus virtuum resistende co [...]atus & repugnantia. he taketh [Page 188] it, that sinne is all assay of resistance, and all repugnancie against vertue. Saint Austine saith, thatAug. de nat. & grat cap. 14. Ideo est peccatū quia non debet fieri. therefore a thing is sinne, because it ought not to be done, and that Contra Iulian. lib. 4. cap. 3. Qui malè facit aliquid profecto peccat. to do any thing amisse, is to sinne. Againe he definethAugust. cont. Faust. Manich. lib. 22. cap. 27. Peccatum est factum, vel dictū, vel concupitum, aliquid contra legem aeternam. sinne to be euery thing that is said, or done, or coueted against the euerlasting law of God. Yea Thomas Aquinas saith, thatThom Aquin. 1. 2. q. 109. art. 4. in corp. Nihil est aliud peccare quàm transgredi diuina mandata. to sinne is nothing else but to transgresse the commandements of God. In a word, the curse of God belongeth to nothing saue to sinne onely. But the curse of God belongeth to euery swaruing from the law of God: forGal. 3.10. cursed is he that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the lawe to do them. Therefore euery swaruing from the lawe of God is properly and truly reckoned to be sinne. And surely this is a truth so apparant and euident, as that we may wonder, not at the blindnesse, (for vndoubtedly they see it well enough) but at the extreame peruersenesse and impudencie of the Papists, that so stiffely stand in the deniall thereof. Now then the question being whether concupiscence or lust in it selfe be sinne in the regenerate man, the resolution is very readie and plaine, and the answer manifestly apparant, that because euery diuerting or swaruing from the lawe is sinne, therefore concupiscence must necessarily be sinne, in as much as it is a declining from the lawe, saying: Thou shalt not lust. And therefore doth the Apostle say, that he knew lust to be sinne, (as before was noted) because the law sayd, Thou shalt not lust. He calleth and tearmeth it sinne againe and againe, so as that we may wonder, that he should call it sinne, sinne, and yet his meaning should be, that it is not sinne. For as Tertullian saith:Tertul. aduers. Hermogen. Acuius habitu quid diuertit, pariter & à vocatu eius recedit: Looke from the being and nature whereof a thing departeth, it departeth also from the name and calling thereof. If therefore concupiscence had lost the nature of sinne, it should consequently also be depriued of the name. But now whereas M. Perkins alledged the words of the Apostle, that sinne dwelling in him, made him to do the euill which he hateth, M. Bishop telleth vs, that contrarie to M. Perkins purpose and intention, those words do proue, that sinne must be there taken improperly. And how so I pray you? For (saith he) if it made him to do the euill which he hated, then could it not be sinne properly; for sinne is not committed but by the consent and liking of the will. Where by Aequiuocation of tearmes, he meerely abuseth his Reader. For the committing of [Page 189] sinne is properly vnderstood of the externall act and accomplishment thereof, and this indeed cannot be without the consent and liking of the will. But the doing euill of which the Apostle speaketh, is no externall act, but onely the internallAugust. contr. duas Epist. Pela. lib. 1. cap. 10. Facere se dixit non affectu consentiendi & implendi, sed ipso motis concupiscendi. motion of concupiscence. For we may not vnderstand the Apostles words of doing the euill which he hated, and doing that which he would not, Idem de verb. Apost. Ser. 5. Non sic intelligamus quod dixit, Non quod volo, &c tanquā velit esse castus, & esset adulter, aut velit esse misericers, & esset crudelis, aut velit esse pius, & esset impius, sed volo non concupiscere & concupisco. Vide Epiphan. haer. 64. as if he had said, he would haue bene chast, and yet was an Adulterer; or would haue bene mercifull and yet was cruell: or would haue bene godly, and yet was vngodly, or such like: but his meaning is, Ʋolo non concupiscere, & concupisco: My will and desire is to haue no act, no motion of concupiscence, and yet I haue so. I would not haue so much as any cogitation, any affection, any thought, any inclination or passion of desire tending to euill, and yet I cannot preuaile to be without them. Now therefore M. Bishop did amisse to breede ambiguitie by chaunging of the tearmes, and to put vpon the Apostle a suspition of other meaning then indeed he had. But if his meaning be as it should be, that no euill can be done, which may truly be called a sinne, without the consent and liking of the will, he saith vntruly, and doth therein but walke in the steppes of the Pelagian Heretickes. Saint Austine answered them, and we answer him, thatDe perfect. iustit. Rat. 15. Peccatum est, cùm non est chaeritas quae esse debet, vel minor est quàm debet, siue hoc voluntate vitari possit, siue non possit. it is sinne, when either there is not charity, which ought to be, or it is lesse then it ought to be, whether it may be auoyded by the will, or cannot be auoyded: that is to say, whether it be with the will or against the will. And whereas he had defined sinne against the Manichees to beDe duab. anim. contr. Manich. cap. 11. See of Free wil sect 18 the desire of retaining or obtaining that which iustice forbiddeth, and whence it is in a mans liberty to forbeare, as if there were no sinne but what the will by it owne libertie doth approue and yeeld vnto, he sheweth that he there defined,Retract. lib. 1. cap. 15. that which is onely sinne, and is not also the punishment of sinne. So hauing affirmedDe vera reli. cap. 14. Vsqueadeo peccatum voluntarium ma lum est, vt nullo modo sit peccatū, si non sit voluntarium. that in no sort it is sinne which is not voluntarie, he giueth the same restraint againe, thatRetract. lib. 1. cap. 13. Peccatū illud cogitandū est, quod tantummodo peccatum est, non quod est etiam poena peccati. that sinne onely must there be vnderstood, which is onely sinne, and is not also the punishment of sin: as therby stil giuing to vnderstand, that that sinne which is the punishment of sinne, as is concupiscence or lust, is rightly and truly so called, though it haue not the consent and approbation of the will. It wasJbid. Non absurdè vocatur etiam voluntarium, quia ex primi hominis mala voluntate contractum, factum est quodammodo haereditarium. voluntarie onely by the will of him, by whom sinne was first committed, and from him it is become originall and hereditarie [Page 190] vnto vs. M. Bishops exception therefore is nothing woorth, neither doth it let, but that concupiscence being a part of Original sin, is properly called sinne in the regenerate, though it be without the consent and liking of the will. He saith, that because the Apostle hated it, therfore it is no sin: but we say, that therfore the Apostle hated it, because it is sin. For the Apostle hated it according to God, neither wold he hate any thing but what God hateth. And God hateth nothing in man but sin: that therfore which the Apostle hated in himselfe was sin: yea what is it to do euill, but to sinne? The name of euill we know, is vsed of annoyances and inconueniences, of crosses & grieuances, but the doing of euill is neuer affirmed but of sin. Now to lust, the Apostle telleth vs, is to do euill. To lust therfore is to sinne. And because the act and motion of lusting is sinne, therefore the habite of concupiscence or lust is a habite of sin also, because the action alwaies hath his nature and denomination from the habit and quality from whence it doth proceed. Yet M. Bishop saith, that the Apostle therin was so farre from sinning, as that he did a most vertuous deed, in resisting and ouercoming that euill. But the Scripture calleth the resisting of that euill, Heb. 12.4. the fighting against sinne, and will M. Bishop say, that because we fight against it, therfore it is not sin? See what accord here is. The Scripture saith, that it is sinne against which we fight: M. Bishop saith, that we do a vertuous deed in fighting against it, and therfore it is no sin. As for the place of S. Austin, it helpeth him nothing at al. Reason somtimes manfully bridleth and restraineth concupiscence, being moued or stirred: which when it doth, non labimur in peccatum, we fall not into sinne. Which is not a rule in the regenerate onely, but also in the vnregenerate, so that heathen Moralists for the auoiding of sins, haue deliuered it for a precept,Tul. Offic. l. 1. Ratio praesit, appetitus obtemperet: Let reason rule, and let lust obey. Yea that moralisme which S. Austin prosecuteth in the place alledged, comparing pleasure or temptation to the tempting serpent, concupiscence to Eue the woman, & reason to Adam the man, was borrowed frō the allegories ofPhilo Iud. Allegor. legis lib. 1. &. 2. Philo the Iew, who would thereby shew, that concupiscence should be kept in from being tempted, and though by temptation it were seduced, yet that reason should subdue it, that it might not runne to any further euill, as it desireth to do. Now when this is done by [...] [...]nregenerate man, and either a Iew or a heathen man bridle his passions and affections, that thereby he fall not into sin, [Page 191] will M. Bishop conclude hereof, that those passions and affections which he bridleth are no sinne? He will not deny the same to be sinne in the vnregenerate man, and yet S. Austines words so farrefoorth do indifferently concerne both. He vnderstandeth sinne morally onely, and as it is reputed with men, who account no sinne at all, but either in the performance of the act, or in the resolution and purpose of the will. We fall not into sinne, that is, into any morall or actuall sinne, into any outward sinne, euen in the like sort as S. Iames saith, thatIam. 1.15. concupiscence when it hath conceiued, bringeth foorth sin, when yet he did not meane, but that concupiscence also it selfe is sinne, as shall afterwards appeare.
3. W. BISHOP.
Now to the second. O wretched man that I am, who shall deliuer me from this body of death? Here is no mention of sinne: how this may be drawne to his purpose, shall be examined in his argument where he repeateth it: so that there is not one poore circumstance of the text which he can find, to proue S. Paule to take sinne there properly. Now I will proue by diuers, that he speakes of sinne improperly.
First, by the former part of the same sentence: It is not I that do it, all sinne is done and committed properly by the person in whom it is: but this was not done by S. Paul. ergo.
Secondly out of those words: I know there is not in me, that is in my flesh, any good: And after: I see another law in my members, resisting the law of my mind. Thus: sinne properly taken is seated in the soule: but that was seated in the flesh, ergo it was no sinne properly.
The third and last is taken out of the first words of the next Chapter: There is now therefore no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus, that walke not according to the flesh, &c. Whence I thus argue: there is no condemnation to them, that haue that sinne dwelling in them, if they walke not according vnto the fleshly desires of it: therefore it is no sinne properly: For the wages of sin is death, that is, eternall damnation.
R. ABBOT.
Now to the second, saith he, and when he hath done, saith nothing of it, but putteth it ouer to the handling of the argument, and therfore [Page 192] there will we also examine his examination. But though he shift off the one circumstance with ignorance, and the other with saying nothing, yet as if he had very effectually done what he pretendeth, he inferreth, that not one poore circumstance of the text could be found to proue, that S. Paule tooke sinne there properly, marry he will bring vs diuers, to proue that he taketh sin improperly. Wel then, let vs see what these diuers proofes be: we doubt they are like his answers; the one very bad, and the other starke naught. First he will proue it by the former part of the sentence, It is not I that do it. All sinne (saith he) is committed properly by the person in whom it is: but this was not done by S. Paule, ergo. But we deny his minor proposition, and it is altogether absurd and senslesse. How should concupiscence do any thing in S. Paule, which is not done by S. Paule? Can the accident of the person be an efficient cause of any thing by it self without the person? The accident is but the instrument of the person, and what the accident doth, the person doth it by the accident. And therefore accordingly S. Paule saith,Rom. 7.14.23 I am carnall sold vnder sinne: I do that I would not: the law of my members leadeth me captiue to the law of sinne: I in my flesh serue the law of sinne: [...]; euen I my self in my mind serue the law of God, and in my flesh the law of sinne. This S. Austine well obserued:August. de verb. Apost. Ser. 5. Adhuc concupisco, & vtique etiam in ipsa parte ego sum. Non enim ego alius in mente & alius in carne. Sed quid igitur ipse ego? Quia ego in mente, ego in carne: ex v troque vnus homo. Igitur ipse ego, ego ipse mē te seruio, &c. Euen in that part that lusteth, it is I also: for here is not one I in the mind, and another in the flesh. Why doth he say, I my selfe, but because it is I in the mind, and I in the flesh, euen one man of both these. Therefore I my selfe, euen I my selfe in mind serue the law of God, but in my flesh the law of sinne. But yet though being but one and the same person, he diuideth himselfe as it were into two parts, being in part renewed, and in part yet continuing old. And hereupon he saith, It is not I that do it, that is, not I according to that that is renewed in me: and yet I according to that whereby I am still carnall and sold vnder sin: not I according to the inner man, wherein I delight in the law of God, and yet I according to the flesh whereby I am still captiue to the law of sinne: of which flesh I say not I, because I account my selfe that that I ioy to be, and which I shall euer be, not that which though it be my selfe, yet is that I would not be, and which I labour not to be, and therefore striue to destroy and put off, as being without it to liue for euer.Ibid Mens regit, caro regitur, & magis sum ego in eo quo rego, quàm in eò in quoregor. I may rather say, I, in that wherein I rule, then in that wherein I am ouerruled; therefore I say, it is not I that do it, and yet it is I in both. M. Bishop [Page 193] therefore by his first circumstance proueth iust nothing, and euen as little proueth he by the second. Which he taketh out of those words,Ver. 18. I know that in me, that is, in my flesh dwelleth no good thing: and after, I see another law in my members resisting the law of my mind. Hereof he argueth thus: Sinne properly taken is seated in the soule, but that was seated in the flesh, ergo it was not sinne properly. Which is the same as if a man would argue thus, that the true Pope hath his consistorie chaire in Rome, but the Pope that now is hath his consistorie in the Laterane Church, therefore he that now is, is not the true Pope. For what is flesh as the Apostle speaketh thereof, but a part of the soule; the soule it selfe, so farre as yet in part it is not regenerate? What, is M. Bishop so absurd, as to thinke concupiscence to be seated in the flesh, as the flesh is diuided against the soule? Nay, the soule it selfe hauing cast off the yoke of obedience to God, and betrayed it selfe to the temptations of the diuell for the gratifying and pleasing of the flesh, is become a seruant to that that should haue bene a seruant vnto it, and being abiected to sensuall, and carnall, and earthly desires, is wholy called by the name of flesh, to whose seruice it doth addict it selfe. Thus saith Origen, thatOrigen. de princip. lib. 3. cap. 4. Anima cùm crassioris sensus fuerit effecta ex eo quòd corporis passionibus se subdit, &c. caro dicitur effecta, & inde nomen trahit, in quo plut studij vel propositi gerit. the soule being become of more grosse disposition, by yeelding it selfe to the passions of the bodie, is said to be become flesh, and taketh the name of that on which it bestoweth it most desire. And againe:Jdem in Psal. 38. hom. 2. Animas nostras incarnauimus: We haue turned our soules into flesh. So saith Austine, thatAugust. de ciuit. Dei. lib. 14. cap. 2. Saepe ipsum hominem, id est, naturam hominis carnem nuncupat. Et post: In operibus carnis inuenimus illa quibus animi vitia significantur à voluptate carnis aliena. the Scripture calleth man himselfe, that is, the nature of man, by the name of flesh: and calleth those the workes of the flesh, which yet are the proper vices of the mind, and belong not to that which we properly call the flesh. And so doth God himselfe say of man wholy, thatGenes. 6.3. he is flesh, and our Sauiour in the Gospell opposing flesh to the spirit, Ioh. 3.6. That which is borne of the flesh, is flesh; and that that is borne of the spirit, is spirit, giueth to vnderstand, that all goeth vnder the name of flesh, that is not borne againe and renewed by the spirit. Now therefore as touching concupiscence, Saint Austine telleth vs, thatAug. de perf. Iustit. Rat. 17 & contr. Julian. lib. 5. cap. 5. Quia carnaliter anima concupiscit. it is said that the flesh lusteth, because that the soule lusteth according to the flesh. Yea Cyprian doubted not to say,Cyprian. in Prolog. de cardinal. Christi operibus. Quód caro aduers. spiritum & spiritus aduersus carnem contendere dicitur, & repugnare impropriè dictum arbitror, quia solius animae lis ista est qua secum rixatur, &c Et paulo prius: Corpore sic vtitur anima, sicut Faber malleo vel incude in qua format omnium turpitudinum idola, & fabricatur quaelibet quarumcunque voluptatum simulachra. Non est caro dictatrix peccati, nec inuentrix malitiae, nec cogitatus format, nec disponit agenda, sed officina est spiritus, qui mea & per eam quaecunque affectauerit, peragit, & consummat. that he held it to be vnproperly said, that the flesh lusteth against the spirit, because it is [Page 194] the soule onely that is at strife with it selfe. For the flesh is no directer of sinne, no deuiser of wickednesse: it frameth not the thought, nor disposeth what shal be done, but is as the shop or workhouse of the soule, which in it and by it performeth whatsoeuer it desireth: vsing the body as the Smith doth his hammer or anuile, framing therupon the idols of vncleanesse and pleasure. Seeing therefore, as here it is plaine, concupiscence is seated in the soule, which for the corruption thereof is called by the name of flesh, so that the Apostle by flesh in himself meaneth nothing but the soule according to the remainder of original infection, which still did sticke fast vnto him, M. Bishop by his second circumstance proueth nothing, but that concupiscence is truly & properly affirmed to be sin. Which had bene very readily to haue bene perceiued by any man, if he had framed his argument as he shold haue done: Sinne properly taken is seated in the soule; but concupiscence is not seated in the soule: for this euery man would haue presently seene to be absurd. But he to blind his Reader chose rather to say, Concupiscence is seated in the flesh, wheras notwithstanding the flesh as it is the seate of concupiscence cannot haue any reasonable vnderstanding but of the soule. But now the third circūstance I trow will do the deed. That he taketh out of the first verse of the eight Chapter. Now there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus, that walke not after the flesh. Whence, saith he, I argue thus: There is no condēnation to them that haue sinne dwelling in them, if they walk not according to the fleshly desires of it, therefore it is no sinne properly: for the wages of sinne is death, that is eternall damnation. As if he should say, God for Christs sake doth not impute this sinne, therefore it is no sinne. God to them that are in Christ doth pardon this sinne, ergo, it is not properly sinne. And so he might likewise argue of Dauids adulterie, Peters denying & abiuring of his maister, Pauls persecuting of the Church, that none of these were properly sins, because to thē being in Christ, there is no condematiō for any of these things. Such drunken sophistrie are we troubled with, and drawne by the importunity of ignorant buzzards to spend time in the refuting of such arguments as rather deserue to be chastened with a whip, then to be graced with an answer. The matter is plaine to thē that are willing to vnderstand. There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus; it is true: and yet who is there of them that are in Christ Iesus, but confesseth vnto God, that there is that [Page 195] in him for which he might iustly be condemned? To them that are in Christ, for Christs sake it is forgiuen and pardoned: it is not imputed vnto them; but it is still such, as if it were imputed, it should be sufficient to condemne them to euerlasting death. Therfore the Apostle saith of concupiscence, not for his consenting to it, which he disclaimeth, but for the hauing of it dwelling in him, thatRom 7.11. it slue him, thatVers. 13. by the commaundement it wrought death in him, that by it he hadVers 24. a body of death. How so, but that knowing that the wages of sinne is death, he knew himselfe thereby in case of death, if God should deale with him for it as in extremitie, and yet in iustice he might do. Therefore doth S. Austin say, that euen in the regenerateAugust. cont. Iulian. lib 6 cap. 5 Tale ac tam magnum malum tantum quia inest quomodo non teneret in morte & pertraheret in vltimam mortē, nisi & vinculum eius in ea quae est in Baptismo peccatorum omnium remissione solu [...] retur. concupiscence is such and so great an euill as that onely because it is in them, it should hold them in death, and draw them to euerlasting death, but that the bond of the guilt thereof is loosed in Baptisme by the forgiuenesse of all our sinnes. It is therefore such in it selfe to which death is due, but yet to them that are in Christ it proueth not vnto death, because it is forgiuen vnto them for Christs sake. Thus we haue seene an end of M. Bishops circumstances, and nothing yet to proue, but that concupiscence by the Apostle is properly called sinne. And to proue that it is so, because he saith there is not 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,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 [...]. 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, thatIren. 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 [Page 196] 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. [...]. Cor. 15. If in this life onely we were hoping in Christ, we were more miserable then all men: not that [Page 197] 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 [Page 198] commandement,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 becauseAugust. de perfect iustis. Rat. 17. Cùm est aliquid concupiscentiae carnalis quod velcōtinendo fraen [...]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 soule (for how can God haue all the soule, so long as concupiscence hath any part?) therfore in the remainder of any matter of concupiscence, there is sinne; becauseIbid. Rat. 15. it is sinne when either there is not loue at all, or it is lesse then it should be, and it is lesse then it should be, when it is not with all the soule. Therefore doth S. Austin define sinne to beAd Simpl [...]. quaest. 2. Est piccatu [...]a hominis mordinatio atque peru [...]rsita [...]d est, à prae [...]amiore conditore auersio & ad cond i [...] [...]ife. [...]ra conuersio. hominis inordinatio atque peruersitas: a disordered and peruerted condition of man. Of man he saith, not only of the will of man, and therefore if in man there be any disordered, or mis-conditioned affection, the same is sinne. But concupiscence which is a rebellion of the law that is in the members, against the law of the mind, is a disorder in man, and therefore necessarily must be holden to be truly sinne. A second errour he committeth, in that making concupiscence onely the materiall part of sinne, he appropriateth it to the inferiour, sensuall and brutish parts and faculties of the nature of man, and to the resistance thereof against the superiour and more excellent powers of the will, and reason, and vnderstanding, whereas concupiscence truly vnderstood importeth the vniuersall habite of auersion from God, and a corruption spred ouer the whole man, and defiling him in all parts and powers both of body and soule. And therefore doth the Apostle expound the conuersation in or according to the lusts or concupiscences of the flesh, to beEphes 2.3. the fulfilling of the will of the flesh and of the minde, which he could not do, but that concupiscence signifieth also the prauitie and corruption of the mind, euen as the Apostle S. Peter also maketh it the fountaine of all2. Pet. 1.4. the corruption that reigneth in the world. And thus amongst the workes of the flesh, which are the fruits and effects, and as it were the streame of that fountaine of corruption, are reckoned those things which haue their proper seate and being in the highest parts of the soule, as areGal 5 20.21. idolatrie, heresie, witchcraft, enuie, hatred, pride, which being acts of concupiscence and sinfull lust, yet are so farreAugust. de cui Dei lib. 14. cap. 2, & 3. from being tied to [Page 199] the inferior parts of the soule which haue their occupation properly in the flesh, as that some of them, and that specially pride and enuie are noted to be the sinnes of the diuell, who hath no communion or societie with the flesh, and therefore in the name and nature of concupiscences, are meerely the vices and corruptions of the mind. Yea S. Austin acknowledgeth, thatIdem. Retract. lib. 1. cap. 15. Ipsae cupiditas nihil aliud est quam voluntas sed vitiosa peccatoque seruiens concupiscence is nothing else but the will of man corrupted and seruing sinne, and that the temptation of concupiscence is nothing else butDe bono perseuer ca. 6. Qui in tentationem suae mala voluntatis non insertur, in nullam prorsus infertur. Vnusquis (que) enim tentatur à concupiscentia sua, &c. the temptation of a mans owne euill will. So saith S. Bernard, Bernard. in Can [...]. ser. 81. Voluntate persisto agere contra legem. Nam mea voluntas ipsa est lex in membris meis, legi diuinae recal [...]itrans. Mihi ipsi mea ipsius voluntas contraria inuenitur. It is in my will that I continue to do against the law of God, for mine owne will is the law in my members rebelling against the law of God; mine owne will is found contrarie to my selfe. Whereby it appeareth, that concupiscence which is that rebelling law of sinne, is a deprauation of the will also, and not to be restrained to the brutish and sensuall affections of the inferiour part. Nay Hierome noteth, that it signifiethHieron. ad Alagas. quaest. 8. Nos per concupiscentiam omnes perturbationes animae significatas putamus, quibus maeremus, & gaudemus, timemus & concupiscimus. all the passions or perturbations of the soule, whereby we ioy or sorow, feare or desire, which are holden to beAugust. de ciuit. Dei lib. 14. cap. 3. Origines, omnium peccatorum atque vitiorum. the originals and beginnings of all sinnes and vices, which although Poets and Philosophers haue taken to arise of the flesh, yetIbid. Non omnia vitae iniquae vitia tribuenda sunt carni, ne ab his omnibus purgemus diabolum qui no [...] habet carnem. Christian faith, saith Austin, teacheth otherwise, that we are not to attribute these vices of euill life altogether to the flesh, that is, to the sensuall part, least that of all the sinnes thereof we acquit the diuell, because he is without flesh. Another errour of his is, that he maketh the priuation of Originall iustice, and auersion of the will to be the principall matter of Originall sinne. For the principall matter in Originall sinne, is the1. Retract. lib. 1. cap. 15. Peccatum eos dicimus ex Adam originalitèr trahere, id est, eius reatu implicatos & ob hoc poenae obnoxios deteneri. guilt of Adams sinne, Bernard. in aduent. dom. ser. 1. Jn Adam omnes peccauimus, & in illo sententiam damnationis accepimus omnes. in whom we all haue sinned, and in him haue all receiued the sentence of damnation. For that must be accounted the principall which is the cause of all the rest; and it is the guilt of the first sinne that is the cause of whatsoeuer further sinne originally cleaueth to vs, which together with death it selfe is the punishment of that first sinne. His fourth error is as touching the cure of Originall sinne, which he maketh to be such, as if Originall iustice were wholy restored, and all auersion of the will from God wholy taken away. Which is so palpably false, as that we may wonder that he had so little feeling of conscience, as that for shame he would write it to the world. For if there be that [Page 200] cure that he speaketh of in the Baptized, how is it that there is so little effect or token thereof? How is it that after Baptisme there remaineth so great crookednesse & peruersenesse of nature, which we find commonly to be no lesse then from the beginning men haue complained of? How is it that it isCyprian de Cardinal. Christi operib. in Prologo Ommno rarum est & difficile fieri bonum: facile & pronum est esse malum, & haec sine magi stro, sine exemplo doctrina statim à pubescent [...]bus annu imbuimur & docemur. so rare and hard a matter to be trained to goodnes; so easie and ready a matter to become naught? that to the one we attaine with much difficulty, albeit we vse al the good helpes thereto that may be vsed; the other is so familiar to vs, as that without any teacher, without any example to instruct vs, we can learne it of our selues? Why doth he vtter these absurd paradoxes so contrarie to the common sence and experience of all men? It is true that in Baptisme there is a medicine applied for the curing of this Originall maladie, which medicine taketh effect according to the purpose of the grace of God. It doth not by and by worke in all; it worketh in some sooner, in some later, as he thinketh good to giue it effect, by whom it was first applied. Sometimes after many yeares he maketh the same workefull by his effectuall calling, which from infancie hath lien as it were fruitlesse, as if it neuer had bene done. But when it doth worke, it worketh not all at once; it worketh but by degrees; it hath still somewhat2. Cor. 4.16. to renew from day to day, and neuer effecteth a full and perfect cure so long as we liue here. This followeth afterward to be proued at large, and therefore I will but briefly propound it in this place. Now all these fancies hath M. Bishop vttered in answering the first point of M. Perkins his argument. Let vs now come to the second point. M. Perkins saith, that concupiscence maketh a man to sinne. M. Bishop saith, it doth not make a man to sinne vnlesse he consent vnto it. But the Apostle telleth vs, that concupiscence doth make a man to do euill, and it hath bene shewed that that euill is sinne, euen before there be giuen any consent vnto it. This euill consisteth in euill motions and thoughts, Ephiphan. haer. 64 Origen. Obrepunt circa cor nostrum etiā non volentibus nobis, &c. which arise in vs whether we will or not, neitherAmbr. de fuga seculi lib. 1 ca. 1. Non in potestate nostra est cor nostrū & [...]ostrae cogitationes quae improuitò offusae mentem animū (que) confundunt atque aliò trahunt quàm tis proposueris, &c. Ipso in tempore quo cleuare mentem paramus, insertis inanibus cogitationibus ad terrena plerunque deijcimur. Et paulo prius; vt quod studeas vi tare, hoc cogites animo (que) volu [...]s. are our harts and thoughts in our owne power for the auoiding therof, but that euen vnawares they ouercast the mind, and throw it downe to the earth whilest it is tending towards heauen, and that runneth in the fancie which we make speciall labour to put out. Yea oftentimes they grow to that absurditie and wickednesse, as that we could not beleeue but vpon our owne experience, that there were in vs so corrupt a spring, as to yeeld so lothsome and filthie streames; which [Page 201] make the true faithfull man ashamed of himselfe, and to condemne himselfe in the sight of God, howsoeuer nothing thereof appeare to the eyes of men. But with M. Bishop these things are nothing; he will neuer crie God mercie for any such, because he hath therein done him no trespasse; yea the Trent Councell telleth vs, that herein isConcil. Trident Sess. 5. In renatis nihil odit Deus; nihil eos ab ingressu coeli ramoratur. nothing that God hateth, nothing that hindereth vs from entring into heauen. Which seeing God requireth all the thought to be bestowed in his loue, and thereby denounceth it to be a sinne to haue any of our thoughts wandering away from him, these men would neuer thus affirme and teach, but thatRom. 11.8. a spirit of slumber hath closed their eyes, that they see not that truth, against which they haue resolued to bend themselues. The third point of M. Perkins argument is, that concupiscence intangleth a man in the punishment of sinne. This M. Bishop saith, is contrarie to that that he had sayd before, that the guilt of Originall sinne is taken away in the regenerate. But here is no contrarietie, because in the continuall rebellion of concupiscence, a mans conscience seeth punishment, thereby due vnto him if God should require the same, but yet by faith comforteth himselfe, that it is remitted vnto him for Christs sake. And that which M. Perkins spake, he spake it out of the Apostles words, who of concupiscence saith, thatRom. 7.13. it wrought death in him, that is, made him in himselfe guiltie of death, and thus intangled him in the punishment of sinne, although in Christ he saw deliuerance, becauseCap. 8.1. there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus. Let M. Bishop therefore discharge M. Perkins of the lie, and take the whetstone to himselfe, as being farre more iustly due vnto him. The last point of the argument is, that concupiscence maketh a man miserable,, taken out of the words of the Apostle,Rom. 7.24. Wretched man, or miserable man that I am, who shall deliuer me from the bodie of this death, or from this body of death? M. Bishop hereto answereth, that miserable is vnderstood two maner of waies, either by being in disgrace with God, or by reason of the danger of sinne, and the miseries of this world. But of the danger of sinne the Apostle acquitteth himselfe,2. Tim. 4.18. The Lord will deliuer me from euerie euill worke, and will preserue me vnto his heauenly kingdome, andRom. 8.39. neither things present, nor things to come shall separate vs from the loue of God. As for the miseries of this world, they are here drawne in by head and shoulders, there being here no shew of any [Page 202] matter that should moue the Apostle thus to complaine in respect thereof. But the thing is plaine, that he calleth himselfe miserable, as S. Austin plainely teacheth, by reason ofAgust. con. Iulian. lib 6. cap. 7. No [...]nè [...] [...]onced [...]s hominem miserū quicunque ille fuerit aduersus talem clamasse qu theatem, velle adiacet mihi, &c. (qua voluntas bona aut non ibi sit aut valere nihil possit.) an inward euill qualitie whereby the will being good could not auaile to do the good that he would. He calleth himselfe miserable, by reason of that from which he desired to be deliuered, which is the body of death. Now the body of death is that which before he hath calledRom. 6.6. the body of sinne, and elsewhereCol. 2.11. the body of the sinnes of the flesh. By the body of sinne is vnderstood concupiscence, which is as a body consisting of many members and parts, which are the diuerse lusts of diuerse sinnes, and thereby is a body of sinnes, euen consisting of all maner of sinnes. For we may not here vnderstand the body properly as of the body which dieth, as if the Apostle had desired a dissolution and end of life, becauseAugust. de perfect. iustit. Rat. 17. De corpere mortis huius non omnis liberatur qui finit hanc vitam. euery one that dieth is not thereby deliuered from the body of death. ForDe nat. et grat. ca. 55. De corpore mors corporis separat, sed contracta exillo vitia cohae [...]ent quibus iusta poena debetur. the death of the body separateth (the wicked) from the body, when yet the vices and sins thereby gathered do sticke fast, to which iust punishment remaineth due. Therfore when he praieth to be deliuered from this body of death, Ibid. De vitijs corporis dicit, he meaneth it of the vitious affections of the body. De Temp. ser. 45. Per concupiscentiam dictū est hoc nostrum mortis corpus. By concupiscence is it that this our body of death is so called. So Oecumenius saith, that the Apostle desireth to be deliuered from Oecumen in Ro. ca. 7. Ex corporalibus actio nibus spiritualem mortem inducentibus: à concupiscentijs quae in corpore sunt quaeque mors nobis sunt. the concupiscences which are in the body, and which are death vnto vs, and do cause a spirituall death. Origen ibid. Corpus mortis appellatur in quo habitat peccatū quod mortis est causa. It is a body of death, saith Origen, wherein sinne dwelleth which is the cause of death. Ambrose saith, that the Apostle calleth his body a body of death, Ambros. apud Aug. cont. Iuliā. lib. 2. Omnes homines sub peccato nascimur quorum ipse ortus in vitio est, &c. Ideò Pauli caero corpus mortis erat. &c. because we all are borne vnder sinne and our very beginning is in trespasse, acknowledging as touching the corruption of sin, that what it was in the beginning, the same in part it continueth still. Epiphanius or rather Methodius saith, that the Apostle here meanethMethod. apud Epiphan. haer. 64. Non corpus hoc mortem sed peccatum inhabitans per concupiscentiam in corpore dicit &c. sinne dwelling by concupiscence in the body from the bad imaginations & thoughts whereof he wished to be deliuered, accounting the same death and destruction it selfe. Bernard saith, that it wasBernard. in Cant. ser. 56. Jpsa est carnis concupiscentia, &c. Hoc sanè vnointeriecto pariete non longè peregrinabatur à Domino. Vnde & optabas, clamans, Quis me liberabit, &c. the law of sinne, euen concupiscence standing as a wall betwixt God and him, that made him crie out, who shall deliuer me from the body of this death? In concupiscence then standeth this body of death, and because by this body of death it is that the Apostle calleth himselfe miserable, it is concupiscence that [Page 203] maketh him miserable, which therfore S. Austin callethAugust. de Tempore ser. 45. miseram legem, the miserable law of sin, not as being it self capable of misery, but per metonymiam, because it maketh vs miserable, or because we are miserable by it. Thus therfore the Apostle acknowledgeth himselfe miserable in himself, not as holding himselfe to be in disgrace with God, but as finding in himself that for which he deserueth so to be, and should be, but that God in Christ is mercifull vnto him, not to impute the same. And what is it but a miserie, to haue as it were a filthy carion tied fast to him, still breathing out noysome stinke? to be continually troubled with an importunat enemy, giuing him no rest, & wearying his soule from day to day? nay, to cary about with himIdem. cont. Iulian Pelag. lib. 2. Exercitum quē dam variarum cupiditatum intra semetipsum debellabat. euen an army of diuerse and sundry lusts, drawing one this way, and another that way, fighting against him on the right hand and on the left, bereauing him of his ioy, whilest in most earnest meditations they cary him away whether he will or not from that wherin his delight is. If outward crosses do make a man miserable, much more this inward destraction & affliction, which galleth the strings of the hart, & vexeth the very spirit and soule, more then the bitternesse of death it selfe. If M. Bishop knew this affliction, he would thinke there were cause enough therein to make him crie out, Miserable man that I am, &c. But his benummed heart feeleth it not, and therefore he speaketh of these matters but as a Philosopher in the schooles, without any conscience or sence of that he saith, and to a formall argument, as he calleth it, giueth these mis-shapen and deformed answers.
5. W. BISHOP.
Now to the second. Infants Baptized, die the bodily death before they come to the yeares of discretion: but there is not in them any other cause of death, besides Originall sinne, for they haue no actuall sinne: and death is the wages of sinne, as the Apostle saith, Rom 5. & Rom. 5. death entred into the world by sinne.
Ans. The cause of the death of such Innocents, is either the distemperature of their bodies, or externall violence: and God who freely bestowed their liues vpon them, may when it pleaseth him as freely take their liues from them, especially when he meanes to recompence them with the happie exchange of life euerlasting. True it is, that if our first parents had not sinned, no man should haue died, but haue bene both long preserued in Paradise, by the fruit of the wood of life, and finally translated without [Page 204] death into the Kingdome of heauen: and therefore is it sayd most truly of S. Paul,Rom. 5. Rom. 6. Death entred into the world by sinne. But the other place, The wages of sinne is death, is fouly abused, for the Apostle there by death vnderstandeth eternall damnation, as appeareth by the opposition of it to life euerlasting: and by sinne there meaneth not Originall, but actuall sinne, such as the Romans committed in their infidely, the wages whereof, if they had not repented them, had bene hell fire: now to inferre that Innocents are punished with corporall death for Original sinne remaining in them, because that eternall death is the due hire of actuall sinne, is either to shew great want of iudgement, or else very strangely to peruert the words of holy Scripture. Let this also not be forgotten, that he himselfe acknowledged in our Consent: that the punishment of Originall sinne was taken away in Baptisme from the regenerate: how then doth he here say, that he doth die the death for it?
R. ABBOT.
The example of infants dying after Baptisme before they come to yeares of discretion, is rightly alledged to proue that sinne remaineth after Baptisme, because where there is no sin there can be no death. To this M. Bishop sendeth vs a most pitifull and miserable answer, that the cause of the death of infants is not sin, but either the distemperature of their bodies or externall violence. Thus he would maintain a priuiledge to infants against the words of S. Iohn, 1. Ioh. 1.8. If we say we haue no sinne, we deceiue our selues; that they may say, we say we haue no sinne, and we do not therein deceiue our selues: and though we die, yet it is not by reason of sin that we die, but either by the distē perature of our bodies, or externall violence. But if M. Perkins had sayd as he might haue sayd, Infants after Baptisme are subiect to distemperature of body, and externall violence, and death following, all which are the proper effects of sinne; therefore they are not without sinne, in what a wofull case had M. Bishop bene, and how had he bene put to his shifts to deuise an answer. Surely S. Austin saith, thatAu [...]ust. in Psal. 37. Non aliquid patimur in ista vita n si ex illa morte quā m [...]ruimus primo peccato. we suffer not any thing in this life, but by reason of that death which we deserued by the first sinne. And so saith Origen verie rightly, thatOrigen. in Leuit hom. 3. Nobis homini [...]us vel mors velreliqua omnis fragilitas in carne ex piccati conditione superducta est. death and all other frailtie in the flesh, was brought vpon vs by the condition or state of sin. Therfore distemperature, and weaknesse, and sicknes, and suffering of externall violence, are no lesse arguments of sinne then death it selfe, and how then doth he make [Page 205] these the causes of death without sinne, when they are no otherwise the causes of death but by reason of sinne? But he addeth further, that God who freely bestowed their liues on them, may when it pleaseth him as freely take their liues from them. But yet if there be no sin, and if it be as the Trent Councell saith, that there is nothing in them that God hateth, nothing that hindereth them from entring into heauen, why then doth God without cause take away their life, and not rather without death receiue them vnto himselfe? why doth he not immediatly2. Cor. 5 4. cloth them vpon that mortality may be swallowed vp of life? This is a mysterie to M. Bishop, & he cannot tel what to say therof. But the dying of baptized infants, sheweth that there is still in thē a corruption of flesh and bloud, by which the sentence of the Apostle taketh hold of them,1. Cor. 15.50. flesh and bloud cannot inherite the kingdome of God, neither shall corruption inherite incorruption. The cause of their death is the putting off of this corruptiō, the dissolution & full mortification of the body of sin, that this slough being cast off, and mortalitie changed into immortalitie, & corruption into incorruption, they may be fit for the inheritance of the kingdome of God. Thus Epiphanius bringeth in Methodius disputing against Proclus the Origenist, thatEpiphan. haer. 64. ex Methodi [...]. In auxiliaris medicamenti modū ab auxiliatore nostro & verè medico Deo ad eradicationem peccati ac deletionem assumptae est mors, &c. Instar medicamentariae purgationis mortem Deus benè inuenit quo sic omnino inculpabiles & innoxij inueniamur, &c. videtur velut siquis summus opifex statuam pulchram ex auro aut alia materia à se constructam rursus conflet mutilatam repentè conspicatus à pessimo quodam homine, &c. God as the true Physition hath appointed death for a medicinable purgation for the vtter rooting out and putting away of sinne, that we may be made faultlesse and innocent; and that as a goodly golden image sightly and seemely in all parts, if it be broken and defaced by any meanes, must be new cast and framed againe for the taking away of the blemishes and disgraces of it, euen so man, the image of God, being maimed and disgraced by sinne, for the putting away of those disgraces, and the repairing of his ruines and decayes, must by death be dissolued into the earth, thence to be raised vp againe perfect and without default. Now if M. Bishop will not learne it of vs, yet let him learne it of these ancient Fathers, that sin is the cause of death, euen in them to whom notwithstanding it is forgiuen & pardoned for Christs sake. But he goeth further, True it is that if our first parents had not sinned, no man should haue died, but both haue bene long preserued in Paradise by the fruit of the wood of life: and finally translated without death into the kingdome of heauen. But since they haue sinned, what? Marry it is most truly said by S. Paul, Death entred into the world by sinne. Well then, if it entred by sin into the world, doth it continue in the world by any other thing then by which it first entred? Nay, as it [Page 206] entred by sinne, so sinne is the onely cause of the continuing of it, and without sinne there is no death: in the failing of the cause must needs be a surceasing of the effect. Now to shew that death is the proper effect of sin, M. Perkins alledgeth the words of the Apostle, The wages of sinne is death. But M. Bishop saith, that this place is foully abused by him. And why so? Forsooth the Apostle here by death meaneth eternall damnation. And what then? Doth he therfore not meane bodily death also? Surely the Apostle alludeth to that that God sayd to our father Adam in the beginning:Gen. 2.17. In the day that thou shalt eate of that forbidden tree, thou shalt die the death, thereby threatning vnto him both the first and second death. And in that meaning hath the Apostle spoken of death in the chapter going before, that by sinne came death, &c. Therefore M. Bishops great maister Thomas Aquinas telleth him, that when the Apostle immediatly before saith, the end of those things is death, he meaneth by deathTho Aquin. in Rom. cap 6. Peccata [...]e se nata sunt in [...]iucere m [...]tem tē poralem & eterna [...]. Et [...]o [...]arg. finis peccati mori tam temporalis quàm aeterna. both temporall and eternall death. Another exception is, that sinne is here taken onely for Actuall sinne; which is a fiction meerly absurd and vaine. For it is a proposition vniuersall concerning all sinne, and so vsed vniuersally by all writers; and if it be true of Actuall sinne, that the wages of sinne is death, much more is it true of Originall sinne, which is the filthie and corrupt fountaine whence all actuall sins do spring. And that we may know that M. Bishop himselfe is of no other mind, he himselfe hath vsed it in the section next saue one before this, concerning Originall sinne, arguing that if Originall sinne were properly sinne in the regenerate, then it should cause death vnto them, because the wages of sinne is death. Whereby it appeareth, that he speaketh but at all aduenture, and to serue the present turne, without any conscience or regard of that he speaketh, whether it be true or false. He hath bene brought vp in Bellarmines schoole, and of him hath learned to care no further, but onely to say somewhat, though it be starke naught. Now for conclusion of this point he saith, Let not this be forgotten, that he himselfe aknowledged in our Consent, that the punishment of Originall sinne is taken away in Baptisme from the regenerate. True, and what then? How then, saith he, doth he say here, that he doth die the death for it? But he saith not so, neither is it so: for if he should die the death for Originall sinne, he should die also the eternall death, which notwithstanding by Christ is taken away. This [Page 207] death therefore to the regenerate is not in the nature of a punishment, but rather of a medicine, as hath bene alreadie sayd, for the vtter dissoluing, and mortifying, and destroying of the body of sinne, that onely righteousnesse may liue in them. It followeth as a wages of sinne according to the words of the Apostle in it owne nature due vnto it, though now payed for other end then it was before.
6. W. BISHOP.
M. Perkins third reason: That which lusteth against the spirit, and by lusting tempteth, and in tempting intiseth and draweth the heart to sinne, is for nature sinne it selfe: but concupiscence in the regenerate is such: Ergo
Answ. The first proposition is not true: for not euery thing that intiseth vs to sinne, is sinne: or else the Apple that allured Eue to sinne, had bene by nature sinne: and euerie thing in this world one way or another tempteth vs to sinne: according vnto that of S. Iohn:1. Epi. 2. All that is in the world, is the Concupiscence of the flesh, and the Concupiscence of the eyes, and Pride of life: So that it is very grosse to say, that euery thing which allureth to sinne, is sinne it selfe, and as wide is it from all morall wisedome to affirme, that the first motions of our passions be sins. For euen the very heathen Philosophers could distinguish betweene sudden passions of the mind and vices: teaching that passions may be bridled by the vnderstanding, and brought by due ordering of them into the ring of reason, and so made vertues rather then vices. And that same text which M. Perkins bringeth to perswade these temptations to be sinnes, proues the quite contrary. God tempteth no man;Iacob. 1. but euery man is tempted, when he is drawne away by his owne concupiscence, and is allured: after when concupiscence hath conceiued, it bringeth forth sinne: Marke the words well. First, Concupiscence tempteth, and allureth by some euill motion, but that is no sinne, vntill afterward it do conceiue, that is, obtaine some liking of our will, in giuing eare to it, and not expelling it so speedily as we ought to do the suggestion of such an enemie: the which that most deepe Doctor. S. Augustine, sifteth out very profoundly in these words: When the Apostle S. Iames saith,Lib. 6. in Jul. cap. 5. euery man is tempted, being drawne away and allured by his Concupiscence, and afterward Concupiscence when it hath conceiued, bringeth forth sin: Truly in these words, the thing brought forth is [Page 208] distinguished, from that which bringeth it forth. The dam is concupiscence, the fole is sinne. But concupiscence doth not bring sin forth, vnlesse it conceiue, (so then it is not sinne of it selfe) and it conceiueth not, vnlesse it draw vs, that is, vnlesse it obtaine the consent of our will, to commit euill. The like exposition of the same place, and the difference betweene the pleasure tempting, that runneth before, and the sin which followeth after, Lib. 4. in Iohan. cap. 15. vnlesse we resist manfully, may be seene in S. Ciril, so that by the iudgement of the most learned ancient Fathers, that text of S. Iames cited by M. Perkins, to proue concupiscence to be sin, disputeth it very soundly: to that reason of his, Such as the fruit is, such is the Tree: I answer, that not concupiscence, but the will of man is the Tree: which bringeth forth, either good or bad fruit, according vnto the disposition of it: concupiscence is only an intiser vnto bad.
R. ABBOT.
Against M. Perkins first proposition, M. Bishop saith, that not euery thing that entiseth vs to sinne is sinne. But therein he saith vntruly, if he meane as he should do, of that that is in man himselfe. It is generally true that there is nothing that tempteth or entiseth to sinne, which hath not it selfe the nature of sinne, either as the subiect or as the thing it selfe, so that concupiscence because it cannot be said to be the subiect, must necessarily be holden to be sin it selfe. His exceptions to the contrarie are very fond. First, that then the apple that allured Eue to sinne had bene by nature sinne: and secondly, that euery thing in the world one way or another tempteth vs to sinne. But where hath he euer read, that the apple, if it were an apple, tempted or intised Eue? Did the apple any thing more then it did before, or was it any other then it was before? Surely there was no change in the apple, but the change was in her selfe, and therfore as it did not tempt her before, so neither could it be sayd to tempt her in that temptation. And what is this, but to make God the tempter, who was the maker of the apple, contrary to the words of S. Iames, thatIam. 1.13. God tempteth no man to euill? Which we must likewise say of all other things in the world, if it be true that M. Bishop saith, that they tempt vs to sinne. For though God himselfe immediatly do not tempt vs, yet if the creatures of the world do tempt vs, the accusation redoundeth to him, because in the creatures there is nothing but his worke. They are faire & beautifull, they are pleasant to sight [Page 209] and vse, but do they therfore tempt to sinne? Did the Sun tempt the heathen idolaters to worship it? Did2. Sam. 13.2. Thamar tempt Ammon to filthines, orDan. 13.8. Susanna the wicked elders? Nay, as S. Iames telleth vs, it is our own sinful lust that tempteth vs to abuse the good creatures of God, which thēselues tēpt vs not, but rather as S. Paul teacheth vs,Rom. 8.22. they grone and trauaile in pain, because Vers. 20. they are subiect to our vanity, and therforeVers. 19.21. wait when the sons of God shalbe reuealed, that they may be deliuered from the bondage of our corruption, into the glorious liberty of the sonnes of God. But he alledgeth to his purpose the words of S. Iohn: All that is in the world is the concupiscence of the flesh, and the concupiscence of the eyes and pride of life. Where if we consider the Apostles words as they lie, we shall see how iustly it may be returned to himselfe, which a little before he said of M. Perkins, that either he sheweth great want of iudgement, or else very strangely peruerteth the words of holy Scripture. The thing that he hath to proue, is that euery thing in this world tempteth vs to sin, The words of S. Iohn are,Iohn. 2.16. All that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, the pride of life, is not of the Father, but of the world. He speaketh of the things of the world which are of the Father, because they are his creatures: S. Iohn speaketh of the things of the world, which are not of the Father. He speaketh of the world, which is the creature and frame of heauen and earth, & all things therein: S. Iohn speakethAugust. cont. Iulian. lib. 4. cap. 13. Nouimus Ioannem non mundum istum, id est, coelum & terram & omnia quae in eo substā tialiter sunt, reprehendisse cum diceret. Omnia, quae in mundo sunt, &c. not of the world in that meaning, but of the world of mākind corrupted & defiled with sinne, according to which the vnregenerate are calledLuk. 16.8. the children of this world, and as our Sauiour Christ saith, thatIohn. 7.7. the world hated him because he testified of it, that the workes thereof are euill. And doth he not then, thinke you, bring vs a good proofe, that euery thing in the world tempteth vs to sinne? The meaning of S. Iohn is plaine, that in the world, that is to say, in the men of this world, there is nothing but corruption, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, the pride of life, and the following of all these, all which are not of the Father, nor haue accord with him, but are of men themselues, & perish together with themselues. What is this then but profanely and lewdly to abuse the word of God, thus to cite it to proue a falshood, when it hath not so much as any shew of that for which it is cited? If it be grosse to say, that whatsoeuer allureth to sinne is sinne, I am sure it is much more grosse, that he hath sayd for the disprouing of it. He addeth further, that it is as wide from all morall wisedome to affirme [Page 210] that the first motions of our passions be sins. But we iudge not of these things by morall wisedome, which is the wisedome of this world, because1. Cor. 1.21. the world by it owne wisdome knoweth not God in the wisdome of God; we esteeme hereof, as God by the foolishnesse of the Apostles preaching hath taught vs to beleeue. And out of their preaching we haue learned to say as S. Austin did, thatAugust. cont. Iulian. lib. 4. cap. 2 Ipsa per se ipsā libido rectissimè omnino suis ipsis motibus accusatur quibus ne excedat obsistitur. lust it selfe by it selfe is very iustly accused or blamed in the very motions of it, wherein it is resisted that it exceed not, and thatIbid. li 5. ca. 5. Quantumlibet in isto conflictu superiores simus, &c. tamen ipsis certè nostrae cogitationis motibus & affectibus si dixerimus quia peccatum non habemus, &c. howsoeuer in this conflict of the spirit against the flesh we get the better, yet if in the very motions and affections of our thought we say that we haue no sinne, we deceiue our selues, and there is no truth in vs. But saith he, heathen Philosophers could distinguish betweene sudden passions of the mind and vices. But what is it to vs what heathen Philosophers haue distinguished, seeing Christian Philosophers haue taught vs to cal these passions,See after Sect. 9. vices, inward vices, vitiousnesse, vitious affections, vitious concupiscences, or lusts? Let M. Bishop follow Philosophers if he please; as for vs we say in these questions of Diuinitie, as Tertullian sayd, thatTertul de praescript. adu haeret. philosophia temeraria interpret diuinae naturae & dispositionis. philosophie is but a sawcie interpreter of Gods nature and disposition, & that Philosophers areIdem. cont. Hermogen. Haereticorum patriarchae philosophi. the patriarches of heretikes. We take our instructions out of Solomons porch, not out of the porch of Zeno; from Hierusalem, not from Athens; and there we haue learned to call it sinne whatsoeuer swarueth from the law of God, as before hath bene declared. Yea but M. Bishop will proue out of that very text which M. Perkins alledgeth, that concupiscence is not sinne. Iam. 1.14. Euery man, saith S. Iames, is tempted when he is drawne away by his owne concupiscence, and is allured: afterward concupiscence when it hath conceiued, bringeth forth sinne. Marke well the words, saith he. First concupiscence tempteth and allureth by some euill motion, but that is no sinne, vntill afterward it do conceiue. But how doth he proue that by any argument out of S. Iames his words? What, is it not sin because S. Iames doth not expresly call it sin? Why then neither shall the consent be sin, because S. Iames expresseth the consent first, and afterwards inferreth the bringing forth of sinne. But though S. Iames do not call it expresly sinne, yet S. Paul doth. For what S. Iames speaketh of concupiscence, stirring vp euill motions, and thereby tempting and entising, the very same S. Paul expresseth in these words,Rom. 7.8. Sinne wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. Which is the same as if he should haue said, that concupiscence which is the habite of sin, did stir vp in him [Page 211] all maner of euill motions and affections to tempt him thereby. The same Apostle saith,Cap. 6.12. Let not sinne raigne in your mortall bodies, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof, calling it by the name of sin, where it raigneth not, nor is obeyed in the lusts of it. He distinctly noteth sinne, and the lusts of it, and the obeying, that is, consenting to those lusts, and so plainely sheweth, that in the roote, and from the beginning it is sinne. Thus the faithfull elsewhere are warned to take heed not to be hardenedHeb. 2.13. by the seducing (or deceitfulnesse) of sinne, where it is also plaine, that it is sinne which seduceth and enticeth, euen as the Apostle saith,Rom 7.11. Sinne seduced me (or deceiued me) and thereby slue me, giuing to vnderstand, that these seducings and enticings, that is, the first motions of concupiscence, are so farre sin, as that thereby he felt himselfe in himselfe to be but a dead man. Thus the Apostle S. Paule thwarteth all that M. Bishop gathereth out of S. Iames his words, but yet the most deepe Doctor S. Austin sifteth out the matter very profoundly for him. And indeed he sifteth well, but leaueth to M. Bishop nothing but the very branne.Aug. contra Iulian. lib. 6. cap. 5. Profectò in his verbis, partus à pariente distinguitur. Pariens est cōcupiscentia, partus peccatum. Sed concupiscentia non parit nisi conceperit. Nec concipit nisi illexerit, hoc est, ad malum perpetrā dum obtinuerit volētis assensum. In these words (saith he) the birth is distinguished from that that bringeth foorth. That that bringeth foorth is concupiscence, the birth is sinne. But concupiscence bringeth not foorth except it conceiue. So then, saith M. Bishop) it is not sinne of it selfe. But we deny his argument: for a mother bringeth foorth a woman, and yet she her selfe is a woman also. A woman bringeth not foorth a woman, except she first conceiue, and yet she is a woman before she do conceiue, and sinne bringeth not foorth sinne, except by consent it first conceiue, and yet it is sinne before conception. There is nothing in Saint Austins words, but standeth well with that that before hath bene said, that concupiscence being the habite of sinne, doth by gaining the consent of the will, bring foorth actuall and outward sinnes, which is the true meaning of that place of Iames. And that he did not otherwise conceiue, but that concupiscence is sinne, M. Bishop might very well haue seene, if he had but read the words a few lines before the place which he citeth, where speaking of the same being in vs, he saith,Jbid. Non tan tùm inesset, verùm & granitèr obesset; nisi reaetus qui nos obstrinxerat per remissionem peccatorum solutus esset. It should not onely be in vs, but also greatly hurt vs, but that the guilt thereof is acquitted by the forgiuenesse of our sinnes. We would haue M. Bishop tell vs, how it should hurt vs if it be not sinne: for we suppose that there is nothing in man that can hurt him, but onely sinne, especially the hurt being such, as S. Austine anone after speaketh [Page 212] of,Tantum quis inest, pertraheret ad vltiman [...] mortem. to draw vs, onely by being in vs, to euerlasting death. The place of Cyril affirmeth the being of lust.Cyril [...] Ioan. lib. 4. cap. 51. Feruens cupiditas ante peccandi actum insidet. ante peccandi actum, before the actuall sinne, but hath nothing for M. Bishops turne to proue, that lust also is not sinne, nay in the words immediatly following, he proueth that it is sinne, affirming, thatVt hoc anigmate perdiscamus nullo nos pacto mundos vnquam futuros nisi omnem turpē ex animo cupiditaetem cijciamus. by circumcision we should learne, that we shal not be cleane, vnlesse we cast out of our mind all filthy lust. For if lust it selfe do make vs vncleane, it must needes be sinne, because nothing can make a man vncleane but onely sinne. That which M. Perkins addeth to illustrate this point, Such as the fruit is, such is the tree, was very fitly spoken to the matter in hand. For the fruite hath it whole nature and qualitie from the tree, neither is it any thing, but what it is by that that it receiueth from thence. If therefore the actions of concupiscence be sinne, concupiscence which is the tree, must needes haue the nature and condition of sinne. But M. Bishop answereth, that not concupiscence, but the will of man is the tree. Which is all one as if he should haue said, that not the will of man, but the will of man is the tree. For it hath bene before shewed, that concupiscence is nothing else, but the corrupted will of man, which doth not bring foorth either euill or good indifferently, but is of it selfe an enticer only vnto bad, vntil God do create it anew, and by his owne hand do worke in it to will that that is good. In a word, the holy Scripture as on the one side it calleth the motions of concupiscence, 1. Pet. 2.11. the lusts of the flesh, so it calleth also the effects & deeds of those lusts, the workes of the flesh; thereby shewing, that concupiscence signified by the name ofGal. 5.9. flesh, and importing the corruption of the whole mind and will of man, is rightly said to be the tree or euill root whence all euill workes, and all wickednesse do spring.
7. W. BISHOP.
Lib. 5. contr. Iulian. cap. 3. But S. Augustine saith, That concupiscence is sinne, because in it there is disobedience against the rule of the mind, &c. I answer, that S. Augustine in more then twenty places of his works teacheth expresly, that concupiscence is no sinne, if sinne be taken properly: wherefore when he once calleth it sinne, he taketh sinne largely as it comprehendeth, not onely all sinne, but also all motions and enticements to sinne: in which sence concupiscence may be termed sinne: but it is so called very seldome of S. Augustine,Lib. 6. cap. 5. but more commonly an euill, as in the same worke is to be seene euidently, where he saith: That grace in Baptisme [Page 213] doth renew a man perfectly, so farrefoorth as it appertaineth to the deliuerance of him from all manner of sinne; but not so, as it freeth him from all euill: so that concupiscence remaining after baptisme, is no manner of sinne, in S. Augustines iudgment: but may be called euil, because it prouoketh vs to euill. To this place of S. Augustine,Tract. 41. in Ioan. I will ioyne that other like, which M. Perkins quoteth in his fourth reason: where he saith, that sin dwelleth alwaies in our members. The same answerserueth, that sin there is taken improperly: as appeareth by that he seates it in our members: for according vnto S. Augustine and all the learned, the subiect of sinne being properly taken, is not in any part of the bodie, but in the will and soule, and in the same passage he signifieth plainely, that in baptisme all sinnes and iniquitie is taken away, and that there is left in the regenerate, only an infirmitie or weaknesse.
R. ABBOT.
That place of Austin doth very pregnantly shew, that concupiscence is truly and properly called sinne, and giueth a reason thereof out of the true nature of sinne, which before hath bene declared.August. contr. Julian. lib. 5. ca. 3. Sicut coecitas cordis & peccatum est quo in Deum non creditur, & poena peccati qua cor superbum digna animaduersione punitur, & causa peccati, cùm mali aliquid coeci cordis errore committitur: itae concupiscentia carnis aduersus quam bonus concupiscit spiritus, & peccatum est quia inest illi inobedientia contra dominatum mentis, & poena peccati est, quia reddita est meritis inobedientis: & causa peccati est defectione cō sentientis vel contagione nascentis. As blindnesse of heart (saith he) is both a sinne whereby man beleeueth not, and the punishment of sinne, wherewith the pride of the heart is iustly reuenged; and the cause of sinne whilest any euill is committed by the error of the heart so blinded: so the concupiscence of the flesh, against which the good spirit desireth, is both sinne, because there is in it a disobedience against the rule of the mind, and the punishment of sinne, because it was rendred to the desert of him that obeyed not, and the cause of sinne either by the default of him that consenteth vnto it, or by infecting of him that is borne of it. Concupiscence then is sinne, as blindnesse of heart is sinne. But blindnesse of heart is properly sinne, therfore concupiscence is so also. Rebellion against the law of the mind, wherby is meant the law of God, is properly sinne, as before is shewed. But concupiscence is a habite of rebellion against the law of God: it is therefore properly to be accounted sinne. And whereas Austin when he denyeth concupiscence to be sinne, saith it is therefore called sinne, because it is the punishment of sinne, and the cause of sinne, here he affirmeth that it is not onely the punishment of sinne, and the cause of sinne, but otherwise also sinne, and therefore properly and truly sinne. But M. Bishop telleth vs, that Austin in more then twentie places of his workes teacheth expresly, that concupiscence is no sinne, if sinne be taken properly. [Page 214] Yet S. Austine in those twentie places saith nothing of sinne properly or vnproperly taken, and indeed taketh sinne vnproperly, when he denyeth concupiscence to be sinne, as anone shall appeare. He saith further, that when Austin calleth concupiscence sinne, he taketh sinne largely, as it comprehendeth not onely all sinne, but also all motions and enticements to sinne, and so it may be tearmed sinne And this large taking of sinne, we say is the proper taking of it, and thereby concupiscence is properly called sinne. But the motions and enticements to sinne, being the same with concupiscence, we see what a proper secret he hath here deliuered, that concupiscence may be tearmed sinne, as sinne is taken largely, so as to comprehend concupiscence. A learned note. But because the reason that he hath before deliuered is starke naught, he should haue giuen vs here a better reason, why the name of sinne is not properly to be vnderstood, when concupiscence is called sinne. He telleth vs, that with Austin it is more commonly called an euill, and indeed it is true, that very often he so calleth it, but yet such an euill, as maketh a man euill, so that by reason thereof,Hieron. aduer. Pelag. lib. 3. Quamuis Patriarcha sit aliquis, quamuis Propheta, quamuis Apostolus, dicitur eis à Domino Saluatore, Si vos cùm sitis mali, &c. though a man be a Prophet, a Patriarch, an Apostle, yet (saith Hierome) it is said vnto them by our Sauiour, If we being euill do know to giue good gifts to your children, &c. Now there is nothing that maketh a man euill, but that which is properly sinne. Concupiscence therefore is properly a sin. But of this shall be spoken more at large anone. Onely here it is to be obserued, how M. Bishop vnderstandeth it to be an euill, because it prouoketh vs to euill. So he will haue it no otherwise called an euill, then it is called sinne. It is sinne, because it prouoketh to sinne; and so euill, because it prouoketh to euill, and so indeed properly shall be neither sinne nor euill, whereas S. Austin acquitting it in some meaning from the name of sinne, leaueth it simply and absolutely in the name and nature of euill, as shall appeare. To this place he bringeth another testimonie of Austin, which M. Perkins alledgeth in the fourth reason, and giueth to it a very vnproper answer.August. in Ioan. Tract 41. Quamdiu viuis necesse est esse peccatum in mē bris tu [...]s. So long as thou liuest (saith Austin) of necessitie sinne must be in thy members, sinne is there also taken vnproperly, saith M. Bishop. And yet S. Austin deduceth that assertion from the words of S. Iohn: 1. Iob. 1.8. If we say we haue no sinne, we deceiue our selues, and the truth is not in vs, alledging the one, and concluding the other by occasiō of the words of our Sauior Christ,Ioh. 8.34. He that committeth sin is the seruant of sinne, and the seruant abideth [Page 215] not in the house for euer. For hereupon he asketh the question, What hope then haue we, who are not without sinne? and answereth at large, that sinne, though according to the words of S. Iohn we cannot be without it so long as we liue here, yet shall not hurt vs if we do not by suffering it to raigne, make our selues seruants vnto it, because he onely that committeth sinne by course and practise of euill conuersation, is the seruant of sinne, that is to say, of inward corruption. Now therefore if we will follow M. Bishops construction, we must vnderstand S. Iohn also of sinne vnproperly taken, and affirme contrarie to the auncient receiued Maxime of Christian faith, that if sinne be properly taken, it may be truly said of some men, that they are without sinne, because he saith it is not true of sinne properly taken, that so long as a man liueth, it must needs be in him, as S. Austin speaketh. Now he will proue, that sinne is there vnproperly taken, because S. Austin placeth it in the members: For according to S. Austin and all the learned, the subiect of sinne properly taken, is not in any part of the bodie, but in the will and soule. Where we may iustly smile at his ridiculous and childish ignorance, Why, M. Bishop, is concupiscence any otherwise in the members of the bodie, but onely by the soule? Iulian the Pelagian was not so grosse, but that he knew, thatAug. contra Julian. lib. 6. ca. 5 Quia carnalitèr anima concúpiscit. the flesh is said to lust, because the soule lusteth according to the flesh, which S. Austine confirmeth and saith, thatIbid Motibus suis anima quos habet secundum spiritum aduersatur alijs motibus suis quos habet secundum carnem, & rursu [...] motibus suis quos habet secundum carnem, aduersatur alijs motibus suis quos habet secundum spiritum, & ideò dicitur [...]are concupiscere aduersus spiritum, &c. it is the soule it selfe, which by it owne motions which it hath according to the spirit, is contrarie to other motions of it owne, which it hath according to to the flesh: and by it owne motions which it hath according to the flesh, is contrarie to other motions of it owne, which it hath according to the spirit, and that therefore the flesh is said to lust contrarie to the spirit, and the spirit contrarie to the flesh. Who knoweth not this, saith he to Iulian, which thou like a great Doctor so often tellest vs? And what, doth not M. Bishop know it, that will be taken for so great a Doctor in the Church of Rome? Let me tell him once againe, that the soule is the proper and immediate subiect of concupiscence; that to lust is an act of a nature endued with life and sence, which the bodie is not of it selfe, but onely by the soule: and therefore that that exception of his maketh nothing to the contrarie, but that S. Austin by sinne in the members, doth vnderstand that that is properly and truly called sinne, to say nothing of that I haue before declared, that by concupiscence is also vnderstood the will it selfe, thrall and subiect vnto [Page 216] sin. For conclusion of this point he addeth, that S. Austin in the same passage signifieth plainely, that in baptisme all sinne and iniquitie is taken away, and that there is left in the regenerate onely an infirmitie and weaknesse. But it is his singular impudencie to alledge S. Austin so directly contrarie to his whole drift and purpose in that place, which is as before was said, to shew, that sinne is in vs whilest we liue, onely that it may not hurt vs we must haue care that we make not our selues the seruants of it. Whereas he saith, that iniquitie is taken away, he meaneth it of the guilt thereof, which ceasseth in the regenerate by the forgiuenesse of their sinnes, but otherwise he himselfe affirmeth and approueth Ambrose affirming the same, thatContra Julian. lib. 2 & lib. 9. cap. 8. Neque enim nulla est tui quitas cùm [...] vno homine vel inferiora superioribus contumacitès reluctantur, etiamsi vincere non sinantur. it is an iniquitie in vs, that the flesh lusteth against the spirit, albeit it be not suffered to ouercome. He saith, that the iniquitie being taken away, there remaineth an infirmitie, but not taking infirmitie in that sence as M. Bishop doth, for a meere weaknesse: but for that that he himselfe elsewhere expoundeth it, when he saith, thatDe peccat [...]eris. & remis. li. 2. cap. 17. Ignorantia & infirmitas vitia sunt, quae impediunt voluntatem, nemoueatur ad faciendum opus bonum vel abopere malo abstinendum. ignorance and infirmitie are the vices which do hinder the will, that it moueth not to do good, or to abstaine from euill; which he calleth elsewhereDe nat. & grae. cap. 67. Omni peccati animae duo ista poenaliae, ignorantia & difficu [...]tas. the penalties of euery soule of man. Whereby it appeareth, that by infirmitie he meaneth that vitiousnesse and corruption of mans nature, which ensued of the first sinne, whereby it is disabled to the doing of good and forbearing of euill, which in part is cured in regeneration, but yet in part he saith is remaining still. Thus M. Bishop, we see, maketh the best shift he can with words, because in matter he can light vpon nothing to serue his turne.
8. W. BISHOP.
Aug. Epist. 29.M. Perkins 4. reason is taken from the record of the ancient Church: Charitie in some is more, in some lesse, in some none, the highest degree of all which cannot be increased, is in none, as long as a man liues vpon earth: & as long as it may be increased, that which is lesse then it should be, is in fault: by which fault it is, that there is no iust man vpon earth, that doth good and sinneth not, &c. For which also though we profit neuer so much, it is necessarie for vs to say, Forgiue vs our debts, though all our worst deeds & thoughts be alreadie forgiuen in Baptisme. Answer. That here is neuer a word touching concupiscence, or to proue Originall sinne to remaine after [Page 217] Baptisme, which is in question: but onely that the best men for want of perfect Charitie, do often sinne venially, which we graunt.
R. ABBOT.
S. Austin saith, thatAugust Epist. 29. Plenissima charitas quae iam non possit augeri, quamdiu hic homo vtt [...], est in nem [...]ne [...] quamdiu autem augeri potest quod minus est quàm debet, ex vitio est perfect charitie which can now no further be increased, is in no man so long as he liueth here. And so long as it may be increased, saith he, surely that that it is lesse then it shold be, EX VITIO EST, is by reason of some vice, corruption, default. M. Bishop answereth, that here is neuer a word of concupiscence, or to proue Originall sinne to remaine after Baptisme. But if he had meant honestly, he should haue told vs what is meant by that vitium, call it vice or blemish, or staine, or corruption, or default, or all these. If it be not vnderstood of concupiscence and the continuing blot and staine of Originall sinne, he should haue told vs what we are otherwise to vnderstand by it. But he could deuise nothing else whereof to vnderstand it, and therefore is content with a very homely and beggarly shift to passe it ouer, that forsooth there is nothing said of concupiscence, when yet that that is said, cannot be meant of any thing else. And that it is so meant, S. Austin himselfe plainely confirmeth vnto vs by the like sentence in another place.De na. & gra. cap. 38. Si in Abeltusio charitas Dei adhuc erat, quo posset & deberet augeri, quicquid minus erat, ex vitioerat If in Abel (saith he) there were wherein the loue of God might and ought to be increased, that that was too little, ex vitio erat, was by reason of some vice or corruption. And this he sheweth to be the same that the Apostle speaketh of when he saith, Let not sinne raigne in your mortall bodies, &c. This sinne he tearmeth vitium, and saith:Ex hoc vitio mittitur & oculus quonon oportet. By this vice or corruption the eye is cast whither it ought not to be, and if it go forward and preuaile, adulterie is committed. Againe he addeth, Hoc peccatum, id est, hunc vitiosae affectionis appetitum, qui magna ex parte frenarunt, &c. This sinne, that is to say, this lust of vitious affection, they who haue for the most part bridled, haue deserued to be called iust. And thus very often he calleth concupiscence a vice, and the motions thereof vices, as before was said. Now in the place cited, S. Austin addeth, as touching the effect of this vice: Epist. 29. Ex quo vitio non est nisius super terram, &c. Ex quo vitio non iustificabitur. &c. By reason of which vice there is not a iust man vpon earth, that doth good and sinneth not. By reason of which vice no man liuing shall be iustified, or found iust in the sight of God. By reason of which vice, if we say we haue no sinne, we deceiue our selues, &c. Which two latter clauses M. Bishop very trecherously and falsly [Page 218] hath left out, because he saw them wholy contrarie to all that he saith. For if by reason of this vice of concupiscence, we cannot say that we haue no sinne, then it must needes follow, that concupiscence is truly sin. If by reason of this vice, no man liuing shall be found iust in the sight of God, then this vice, that is to say, concupiscence, is sin, because nothing hindreth a man from being iust in the sight of God but onely sinne. And this taketh away the other part of his answer, that S. Austine onely saith, that the best men for want of perfect charitie do often sinne venially. For by their doctrine, veniall sinnes hinder not a man from being iust in the sight of God, whereas the vice of which S. Austin speaketh, is such as hindereth iustice, so that by reason thereof no man liuing shall be found iust in the sight of God. M. Perkins therefore rightly alledged this place, to proue that concupiscence is sinne, and M. Bishop in answering it, sheweth himselfe a man of wretched and euil conscience, who being so shut in with the truth, as that he knew not which way to resist, yet wold rather by falshood and collusion shift it off, then renounce the errors, to the maintenance whereof he hath wickedly sold himselfe.
9. W. BISHOP.
M. Perkins hauing thus strongly (as you see) fortified his position with that one sentence of S. Augustine (which hath also nothing for his purpose) in steede of all antiquitie: confesseth ingenuously, that S. Augustine in sundry places denieth concupiscence to be sinne: but expounds him to meane, that it is not sinne in that person, but in it selfe: which is alreadie confuted: for sinne that is an accident, and so properly inherent in his subiect, cannot be at all, if it be not in some person, and the sinne of the same person. But if the Protestant Reader desire to be well assured of S. Augustines opinion in this point: let him see what their Patriarch Iohn Caluin saith of it: Lib. 3. Instit. cap. 3. num. 10. where thus he writeth: Neither is it needfull to labour much in searching out what the old Writers thought of this point, when one Augustine may serue the turn: who with great diligence hath faithfully collected together all their sentences. Let the readers therefore take out of him, if they desire to haue any certaintie of the iudgement of antiquitie. Hitherto somewhat honestly: What followeth? Moreouer betweene him and vs, there is this difference: that he truly dares not call the disease of concupiscence a sinne, but to expresse it, is content to vse the word of infirmitie, then [Page 219] loe doth he say, that it is made sinne, when the act of our consent doth ioyne with it. But we hold that very thing to be sinne, wherewith a man is in any sort tickled, Obserue first good Reader, that S. Augustines opinion with him carieth the credit of all antiquity: Which is the cause that I cite him more often against them. Secondly, that he is flatly on our side: teaching concupiscence not to be sinne, vnlesse we do consent vnto it. Lastly, learne to mislike the blind boldnesse of such Masters: who hauing so highly commended S. Augustines iudgement in this very matter, and aduised all men to follow it, doth notwithstanding flie from it himselfe: presuming that some would be so shallow-witted as not to espie him, or else content to relie more vpon his onely credit, then vpon the authority of all the auncient Fathers. For a tast of whose consent with S. Augustine in this question, I will here put the sentences of some few, that I need not hereafter returne to rehearse them.
S. Chrisostome saith, Passions be not sinnes of themselues,Homil 11 in epist. ad Rom. but the vnbridled excesse of them doth make sinnes: And that I may for example sake touch one of them: Concupiscence is not a sinne; but when passing measure it breakes his bounds, then loe it is adultery; not in regard of concupiscence, but in respect of the excessiue and vnlawfull riot of it.
S. Bernard (whom M. Perkins often citeth against vs, Serm. de se [...] tribul. and therefore may sometimes be alledged for vs) hath these words: Sin is at the dore, but if thou do not open it, it will not enter in: lust tickleth at the heart; but vnlesse thou willingly yeeld vnto it, it shall do thee no hurt: withhold thy consent, and it preuaileth not.
S. Aug. and S. Cirill, haue bene cited already, S. Hier. and S. Greg. shall be hereafter: who with the confession of Caluin, may serue sufficiently to proue, that approued antiquity is wholy for vs. And if any desire to know the founder of our aduersaries Doctrine in this point, let him read the 64. heresie recorded by that auncient and holy Bishop Epiphanius: where he registreth one Proclus an old rotten sectary to haue taught, that sinnes are not taken away in Baptisme, but are onely couered, which is as much to say, as sinne remaineth still in the person regenerate, but is not imputed to him. Which is iust M. Perkins, and our Protestants position.
R. ABBOT.
If M. Perkins had no better fortified his positions, then M. Bishop doth his answers, he should with vs haue bin holden for too weake [Page 220] a man to meddle in controuersies of diuinity. But as Tertullian said, thatTertul. de praescript. Nusquam facilius proficatur qu [...] in castris re [...]ellium, vbi ipsum esse illic pro [...]reri est. it is no where more easie thriuing then in the camp of rebels, where to be only, is to be in pay, so may we say, that it is no where more easie writing then amongst hereticks and rebels against the truth, where to write onely is sufficient to commend a man; it is no matter how or what he write. Such a writer is M. Bishop; a bad one, God knowes; but we can looke for no better of him then the matter will affoord him. He saith, that M. Perkins had but one sentence of S. Austine for the maintenance of his position, and that nothing for his purpose: but M. Perkins hath alledged more then he hath answered, and it seemeth, that that one sentence was to the purpose, which he could no otherwise shift of, but by lowd dissembling and concealing of that, wherein S. Austine with maine streame doth runne against him. Againe he telleth vs, that M. Perkins confesseth ingenuously, that S. Austine in sundry places denieth concupiscence to be sinne, and we confesse as much, and expound S. Austines meaning as he doth, that it is not sinne to the person, not that in it selfe it is not sinne. But this, he saith, is already confuted, and we say that his imagined confutation is already reconfuted. But he giueth vs a reason why it cannot be so. For sinne that is an accident, and so properly inherent in his subiect, cannot be at all, if it be not in some person, & the sin of the same person. And we answere him by S. Austine, that it is sinne in the person, and the sinne of the person by inherent quality and disposition, but it is not the sinne of the person by account of guilt and imputation. For the approouing whereof M. Perkins alledged two places out of Austine, which M. Bishop honestly passeth ouer, as if he had not seene them, but they will meete with him againe anone. In the meane time he bringeth vs in our Patriark, as he calleth him, Iohn Caluin, referring his Readers to S. Austine, to know by him the iudgement of antiquity, concerning this matter of concupiscence. Where I answere him, that we honour Caluin indeede as a singular instrument of God, for the restoring of the light of his truth, and ouerthrowing of the throne of the purple whoore of Rome, but we make him no Patriarch, we follow him no further then he approoueth vnto vs, that he is a follower of Christ; we tie not our selues to him, but vse our liberty to dissent from him, and to censure him where he hath gone awry. But M. Bishop and his fellowes haue their Patriarch indeede, to whom they binde themselues, [Page 221] Antichrist the man of sinne, the enemie of Christ, whose dirt they must be content to eate, and to brooke all the filth of his abhominations, andDist. 40. si Papae. though he leade them to hell, yet no man may dare say vnto him, Sir why do ye so? Well, Caluin saith, that Austine hath diligently gathered the iudgement of antiquity, and what then? forsooth he saith further thus: thatCaluin. Institut. lib. 3. cap. 3. Sect. 10. betweene Austine and vs there may seeme to be this difference, that he dares not call the disease of concupiscence by the name of sinne; but we hold it to be a sinne that a man is tickled with any lust or desire against the law of God. Whereupon M. Bishop giueth his Reader these obseruations; first that S. Austines opinion carieth with Caluin the credit of all antiquity, which is the cause, saith he, that I cite him more often against them; which indeede he hath full clerkly and profoundly done, so as that I presume, I may assure the Reader that he hath scarsely euer read ouer one booke of his. Secondly, saith he, that he is flatly on our side: but therein he reckoneth before his host; for Caluin saith to the contrary, thatIbid. sect. 12. Austine differeth not so much from our doctrine, as in shew he seemeth to doe, and that he varieth but little from our opinion. Lastly, saith he, learne to mislike the blind boldnesse of such maisters. But if Caluin were blinde, alas for poore M. Bishop, what can he see? and yet though he can see but little, he is as bold as blinde bayard, and doubteth not to vilifie him, to whom he might very well be a scholler yet many yeares. Caluin iustly commendeth Austines iudgment, and aduiseth all men to follow it, and in substance flieth not from it himselfe, though in termes he somewhat differ. Neither did he presume vpon shallow wits not to be espied, knowing well that the whole rabble of the court of Antichrist, would vse their deepest wits for the sifting of that he should write, but in the conscience of integrity and faithfulnes, he despised all their barkings and malitious furie, and with the inuincible shield of truth beareth off all the poisoned darts of their reproches. He neuer taught men to rely vpon his authority, but by authority of the word of God and testimony of the auncient church, he laboured to establish the faith of Christ, yet making men witnesses onely, not authors or dictators of the truth, and therefore not doubting to censure them, where they swarue from the authority of the word of truth. But now because M. Bishop will perswade vs, that S. Austine is wholly on their part, let vs somewhat more at large examine his opinion [Page 222] and iudgement in this behalfe. Which although it may be sufficiently perceiued by those things that haue bene scatteringly alledged already, yet fully to remoue this cauill, let vs here lay together what shall be found necessary for the clearing thereof. And first, we are to obserue, that sinne is considered two manner of waies; one way as it is opposed to righteousnesse; another way as it is opposed to forgiuenesse of sinnes. Sinne properly taken, as euery mans vnderstanding giueth him, is opposite to righteousnesse, and so whatsoeuer is contrary to righteousnesse, is sinne. Thus haue we before described the nature of sinne, and according to this description concupiscence in the regenerate, beingRom. 7.23. Gal. 5.17. contrary to righteousnesse is sinne, neither euer came it into S. Austines heart to thinke otherwise. But he considereth sinne in the proper effect of sinne, as it maketh guilty, so that whatsoeuer is forgiuen is no sinne, because forgiuenesse taketh away the guilt of sinne. So long as the guilt remaineth, though the thing be past and gone, whereof or whereby the man is guilty, yet he vnderstandeth the sinne to remaine still. If the guilt be taken away, though the thing still continue the same, by which the man became guilty, yet he taketh it not to be in the nature of sinne, because the nature of sinne is to make guilty. The occasion of which construction was giuen him by the Pelagian heretickes, the predecessours of the Papists, who when he taught against them Originall sinne, and the remainder of that blot of naturall corruption in the regenerate, as we doe, tooke occasion to cauill against him, that heAugust cont. duas epist. Pelag. lib. 1. cap. 13. Dicunt, inquit, baptisma no [...] dare omnem induldgentiam pecc [...]torum nec auferre criminae sed radere, vt omnium peccatorum radices in mala carne reneantur quasi [...]asorum in capite capillorum vnde crescant it [...]rum risecanda peccata. said, that baptisme did not giue remission of all sinnes, neither did take away faults, but onely shaue them, so as that the rootes were still sticking, from whence other sinnes should grow againe. S. Austine the better to cleare this matter to popular vnderstanding, affirmeth, that baptisme doth take away all sinne, because that albeit concupiscence of the flesh were still remaining, yet it did not remaine in the nature of sinne, because the guilt thereof in baptisme was remitted.De nupt. et concupisc lib. 1. ca. 25. Dimittitur non sit, sed vt in peccatū non imputetur. It is forgiuen, saith he, not so as that it is not, but so as that it is not imputed for sinne. Ibid. cap. 26. In eis qui regenerāturr in Christo, cum remissionem accipiu [...]t prorsus omnium peccatorum v [...] (que) necesse est, vt reatus etiam huius licet manenus ad [...]uc concup s [...]entiae remittatur, vt in peccatum non impu [...]tur Nam sicut c [...]rū peccatorum, qu [...] manere non [...] sunt, quo [...]am cum [...] p [...]et [...]reunt [...], et [...]isi remi [...] vt [...] in aeter [...]um ma [...]e [...]; sic illius concupiscen [...]ic quando remittitur reatus aufertur. Hoc est e [...]im non habere peccatum, non esse re [...]ym peccati N [...] si quisqu [...] ve [...] gratia fecerit adueterium etiam si nunquam de [...]ces [...] faciat [...] est adulterij donec reatus ipsias [...] Habet ergo peccatum quamuis illud quod admis [...] [...]am non sit, quia cum temp [...]re quo factum est praeti [...]ijt, &c Man [...]t ergo (peccata) nisi remittantur. Sed quomodo manent si prae [...]ta sunt nisi quia praet [...]rterunt actu, manent reatu, Sic ita (que) s [...]rie contra [...] potest vt etiā illud maneat act [...], aeterea [...] rea [...]. In the regenerate, when they receiue forgiuenesse of all their sinnes, the guilt of this concupiscence, though [Page 223] it selfe still continue, is remitted, so as that it is not imputed for sinne. For as of those sinnes which cannot continue, because when they are done they are past, yet the guilt still abideth, and except it be pardoned, shall abide for euer: so the guilt of concupiscence when it is pardoned, is taken away, though it selfe abide. For not to haue sinne is all one as to say, not to be guilty of sinne. He that hath committed adultery, though he doe it no more, is still guilty till it be pardoned. Therefore he hath his sinne still, though that which he hath committed now is not in being, being past with the time wherein it was done. Such sinnes therefore remaine except they be forgiuen. But how do they remaine being now past, but because they are past as touching their actuall being, but remaine still as touching the guilt. Euen so, saith he, it may well be, that concupiscence of the flesh remaineth still as touching the actuall being, but yet as touching the guilt is past and gone. He calleth this concupiscence Ibid. cap. 23. Propter damnabile vitium, quo vitiata est natura humana dā natur. a damnable pollution and vncleannes, wherewith the nature of man is defiled, and for which it is condemned. And he saith thereof, thatContra Iulian. Pelag. lib. 2. Est in homine aliquid mali, quod non ipsum sed reatus qui ex illo contractus fuerat, auferiu [...] in Baptismo. not the euill it selfe, but the guilt that is gathered thereof, is taken away in baptisme; that this sinne is Jbid. Mortu [...] est in eo reatu quo nos tenebat. dead, as touching the guilt wherein it held vs; thatContra duas Epistolas Pelag. lib. 2. cap. 13. Reatus eius generatione tractus, regeneratione dimissus est: & ideo iam non est peccatum. the guilt thereof which we haue drawen by generation, is pardoned by regeneration, and therefore now it is not sinne. Thus when Iulian obiected to him, that if concupiscence were euill, then the baptised should be without it, he answereth, thatContr. Iulian. lib 6. cap. 5. Baptizatus caret omni peccato, nō omni malo: quod plantùs ita dicitur, caret reatu omnium malorū non omnibus malis. the baptised is voided of all sinne, not of all euill. Which, saith he, is more plainly spoken thus, He is voide of the guilt of all euill, not of all that is euill, affirming the guilt onely to be taken away, but that the euill that before made him guilty, remaineth still. Therefore he saith, thatIbid. lib. 2. Nō eodem modo appellatur paccatū quo facit reum, & priùs: Cuius manentis reatus in sacro fonte remissus est. concupiscence is not called sinne, in such manner as sinne maketh guiltie, because the guilt thereof is released in the Sacrament of regeneration. The places are infinite; wherein he speaketh to the same effect, thatDe peccat. mer. & remissa ib. 1. cap. 39. Ipsa lex peccati solu [...]o reatus vinculo manet, &c. the law of sinne, the bond of the guilt thereof being loosed, continueth still: that Jbid. lib. 2. cap. 28. Manente ipsa lege concupiscentiae reatus eius soluitur. the law of concupiscence is still abiding, but the guilt thereof is released: thatCont. Iulian. lib 2. Sauet vitiatum à reatu statim ab infirmitate paulatim. God healeth the corruption of man, from the guilt foorthwith, but from the infirmity by litle and litle: thatIbid, Remittitur in baptismate lex peccati, non finitur. the law of sin is remitted and pardoned in baptisme, but not ended: thatIbid. lib. 5. cap. 5. Vitia ista curantur, priùs vt reatu non teneant, deinde vt conflictu non vincant: postremò vt omni ex parte saenata nulla omnino remaneant. the vices of concupiscence are cured by the grace of Christ, that they hold vs not in guilt, but that they remaine for vs to fight with and conquer, and last of all, to be perfectly healed: [Page 224] not to be at all, still beating vpon this, that there is still remaining the same thing that was before, the law of sinne before, the law of sin still; euill before, euill still: a vice or corruption before, a vice and corruption still, onely the guilt taken away, and therby onely denied to be sin. Now in this we contend not with Austin, nor Austin with vs: we shall easily accord with him, that concupiscence in the regenerate is not sinne, as sinne importeth and implieth guilt, because the guilt thereof is remitted and pardoned. But setting aside the respect of guilt, and considering sinne as it is oposite to righteousnes, doth he in that respect acquit concupiscence from the condition of sinne? No verily; for he acknowledgeth, thatContr. Julian. lib. 2. Non eodem modo appellatur peccatum quo facit reum, sed quod sit reatu primi hominis faction, & quod rebellando nos trahere uttitur ad reatum. though it be not called sinne in that sort, as that it maketh guilty, yet it is called sinne, for that by rebelling it laboureth to draw vs into guilt. And when Iulian the Pelagian tooke hold of that that he said, that concupiscence and rebellion of the flesh, was iustly laid as a punishment vpon the disobedience of man, and hereupon argued that then it was no euill, but rather a thing to be commended, as Gods seruant for reuenge vpon him that had deserued it, to refute his collection, answereth, that it is not onely the punishment of sinne, or the cause of sinne, but also very sinne it selfe,Contr. Iulian. lib. 5. cap. 3. supr. sect. 7. because there is in it a rebellion against the law of the mind, and therfore that vainely he inferred, that concupiscence because it was a punishment was to be commended. Where to say that S. Austin taketh sin vnproperly, as M. Bishop doth, is to make him to speak very absurdly, if we consider the occasion wherupon he speaketh. But to shew, that concupiscence though in respect of guilt it be not sin, yet otherwise it is truly so, he calleth it in the regenerateDe pecca. mer. & remis lib. 2. cap. 28. Peccatū remissum superatū, perēptum. a pardoned sin, a sin conquered & destroyed; De nupt. & cō cup lib. 1 ca. 33. Peccatum illud quod remissum & tectum est, & non imputatur. Et lib. 2. cap. 34. a sin forgiuen, couered, not imputed: and out of S. Ambrose Con [...]r. Iulian. lib. 2. Quia mortuum est in eo reatu quo nos tenebat, & donec sepulturae perfectione sanctur, rebellat & mort [...]um. a dead sin, because (saith he) it is dead as touching the guilt wherein it held vs, and being dead, yet rebelleth vntill by accomplishment of buriall it be healed. So then as touching guilt it is conquered, destroyed, dead, and it is not sinne; but by rebellion it still liueth, & therin it is truly sin. And therefore doth he paint it out euen in the regenerate, with such names and termes as doe plainely conuict it to be sinne. He calleth itDe nat. & gr. cap. 38. Vitium, vitiosae affectionis appetitum. vice, lust of vitious affection, De nupt. & concup. li. 1. cap. 31. Ʋitiosa concupiscentiae. vitious concupiscence, Epist. 54. Ab omni vitiositate. vitiousnes or corruption, and what doth vitiate, defile, corrupt the soule, but only sinne? He calleth itDe nup. & con. lib. 1. cap 29. In hoc m [...]bo. Et cap. 31. Vbi est morbidus carnis affectus. Ab capeste morbo (que) san [...]ta. a disease, a diseased affection of the flesh, a pestilence, De Temp. Ser. 45. Vulnus tabē. Et contr. Iul lib 6. cap. 7. Quodam operante contagio, id est, concupiscentia affectu. a wound and contagious filth, and what other [Page 225] disease, or pestilence, or wound and contagion of man is there, but onely sinne? He calleth this law of sin De Temp. ibid. Legem foedam, legem miseram. a filthy law, a miserable law, not for that it hath a being by it selfe to be filthy and miserable, but because we by it are in our selues filthy and miserable, which nothing can cause but onely sinne. He calleth itContr. Iulian. lib. 6. cap. 5. Annon est malunis quis neget esse malam? Et ibid. cap. 7. Qualitat mala. De nup. & concupis. li. 1. ca. 25. Affectio malae qualitatis. an euill, euill concupiscence, an euill qualitie, an affection of euill qualitie, and what euill qualitie is there of the soule, what spirituall euil, but onely sin? He calleth the first motions and affections thereofContr. Iulian. lib. 2. Ciuile bellum interiorum vitioruni. Aduersus ingenerata vitia bellum gerunt. Vitia à quorum reatu absoluti sumus. Desideria stulia & noxia. inward vices, vices borne and bred in vs, vices from the guilt whereof we are freed, foolish and hurtful desires, De nupt. & concup. lib. 1. ca. 25. Vitiosa desideria. Et cap. 27. Desideria mala & turpia. vitious desires, euill and filthy desires, In Ioan. Tr. 41. Jllicitae concupiscentiae in carne tua. vnlawfull concupiscences, and how do these termes agree to them if they be no sinne? He calleth itDe Ciuit. Dei lib. 1. cap. 25. Illa concupiscentialis inobedientia, qua in moribundis membris habitat. a lustfull disobedience, and saith thatContr. Iulian. lib. 2. & lib. 6. cap. 8 supr. sect. 7 it is an iniquitie that the flesh lusteth against the spirit: though the guilt thereof be acquitted, and all Rom. 5.19. disobedience and 1. Ioh. 5.17. iniquitie is sinne. He saith, thatContr. Iulian. lib. 4 cap. 2. Desiderij malimatū est, etiamsi et non consentiatur. there is euill in an euill desire, though a man consent not to it for euil. And wheras there are two sorts of euils, Tertul. cont. Marcion. lib. 2. mala peccatoria & vltoria, euils of sin, and euils of punishment and reuenge, that we may know that in naming concupiscence euill, he meaneth an euill of sinne: he citeth the words of Hilarie, thatContr. Iulian. lib. 2. ex Hilar. in Psal. 118. Samech. Ipsis Apostolis verbo licèt fidei iam emundetis atque sanctificatu, non deesse tamen malitiam per conditionem communis nobis origenis docuit, dicens, Si vos cùm sitis mali, &c. though the Apostles were cleansed and sanctified by the word of faith, yet our Sauiour teacheth, that there was not wanting in them euilnesse, ilnesse by the condition of our common originall, in that he saith, If you being euill do know to giue good gifts vnto your children. Where very euidently we are taught, that of Originall sinne there remaineth still in the regenerate such an euill, as wherby they are still euill; so that though they beEpi. 54. Ipse Dominus quos dicit bonos propter participationem gratiae diuinae, eosdem etiam malos dicit propter vitia infirmitatis humanae, donec totum quo constamus ab omni vitiositate sanatum transeat in eam vitam, vbi nihil omnino peccabitur. good by participation of the grace of God, yet they be still euill by reason of the vices of humane infirmitie, till all be healed à vitiositate, from corruption, &c. Now though sometimes the name of euill be otherwise vsed then of sinne, yet neuer is a man called euill by any euill, but that that is sin. Crosses and afflictions are euils, but by these euils, or for these euils, no man is called euill. But concupiscence is such an euill, as whereby a man is euill, and for which the regenerate man is still truly called euill: and therefore is a sinfull euill; an euill that is truly and properly a sinne. Therefore Saint Austine maketh it an euill in the same kind and [Page 226] nature, as sinne is euill when he saith,Cont. Julian. lib 6. ca. 5. Quis ita insa [...]u [...] & demens, qui cùm peccata maia esse fiteatur, neget esse malam concupiscentiam peccatorum, etiā si aduersur eam concu [...]sc [...]ntiam spiritu peccata concipere ac pareri non sinatur? Tale porrò ac tam magnum malum, tantum quia inest, quomodo non teneret in morte, & per traheret in vltimam mortem, nisi & eius vinculū in illa quae fit in baptisme peccatorum omnium remissione solueretur? Who is so mad, as that confessing sinnes to be euill, he will deny the concupiscence of sinnes to be euil, albeit by reason of the spirit lusting against it, it be not suffered to conceiue and bring foorth sinnes? And to take away all exception, and at once to strike the matter dead, he addeth that it is such and so great an euill, as that onely for being in vs, it should hold vs in death, and draw vs to euerlasting death, but that the bond thereof is loosed in baptisme by the forgiuenesse of all our sinnes, euen as he had said a little before, that it should not onely be in the faithfull, but also greeuously hurt them, but that the guilt thereof which had bound vs, is loosed by the forgiuenesse of our sinnes. Which onely words might suffice to declare vnto vs S. Austines minde, that he neuer thought, but that concupiscence is sinne in that meaning, wherein we here dispute of sinne. For if it be such an euill, as that saue onely that the guilt thereof is pardoned it should greatly hurt vs, and so hurt vs, as that it should draw vs vnto euerlasting death, it cannot be denied to be truly sinne, because nothing could bring vs to euerlasting death, but onely sinne. And yet more fully to shew this, and to prooue against Iulian the blot and staine of Originall sinne remaining after baptisme, he alledgeth further out of Hilary,Contra Iulian. lib. 2. ex Hilar. in Psal. 118. Gimel. Nos in hoc terreni & morti c [...] corporis habitaculo mundos esse non posse. that we cannot be cleane in the tabernacle of this earthly and carion body; Jbid. ex homil quadam de lib. sancti Iob. Memores & conscū illa ipsa corpora vitiorum omniū esse materiem, pro quae polluti & sordidi ni il in nebis mun [...]ū, nihil innotens ob [...]inemus. that our bodies are the matter of all vices, by reason whereof being polluted and defiled, we haue nothing in vs innocent, nothing cleane, not as to condemne the substance, of the bodie, die, butIbid. pugnandi necistias contra malum, non sub stantiam, sed sub stantie vitium. vitium substantiae, the vitious quality of the substance, and to signifie that therewith we still continue in part stained and defiled, so long as we continue vpō the earth. Now there is nothing wherby we are vncleane, polluted, defiled, but onely sinne. Seeing therfore by the remainder of Original sinne, that is, by concupiscence we continue after baptisme vncleane, polluted, & defiled, it followeth necessarily, that co c [...]piscence after baptisme is properly and truly sinne. And if concupiscence be not sinne without consent, then by S. Austines iudgement the Apostles must be said to liue without sinne. For he affirmeth of them, that they wereContr. duas Epist. Pelag. lib. 1. cap 11. Apostolos dicimus à prauorum libidinum consensione liberos, &c. free from any consent to euil lusts, meaning it after they had receiued that great measure of the holy Ghost. And so much he affirmeth particularly of the ApostleJu Joan. tract. 41. Faciebat vt concupiscentia non consentiret. Vide Bernard in Cantic. Ser. 56. Paul. But to affirme that the Apostles were free from sinne, isDe nat. & grat. cap 36. Omnes sancti si interrogari potuissent vna voce clamassent, si dixerimus quia peccatum non habe [...], &c. contrary to the doctrine of S. Austine. Concupiscence therfore by S. Austines [Page 227] iudgement must necessarily be sinne. And hereto agree also the iudgements of the rest of the Fathers. Cyprian calleth it in the regenerateCypri. de rat. circumcis. Huius contagio corruptelae; Babyloniae fornax, domesticum malum, de quo [...]ruhescent quicunque mundè corde regere in decore suo videre desiderant: insaniens bestia corrupti anhelitus catenis ferreis in vltimis animae recessibus alliganda. a corruption, the fornace of Babylon, a domesticall euill, of which they will be ashamed, who desire with pure heart to see the king in his beautie; a raging beast of stinking breath, to be tied vp with iron chaines in the furthest passages of the soule. He saith againe of theIdem. de teiun. et tentat Christi. Nec originali nec personali nec personalicaeruere delicto. holy Prophets and Priests, that they wanted neither Originall nor personall sinne, and thereby confesseth that in holy men Originall sinne, continueth still. Ambrose calleth concupiscence euen in the regenerate;Ambros de Apol. Dauid. ca. 11. Deplorauit in se Dauid inquinamenta naturae. Et ibid. cap. 13. Iniquitas; operatrix cu [...]pae & delicti; radix & seminarium peccatorum, mala radix affectus erroris. a defilement of nature, iniquitie, the worker of default and trespasse, the seed-plot of sinnes, an euill roote, an affection of errour. Bernard in the like sort, calleth itBern. de sex tribulat. Quod in homine pimum ab hac macula, immune ab hoc contagio poterit inueniri? Tribulatio dum resistirur contaminationi, concupiscē tiae repugnatur. De corde exit pestiferum virus. Huic multisariae pesti resistere. Fomes totius nequitiae. Fornax ambitionis, &c, omnium denique vittorum affectibus vehementer acce [...]sa. a contamination, a blot, a contagion, a pestilent poyson, a manifold pestilence, the cherishment of all naughtinesse, a fornace strongly burning with the affections of ambition, auarice, enuie, wilfulnesse, lewdnesse, and all vices. He againe maketh it euen by it selfe,Bernar in Cant. ser 56. Pauli animae ab aspecta & complexu dilecti vnus tantummodo paries obsistebat, videlices lex peccati. Ipsa est carnis concupescentia, &c. paries primus concupiscentia; secundus cons [...]nsus, &c. a wall which so long as it is in vs excludeth and shutteth vs out from God, as of Paul for example he saith, that this one wall hindered his soule from the sight and embracing of his beloued Sauiour. By all which the Reader may esteeme, what consciences they had in the Councell of Trent, that set it downe to the world as an article to be beleeued, that concupiscence isConcil Triden. Sess 5. In renatis nihil quod odit Deus, nihil ab ingressu coeli remoratur. not a thing that God hateth, that it is not a thing that hindereth from entring into heauen. These speeches cannot be thus applied to any thing but sinne. We haue no cause to be ashamed of any thing before God but onely sinne. God cannot but hate all spirituall corruption, all filthinesse, all iniquitie, all contagion and vncleannesse of the soule, and seeing concupiscence is a wall that shutteth vs out from God, it must needs be sinne, because nothing can diuide vs from God but onely sinne. Now therefore as touching the two places which M. Bishop citeth in the second section, wherein S. Austin denieth concupiscence to be sinne, the answer is plaine by Austin himselfe:De nupt. & Concupis. lib. 2. cap. 34. Quia remissa est in remissione peccatorum, non iam regeneratis in peccatum reputatur: because it is forgiuen to the regenerate by remission of sinnes, it is not now reputed to them for sinne. It is sinne in it owne nature, but because the guilt thereof is pardoned, therefore and in that respect onely it is not accounted sinne. [Page 228] And hereby the answer is plaine to that other cauill which they borrow also from S. Austin, thatEpist. 200. Si nocti eorum adhiberemus assensum non esset vnde diceremus patri nostro qui in coelis est, Dimitte nobis, &c. for concupiscence or the desires and motions thereof, we do not say, forgiue vs our trespasses so long as we giue no consent vnto them. For the reason that S. Austin giueth of that assertion, isCont. 2. epist. Pelag lib. 1. cap. 13. Nec propter ipsam cuius iam reatus lauaecro regenerationis absumptus est dicunt in oratione Baptizati, Dimitte nobis, &c. Et cont. lit. Petil. lib. 2. ca. 103. Neque de his peccatis hoc petimus quae nobis in Baptismo taem dimissa sunt. because the guilt thereof is alreadie taken away in Baptisme: because the same are alreadie forgiuen and pardoned in Baptisme, thereby insinuating, that concupiscence and the motions thereof in themselues are such, as for which we should say, forgiue vs our trespasses, but that therefore we do not say so, because we beleeue that they are alreadie pardoned and forgiuen vnto vs. Now it is one thing to say, that we aske not forgiuenesse thereof, because it is forgiuen alreadie; another thing to say, as M. Bishop and his fellowes do, that it is such in it selfe as needeth no forgiuenesse. Whereby it plainely appeareth, that they wholy abuse Saint Austin, and wrest him to farre other purpose and meaning then was intended by him. And yet this is a thing whereof he himselfe also made some doubt. He propoundeth it as his owne priuate opinion.In Psal. 118. conc. 3. Quantū quidem ego sapere possum. So farre as I can perceiue, saith he, it is so. It seemeth to me so. De perfect. iusti prope finē Quod nisi fallor non esset opus dicere. Nisi fallor: if I be not deceiued, it is so, and dareth not, as he saith,Non ande [...] reprehendere, quanquam nec defendere valeam. reprehend them, who did affirme, that iust men might in this life be so farre without sinne, as to be free from consent to any desires of sinne, who, because they should haue nothing else for which to say forgiue vs our trespasses, must needs say so for the very first motions and lusts thereof. And surely we dare not altogether assent to Austin in this behalfe, because he cannot conceiue, but that the acts and motions of concupiscence being new from day to day, must be accounted new trespasses from day to day, and therefore from day to day giue vs occasion to say, forgiue vs our trespasses. Yet doth he aduantage the Papists no whit at all, because by his very question hereof it appeareth, that he doubted not, but that euill concupiscences are in themselues such, as for which we should say, forgiue vs our trespasses, when propounding whether for euill concupiscences we pray so vnto God, he maketh the ground of his question this, because in Baptisme they are alreadie pardoned. And thus I hope I haue by this time made it appeare to M. Bishop, that S. Austin in this point was no Papist, and that though in the signification of a word he differ from vs, yet in the very matter resolued the same that we do, and that both he and the rest of the [Page 229] Fathers of the Church plainely agree with vs, that concupiscence in the regenerate hath the proper nature and condition of sinne. But yet he will not yeeld, because he hath yet somewhat further to alledge out of the Fathers for the proofe of that he saith. And first he alledgeth Chrysostome, saying,Chrys ad R [...] hom. 13. Illi affectus peccatum haudquaquam erant sed illorum immoderatio effraenata hoc efficiebat. Verbi gratia, vt vnum aliquem affectuum illorum pertractemus; Concupiscentia peccatum quidē non est, at cum ea [...]dum non seruat, &c. tum res ea in adulterium crumpit, non ab ipsa quidem concupiscentia sed ab illius immodica cupiditate. Passions be not sinnes of themselues, but the vnbridled excesse of them doth make sinnes. For example, Concupiscence is not a sinne, but when passing measure it breakes his bounds, then lo it is adulterie; not in respect of concupiscence, but in respect of the excesse and vnlawfull riot of it. But here he playeth the iugler againe, and by equiuocation meerly abuseth his reader. For Chrysostome speaketh of passions as they are naturall, and by God implanted in man in his creation, and common to all men; and not of passions as they are the remainder of Originall sinne in the regenerate. There were passions in Christ, anger, sorow, feare, and such like, yet in Christ there was no sinne. And thus doth Chrysostome speake of concupiscence (which for distinction sake should rather be translated desire) as it is a naturall affection, not as it is a humane corruption; as it is Gods creature, not as it is mans default; as it isIbid. vnus aliquis affectuum, some one of the affections, not in that sort as we question it, as it is the common disorder of them all. The distinction of concupiscence, which Tertullian vseth, serueth fitly in this place, that there isTertullian. de Animae. cap. 6. Rationale quod animae à primordio est ingenttum à rationali videlicet authore. Irrationale posterius intelligē dum est, vt quod acciderit ex serpentis instinctu atque exinde [...] oleuerit & coadoleuerit in anima ad instar iam naturalitatis, &c. non ex ea natura quae à Deo est, sed ex illa quam diabolus induxit. &c. Non semper ex irrationali censenda sunt indignatiu [...] & concupiscentiuum, &c. concupiscence reasonable and vnreasonable. Reasonable he calleth that which is naturall, which from the beginning was wrought in the soule by God the reasonable author and maker thereof. Ʋnreasonable he saith, is that which befell by the instinct of the Serpent, and thenceforth crew into the soule, and became in a sort naturall, not of that nature which is of God, but of that which the diuell hath brought in Concupiscence as it importeth the naturall act of desiring, he rightly affirmeth to haue bene in Christ, and that in vs of it selfe it is no sinne. And thus is Chrysostome to be vnderstood when he saith, that affections are not sinne of themselues, but that it is the vnbridled disorder thereof that causeth sinne. Thus as he saith, concupiscence referred to the naturall desire of the male to the female, is of it selfe no sinne, because it is the worke of the God of nature. But our question here is of that concupiscence or the remainder of that concupiscence which grew by the instinct of the serpent, whereby all our desires are by another nature growne disordered and euill, which disorder we say in part continueth still in [Page 230] regenerate, and is not by M. Bishop as yet freed from being sinne. The place of S. Bernard answereth it selfe.Bernard. ser. de sex tribulat. Peccatum inforibus est; nisi ipse aperias, non intrabit: appetitus in corde prurit, sed sub te est; nisi spontè cesseris, non notebit. Sinne is at the doore, but vnlesse thou open it shall not enter in. If sinne be at the doore, why doth M. Bishop denie it to be sinne? What he saith first, sinne is at the doore, he repeateth againe in these words, lust tickleth at the heart. If lust tickling at the heart be sinne at the doore, how doth he conclude by this place, that lust is no sinne? He saith, that M. Perkins often citeth S. Bernard against them, and therefore he may be somtimes alledged for them, but if he do alledge him no better then here he hath done, his labour shall be better saued then so idlely bestowed. But he doth not onely cite him impertinently, but also very lewdly. For in that very sermon is it wherein Bernard so describeth concupiscence, as before was sayd, calling it a defilement, a contagion, a blot, a pestilent poyson, &c. and saying thereof, What can there be found in man cleaue from this blot, free from this contagion? thereby plainly conuincing that it is sin, because as hath bin before said, nothing defileth, blotteth, infecteth the soule but onely sinne. S. Austin & S. Cirill, he saith, haue bin cited alreadie, & I hope he hath had a full answer to those citations. As for Hierome and Gregorie, when we heare what it is that he will oppose out of them, he shall haue our further answer, but neither they nor Caluins confession do proue at all that approued antiquitie is wholly for them, as he fondly presumeth without cause. But now forsooth to hit the naile on the head, If any, saith he, desire to know the founder of our aduersaries doctrine in this point, let him reade the 64. heresie recorded by that ancient and holy Bishop Epiphanius. And what shall he reade there? Forsooth, he registreth one Proclus an old rotten sectarie, to haue taught, that sinnes are not taken away in Baptisme, but are onely couered; which is as much to say, as sinne remaineth still in the person regenerate, but is not imputed to him, which, saith he, is iust M. Perkins and our Protestants position. Now he that had stood by him when he read this matter in Epiphanius, might very well haue sayd to him, Animus est in patinis; your mind is on your mustard-pot: ye reade ye know not what. For that which he alledgeth of Proclus was not deliuered by Proclus, but by Epiphanius is recorded out of a speech of Methodius a Catholike and godly Bishop against Proclus. Yet this he thought a fit matter wherewith to delude his liege and soueraigne Lord, hauing before mentioned it in his Epistle dedicatorie to the [Page 231] kings most excellent Maiestie, in the answer whereof I haue set downe the words of Methodius at large, and the heretical fancie of Proclus against which they were directed. Now because the words to which he alludeth, are the words of Methodius, and approued by Epiphanius, let it be remembred, that Methodius and Epiphanius two ancient and holy Bishops haue taught, that sinne is not taken away in Baptisme, but is onely couered, that is, that sinne remaineth still in the person regenerate, but is not imputed vnto him, and so as M. Bishop himselfe confesseth, haue taught iust the same that M. Perkins and the Protestants do now teach.
10. W. BISHOP.
Now let vs come vnto the arguments, which the Church of Rome (as M. Perkins speakes) alledgeth to proue Concupiscence in the regenerate, not to be sinne properly.
1. Obiect. In Baptisme men receiue perfect and absolute remission of sinne: Which being pardoned, is taken quite away, and therefore after Baptisme, ceaseth to be sinne: M. Perkins answereth, that it is abolished in regard of imputation, that is, is not imputed to the person, but remaines in him still. This answer is sufficiently (I hope) confuted in the Annotations vpon our consent: in confirmation of our Argument, I will adde some texts of holy Scripture: First, He that is washed, needeth not but to wash his feete,Iohn. 13. for he is wholy cleane. Take with this, the exposition of Saint Gregorie the great, our Apostle; Lib. 9. Ep. 3 [...] He cannot (saith he) be called wholy cleane in whom any part or parcell of sinnes remaineth: But let no man resist the voyce of truth, who saith, he that is washed (in Baptisme) is wholy cleane: therefore there is not one dramme of the contagion of sinne left in him, whom the cleanser himselfe, doth professe to he wholy cleane. The very same doth the most learned Doctor S. Ierome affirme: saying. How are we iustified and sanctified,Epist. ad Oc [...] num. Psal. 50. if any sin be left, remaining in vs? Againe if holy Dauid say, Thou shalt wash me, and I shall be whiter then snow: how can the blacknesse of hell still remaine in his soule? briefly it cannot be but a notorious wrong vnto the precious bloud of our Sauiour, to hold, that it is not as well able to purge and purifie vs from sinne, as Adams transgression was of force to infect vs. Yea the Apostle teacheth vs directly, that we recouer more [Page 232] by Christs grace, then we lost-through Adams fault, in these words: But not as the offence,Rom. 5. so also the gift, for if by the offence of one, many died; so much more the grace of God, and the gift in the grace of one man Iesus Christ hath abounded vpon many. If then we through Christ, receiue more abundance of grace then we lost by Adam, there is no more sinne left in the newly baptized man then was in Adam in the state of innocencie, albeit other defects, and infirmities do remaine in vs, for our greater humiliation and probation, yet all filth of sinne is cleane scoured out of our soules, by the pure grace of God powred abundantly into it in Baptisme: and so our first Argument stands insoluble.
Now to the second.
R. ABBOT.
This argument as it was long ago vrged by the Pelagians, so in them long ago hath receiued a full answer. It was rightly sayd by S. Austin to them:August. cont. 2. epist. Pelag. li. 3. ca. 3. Quisquis baptismati derogat quod modò per illud accipimus, corrumpit fidem: quisqu [...] autem tam nunc & tribuit quod quidem per ipsū sed tamen postea accepturi sumus amputat spem. Whosoeuer doth derogate or detract from Baptisme that which now we receiue by it, corrupteth Christian faith; but he that euen now attributeth to it that, which by it indeed but yet hereafter we are to receiue, cutteth of Christian hope. We confesse that Baptisme doth seale vnto vs the full remission and forgiuenesse of all our sinnes; that thereby we are engraffed into Christ, to become members of his body, and to be made partakers of his spirit, that by the sanctification of the same spirit sinne may be destroyed and decayed in vs from day to day, that the corruption of the old man being wholly put of in death, perfect righteousnesse may thenceforth take place for euer at the resurrection of the dead. But this doth not satisfie M. Bishop: he will haue it, that Originall sinne is not onely forgiuen in Baptisme, but also quite taken away, and therefore reiecteth M. Perkins answer, that it is abolished as touching imputation, but that otherwise it remaineth still. Yet the answer fully accordeth with S. Austin, thatCont. Iulian. lib. 2. Mali [...] quod non ipsum sed reatut eius au fertur in baptismo. not it selfe, but the guilt of it is taken away in Baptisme; thatIbid lib 6. ca. 8. Manet actu. praeterijt reatu. it remaineth as touching the actuall being, but is taken away as touching the guilt. Now his confutation hereof must needs be a very poore one, that thus directly crosseth S. Austins assertion, and hath no further warrant but his owne bare word. We haue examined that before, but here in confirmation of [Page 233] his argument he will ad some texts of holy Scripture. And first he alledgeth the words of Christ,Ioh. 13, 10. He that is washed, needeth not but to wash his feet, but is wholy cleane. Where we may wonder, that the mans wits should so much faile him, thus to cite a place directly against himselfe. For Peter, to whom Christ there speaketh, had bene baptized before, and yet hee needed to be washed still, insomuch that our Sauiour saith to him,Ver. 8. If I wash thee not, thou shalt haue no part in me. Therefore the vncleannesse of sinne was not wholy taken away in Baptisme, but remained in part still to be taken away. Nay, in the very place it selfe the exception is plaine. For it namely specifieth, that he that is washed hath still need to wash his feete, and that he is not in such sort wholy cleane, but that his feete are still vncleane. And what are these feete, but the corrupt affections and lusts of sinne, whereby we still cleaue to the earth, and haue a remainder of fleshly and earthly conuersation? Of these the Apostle saith,Col. 3.5. Mortifie your members which are vpon the earth, fornication, vncleannesse, wantonnesse, euill desire, couetousnesse. Aug. cont. Iulian. lib 6. cap. 5. Iam baptizatis dicebat Apostolus, Mortificate, &c. Quomodo ergò mortificat baptizatus fornicationem quā non iam perpetrat, n si cùm desideria eius quibus non consentit expugnat, quae in benefacientibus et omnino non fornicantibus nec consensione nec opere etsi non desunt tamen quotidiè minuentur? Thus did the Apostle speake to baptized men, saith Austin. How then doth the baptized man mortifie fornication, which now he committeth not, but by fighting against the desires thereof, and not consenting to them, which are not yet wanting, though daily they be diminished. Now if by reason of these earthly feete, these corrupt desires being a part of originall infection, we haue still need to be washed, it followeth, that by reason of these desires we are still vncleane, euen by the hauing of them, though we giue no consent vnto them. Now Ambrose expresly expoundeth this place of a remainder of Originall sinne, from which still after Baptisme we remaine to be cleansed.Ambros. de ijs qui initiantur myst. ca. 6. Mundus erat Petrus, sed plantam lauare debebat. Habebat enim primi hominis de successio [...]e peccatum quaendo eum supplantatut serpens & persuasit errorem. Peter was cleane, saith he, but yet he was still to haue his feete washed. For he had still the sinne that commeth by succession from the first man, whom the serpent beguiled and perswaded him to error. Therefore his feete are washed, that those hereditarie sinnes may be taken away: For our owne sinnes done by our selues are released in Baptisme. Where speaking of men baptized in elder yeeres, as Peter was, he plainely signifieth, that what sinnes they haue by their owne action, they are in Baptisme wholy abolished, but that Originall sinne, as touching the matter and corruption of it, is still dwelling in vs, and that we haue still need to be washed and cleansed therefrom. And this S. Austin giueth to vnderstand, [Page 234] who writing vpon those speeches of Christ, asketh the question,Aug in Ioan. tract. 80▪ Quis est in haec vita sic mundus vt non sit magis magis (que) mundandus? Who is there in this life so cleane, as that he is not more and more to be cleansed or made cleane? and so affirmeth that the faithfull are here, mundi & mundandi; cleane, but yet so as that in part they remaine still to be cleansed, accordingly as the Apostle exhorteth the faithfull,2. Cor. 7.1. Let vs cleanse our selues from all filthinesse of the flesh and of the spirit, and grow vp to full holinesse in the feare of God. But here M. Bishop alledgeth Gregorie, affirming by those words of Christ, that he that is washed hath not any thing remaining of his sinne, &c. Which words Gregorie indeed hath, but altogether to other purpose then M. Bishop citeth them, disputing in that place against some who heldGreger. lib. 9. epist. 39 Siqui sunt qui dicunt peccata in Baptismo superficietenus dimitis, quid est haec prae [...]catione enfidelius? peccata in Baptismo superficietenus dimitti, that sinnes in Baptisme are but superficially pardoned. Against them he alledgeth the words of Christ here spoken, and inferreth,Si igitur peccata in Baptismate funditùs minimè dimittuntur, quomodo is qui totus est, mundus est totus? Totus enim mundus dici non potest cuide peccaeto aliquid remansit. Sed nemo resistit voci veritatit quae ait, Qui totus est, &c. Nihil ergò ei de peccati sui contagione remanet, quē totum fatetur mundum ipse qui redemit. Si igitur peccata in Baptismo fūditùs minimè dimittuntur, &c. If then sins be not altogether forgiuen in Baptisme, how then is he wholy cleane that is washed? For he cannot be sayd to be wholy cleane, to whom any thing is remaining of his sinne. And to that meaning he saith, that there is nothing remaining to him of the contagion of his sinne, comparing the guilt of sinne to a contagion or infection, wherewith the person is still touched after that the fact is past and gone, vntill by forgiuenesse it be taken away. Now let these words be referred to the drift whereto they were written (which being expressed in the next words before, M. Bishop hath very guilefully concealed) and they haue nothing in them contrarie to our assertion. For we deny not, but that sinnes are fully and wholy pardoned to the regenerate: we deny not, but that the guilt thereof is quite taken away, and therefore by Gregories testimonie M. Bishop auaileth nothing. The very like doth Ambrose say,Ambros. in Psal. 118. Ser. 18 Culpa in eo habere non potest portionem quem absorbuerit remissio peccatorū. Sinne can haue no portion in a man whom forgiuenesse of sinnes hath swallowed vp, who yet plainly affirmeth the remaining of Originall sinne it selfe after the pardon thereof, as before is said. Now we may not thinke that Gregorie was so simple, as that he saw not in the words of Christ, that he that is sayd to be wholy cleane, hath an exception set downe as touching his feete, and therfore could not intend any further, but that he is wholy cleane, as touching the guilt, yet partly still vncleane by remainder of corruption. To Gregorie he addeth Hierome, but the words which he alledgeth are a meere forgerie. He hath borrowed them from [Page 235] Bellarmine of trust, and Bellarmine hath deceiued him, as he will do any man that putteth any trust in him. Hierome in theAd Oceanum, epistle cited by him, speaketh somwhat of Baptisme, in behalfe of one who had had two wiues, one before he was baptized another after, and was therupon questioned whether he might be Bishop or not, because the Apostle saith, that a Bishop should be the husband of one wife. He disputeth at large, that if Baptisme take away sins, much more it should take away the imputation of that that is no sin, but neither hath the words which M. Bishop alledgeth, nor any other that can serue M. Bishops turne. It is further alledged that Dauid saith,Psal. 51. [...] Thou shalt wash me and I shalbe whiter then snow: how then, saith he, can the blacknesse of hell remaine in his soule? But let me aske him, if Originall sinne be taken quite away in the regenerate, how then commeth it to passe, that Dauid hauing receiued the effect of Baptisme in the Sacrament of Circumcision, and now a long time continued in the state of grace, doth yet complaine of Originall sinne, and doth mention it as the fountain of those enormous sins, which in that Psalme he bewaileth and bemoneth vnto God?Ver. 5. Behold, saith he, I was borne in iniquitie, and in sin hath my mother conceiued me. Why doth he thusAmbros. Apoleg. Dauid. ca. 12. Peccatorum specialium atque communiem colluuium confitetur. confesse, as Ambrose saith, the filth both of speciall, and also of common, that is to say, Originall sinnes, if there were now no Originall sin in him to be confessed? And as for that which M. Bishop vrgeth, the same Ambrose telleth vs therof,Ibid. Suprae niuem dealbatur cui culpa dimittitur. that he is made whiter then snow, to whom the fault is pardoned, who yet affirmeth the continuing of Originall sinne in him that is pardoned, as we haue seene before. He was therfore whiter then snow, as touching imputation and guilt, when the fault was pardoned, according to the saying of Austin, thatAug. Retract. li. 1. c 19 Omnia mandata facta deputantur, quā do quicquid non fit ignoscitur all the commandements of God are reputed as done, when that is pardoned that is not done. But yet when he had heard it deliuered vnto him by the Prophet Nathan, that1. Sam. 12.13. the Lord had taken away his sinne, he prayed notwithstanding,Psal. 51.7.10. Create in me a cleane heart; renew in me a right spirit, wash me and I shalbe whiter then snow, thereby acknowledging an vncleannesse in himselfe, from which he had still need to be renewed and washed; from which when he should be washed he should be whiter then snow, but from which no man is so fully washed in this life, but that he hath need still to pray to be washed and cleansed more and more. For what is it by washing to be made whiter then snow, but to be madeEph. 5.27. without spot, or wrinkle, [Page 236] or any such thing? But to be made without spot or wrinkle, August. de nu: & co [...] p [...] l [...]b [...] cap 34 Vt e [...]de a eam se [...] non in [...]sto e culost in [...]u [...]uco non hab [...]ae ma [...] t [...]t &c. befalleth to no man in this life, as S Austin well obserueth. Therfore no man in this life becommeth whiter then snow, by being free from all internall blot of vncleannesse and sinne. And therefore to take away from M. Bishop all matter of cauill, Basil plainly saith, thatBast. in Esa. cap. 1. lib vs [...] qu [...] ideo si [...]ti [...]ns per [...]et treg [...]neran vto lati tirum vt totum pro [...]cutat ad al [...]tem mu [...]s ad [...]a [...]; sed & op ri req [...]rutur; n c perf [...]scter [...] aut qua [...]. cunquc d li [...] t [...]a est opus adhoc vt lau [...]rum quidem sit [...]ff [...]ctitium pucit etit & expu [...]gationis a sor lib a, &c Et quem admodum in tincturis quod repetitis vicibus at multo cum labore in tinctum est, tincturam excipit pressiùs inhaerescentem, &c. Ad eundem se habet modum anima, sante peccatorum suppurata, & in habitudine consti [...]nta mal [...]iae. Ista e nim m [...]th assuetudo vix ac multo negotio potest e [...]us, &c. the washing of Baptisme sufficeth not to bring a man to the whitenesse of snow, but that there needeth also great labour and diligence, and that as to make a perfect and abiding colour, there needeth often dipping & much paines, so it is also in the soule corrupted with the filth of sinne, and being in a habite of euill, that hardly and with much ado it can be w [...]shed and cleansed from it. But saith M. Bishop, it is a notorious wrong to the precious bloud of our Sauiour Christ, to hold, that it is not as well able to purge and purifie vs from sinne, as Adams transgression was of force to infect vs. And what doth he say therein more then we also say? We acknowledge as much, and not onely so, but we say further as he saith, that we recouer more by Christs grace, then we haue lost by Adams fault, according to the words of the Apostle which he citeth to that purpose. What inferreth he now hereof? If then, saith he, we through Christ receiue more abundance of grace then we lost by Adam, there is no more sin left in the newly baptized man, then was in Adam in the state of innocencie. But this conclusion followeth not. For although we recouer more in Christ then we lost in Adam, yet we do not presently receiue the same. God hathEph 1.3. blessed vs in Christ with all manner spirituall blessings in heauenly things, but we haue not as yet the fruition thereof. Christ hath recouered for vs immortalitie and incorruption, yet mortalitie and corruption hitherto continue still. The grace of Christ doth not onely yeeld vs the state which Adam had Posse non peccare, to haue power not to sinne, but also a higher perfection,Aug. de correp. & grat. cap. 11. non posse peccare, to be without possibility of sinne, and yet who seeth not, that we haue not attained to this perfection? God hathEph. 1.6. raised vs vp together with Christ, and made vs sit together in heauenly places: Aug. de bapt. lib. 1. cap. 4. Nondum in re sed in spe, not yet indeed but in hope, saith S. Austin. Thus haue we receiued more in Christ, then we haue lost in Adam, not yet actually and indeed, but in assurance of hope.Tertul. de resurrect. carnis. Contemplatio est spei tu hoc spatio per sidem, nō praese [...]tatio, nec possessio sed expectatio. Our state here, saith Tertullian, is a contemplation of hope through faith, not a presenting of things to vs: it is not possession but expectation. And this the Apostle confirmeth, saying, thatRom. 8.24. we walke by faith and not by sight; that we are saued in hope, but hope which is [Page 237] scene is no hope; thatVers. 23. we waite for the adoption, euen the redemption of our bodies, Eph. 1.14. [...]. the redemption of possession, as it is rightly called, to the praise of his glorie. How is it that hauing alreadie receiued adoption, we yet looke for the adoption; that being alreadie redeemed, we yet looke for a redemption; that being regenerate in Christ, we yet expect a regeneratiō, but because the fruit & effect & substance of our adoption, redemption, regeneration, the adoption, redemption, regeneration of possession remaineth yet vnperformed vnto vs? We receiue nowRom. 8.23. a first fruits, and some small beginnings, as for a tast, so for a pledge & assurance of the rest, butAug. de Tempore. Ser. 49. In comparatione resurrectionis stercus est tota vitae quam gerimus. in comparison of that that shall be at the resurrection, the life that now is, is but euen doung, as S. Austin saith. Therefore M. Bishop stretcheth the present effect of Baptisme too farre, when he saith, that in the man newly baptized, there is no more sinne left then was in Adam in the state of innocencie. This is no Catholike doctrine; it is meere heresie, it is but the dreame of the Pelagians. So they sayd, thatCont. duas epist. Pelag. lib 4. cap. 7. Dicunt Baptismo perfectè homines innouari. men in Baptisme are perfectly renewed, andEpist. 106. Filios Dei non pesse vocari nisi omninò absque peccato fuerint effecti. that they cannot be called the sonnes of God, vnlesse they be made altogether without sinne. And this by M. Bishops doctrine, is not onely gained by the Sacrament of Baptisme, but also renewed euery while by their Sacrament of penance. M. Bishops absolution, if we beleeue him, will set a man for the present as free from sinne as Adam was in the state of innocency. Fie vpon these lewd paradoxes: why do they delude simple soules with these hereticall positions, which they themselues in their own consciences must necessarily condemne? We haue heard before, how Basil condemneth this assertion of perfect puritie attained in Baptisme. In the like sort doth Hilary teach, thatHilar. in Psa. 118 Gimel. Siquis existimet sibi in Sacramenta Baptismi perfectam illam innocentiam & coelestis vitae dignam redditam puritatem, Ioannem Baptistam dixisse recolat, Ego quidem, &c. Est ergò quantum licet existimare perfectae illius emundatio puritatis est vt p [...]st Baptismi aquac reposita quae nos per mortis t [...]uriam à labe morticinae & societate purgabit, &c. we may not thinke that there is restored in the Sacrament of Baptisme, that perfect innocencie and puritie that is worthie of heauenly life, but that there is remaining after the water of Baptisme the cleansing of perfect puritie, which by the grieuance of death shall purge vs from the blot and societie of that carion wherewith we are now blended. Thus Epiphanius alledgeth out of Methodius against Proclus, thatEpiph. haer 64. Alioqui pest illuminationem non contingeret nos iniusta facere, vt pote peccato penitus synceritèr à nobis ablato, &c. Quare constat contrahi quidem ac sopiri per fidem nunc peccatum, vt ne fructus noxio producat; non autem radicitus tolls. sinne by enlightning grace is not taken quite away, for then men should not sinne after Baptisme; it is therfore holden in and quieted (in the Baptized) by faith, but is not yet pulled vp by the rootes. But most notably of all other doth S. Austin determine this point against the Pelagian heretikes, [Page 238] affirming still that in Baptisme there is nothing perfectly yeelded vnto vs but only the forgiuenesse of sinnes.August. de peccataner. & rem. lib. 1. cap. 7. Renouatio incipit à remissione omnium pe [...]catorum [...]t inqu [...]ntum quisque spiritu i [...]ta sapit qui tam sapit intantum renouatur, caetera verò in spe facta sunt donec etiam in refiant, &c. In Baptismo quamitis tota & plena fiat remissio peccatorum, tamen si in ipso aeninto qui est homo interior perfecta in Baptismo nouitas fieret non diceret Apostolus, Etsi exterior, &c Profectò enim qui de dic in diē renouatur nondū totus est renouatus, & in quantum nondum est renouatus intantum adhuc in vetustate est, &c. Et hoc vt faciant iam baptizatos fidelesque adhortatur, quod adhuc monendi non essent, si hoc in Baptismo iam perfectè factum esset. Our renewing, saith he, beginneth at the remission of sinnes, and so farre as a man mindeth the things of the spirit, so far he is renewed, but the rest is done in hope for the time till it may be done indeed. And albeit there be in Baptisme a totall and full forgiuenesse of sinnes, yet if in the mind it selfe which is the inner man, there were in Baptisme a perfect newnesse, the Apostle would not say, Though our outward man be corrupted, yet our inward man is renewed from day to day. For he that is renewed from day to day, is not yet wholy renewed, and so farre as he is not yet renewed, so farre is he yet in his old estate. Therefore the Apostle exhorteth the faithfull baptized to put off the olde man, &c. which they should not be warned to do, if in Baptisme it were perfectly done alreadie. Againe he saith, thatIbid. cap. 10. Homo totus in sptiam & tamin re ex parte in regeneratione spirituali renouatus. a man by spirituall regeneration is wholy in hope, but in deed is yet but in part renewed, and proposeth it for a thing,Jbid. cap. 27. Illud praecipuè titendere ac meminisse debemus taentummodo peccatorum omnium plenam perfectamque remissionem Baptismo fieri; hominis vtrò ipsius quad tatem non totam contriuo muta [...]. sed spirituales primitias in benè proficientibus de die in diem noutate crescente commutare in se quod carnaliter vetus est donec totum renouetur. specially to be regarded and remembred, that onely forgiuenesse of sinnes is full and perfect in Baptisme, and that the qualitie of man is not forthwith wholy chaunged, but that the spirituall first fruits in them that go well forward by newnesse encreasing from day to day, do turne or chaunge to the same that which is old according to the flesh, vntill there be renewing of the whole. Now how doth this stand with that which M. Bishop affirmeth, that not onely the guilt of sinne is taken away by forgiuenesse, but also the whole blot and deformitie thereof is quite abolished in Baptisme, and full and perfect righteousnesse atchiued therein? If onely forgiuenesse of sinnes be full and perfect in Baptisme, then there cannot be sayd to be a full and perfect abolishing of sinne it selfe. It is false therefore which he saith, that in the man newly baptized there is left no sinne, no more sinne then was in Adam in the state of innocencie. To which purpose he addeth further, that albeit other defects and infirmities doe remaine in vs, for our greater humiliation and probation, yet all filth of sinne is cleane scoured out of our soules, by the pure grace of God powred abundantly into it in Baptisme. Which now how farre it is from truth, it appeareth by that that hath beene alreadie sayd. I [Page 239] will here adde only the words of Hilary, who saith,Hilar. in Psal. 118. Gimel. Habemus etiā nunc admixtam nobit materiam quae morus legi atque peccat: bonoxia est, & in huius caducae carius infirmae (que) domicilio corruptionis labē ex eius consortio mutua [...]ur, ac nisi glorificato in naturam spiritus corpore vitae verae in nobis non potest esse naturae, &c. Scit hanc mundi istius sedē regionem no esse viuentium: scit nos adhuc secundum praefiguraetionem legis emundandos esse. Nunc enim admiscemur morticinae & in lege quisquis mortuis contrectas, immundus est, &c. We haue as now a matter mingled with vs, which is subiect to the law of sinne and death, and that in the house of this mortall and weake flesh, we gather a blot of corruption by the societie thereof, and vntill the body be glorified into the nature of the spirit, there cannot be in vs the nature of true life; that this world is not the land of the liuing, but that we are here still to be cleansed by reason of being blended with the carion (of concupiscence) and that this was the thing figured in the law, where a man was vncleane for touching any dead body. Surely if in this life we remaine still in case to be cleansed, if there be still a blot of corruption by reason of concupiscence still cleaning fast vnto vs, and it can be no otherwise till the body be glorified into the nature of the spirit, then it is vtterly false, as indeed it is, to say that in Baptisme all filth of sinne is cleane scoured out of our soules. But whereas all men find by experience both in themselues and others, that there is a wonderfull prauity and corruption of nature still continuing, whereby we are all forward to that that is euill, and altogether backward and vntoward to goodnesse, to preuent the obiection hereof, M. Bishop acknowledgeth a remainder of somewhat, but he qualifieth the opinion thereof with fauourable and gentle termes. He saith, that defects and infirmities remaine in vs marry, in no case must we thinke them to be sinnes. But these defects and infirmities are such, as for which it is true of vs which Saint Austin saith,August. in Psal. 37. Resumus adhuc filij irae, spe non sumus. By reall state and being we are still the children of wrath; it is in hope as touching which we are not so. How are we yet the children of wrath, but by hauing in vs the matter ofIn Psal. 101. J [...] cum qua omnes [...]ati sum [...]: [...]ra de propagine [...]aqudaetu, [...]e massa [...]eccati. that wrath wherewith we were all borne, which what is it but onely sinne? These defects then and infirmities, what are they properly and in truth but onely sinne? But M. Bishop in vsing these termes alludeth to S. Austin, who oftentimes so calleth concupiscence and the lusts and motions thereof, which if he did in the same meaning as S. Austin doth, there should be no matter of great question betwixt him & vs. For S. Austin calleth concupiscence vitium, a defect, not as vnderstanding thereby as the English word importeth, a meer priuation and want of somewhat that should be but a positiue euil quality that ought not to be, a vicious & corrupt condition of man, such a defect, if we wil so cal it (let vs call itDe lib arbit. lib 2 cap 1. [...] [...]e [...]tmi [...]ites esse corruptio. a corruption, as he himself expoundeth it) asF [...]st to [...]ispra Sect. 8. by reason wherof the same S. [Page 240] Austin saith, that no man liuing shall be found righteous in the sight of God, as we haue seene before. It is vitium, such a defect, as wherebyDe ciuit Dei lib. 12. cap. 3. the nature of man is vitiated and corrupted, and so farre as it is corrupted is euill, and there is nothing that maketh an euill man, but onely sinne. It isCont. Iul. li. 2. defectus à iustitia, a defection or swaruing from righteousnesse, hindering, thatDe perfect iust. Rat. 17. sup. sec. 4 we loue not God with all our soule, Cont. Iul. l. 4 c. 2. Inquantū inest nocet etsi non ad perdenaū de sorte sanctorum, tamē ad motuendam spiritualē delectationē sanctarū mentium, illā de qua dicit Apostolus, Cōdelector legi, &c. diminishing that spirituall delight that we ought to haue in the law of God, andDe perfect. iust Rat. 15. Supra Sect. 2. it is sinne when there is not that loue in vs that ought to be, or the same is lesse then it ought to be. But it is not onely after Baptisme that S. Austin giueth to concupiscence this name of vitium, a defect, or rather a vice or vicious qualitie; he calleth it from the beginningDe nupt. & concup l. 1. c. 23. vitium quo vitiata est natura humana; a vice or vicious qualitie wherewith the nature of man is vitiated and defiled. Now before Baptisme there is no doubt but S. Austin by vice importeth sinne, because for it he saith,Ibid. Propter quod damnatur, propter hoc & damnabili diabolo subrugatur. the nature of man is condemned, and is vnder the power of the diuell, and the thing being still the same, how should it after Baptisme be no sinne? Albeit after Baptisme he calleth itCont. Iul lib. 2. Quia mortuum est in eo reatu quo nos tenebat. vitium mortuum, a vice or vicious qualitie that is now dead, because, saith he, it is dead as touching the guilt wherewith it held vs, but otherwise it liueth still. He calleth the lusts thereofIbid. vitia à quorum reatu absoluti sumus: vices from the guilt whereof we are released, importing still, that saue the guilt they are still the same that they were before. Therefore albeit he forbeare the name of sinne after Baptisme, in respect that they haue not the effect of sinne to make guiltie before God, because they are alreadie pardoned, yet he cannot be supposed otherwise to exclude them from the nature and name of sinne. They did make guiltie before, and should make guiltie still, but that they are pardoned, which cannot agree but to sinne onely. And this did Pighius a friend of M. Bishops see very well,Pigh. de peccats Org. cont. 1. Vt vna eade n (que) manente aequitatis & iustitiae regula, i [...]lē aliquid in se manens nūc propriè, primò verè (que) peccatum sic, nunc non sit fieriprorsus non potest. that it is impossible, that the nature of sinne, and the nature of concupiscence abiding still the same, that concupiscence before Baptisme should be sinne, and after Baptisme should be no sinne. Now as both before Baptisme and after Baptisme, it is called by S. Austin a defect, so is it also called, infirmitas, an infirmitie: la [...]guor, a faintnesse or weaknesse, not growing of a bare priuation, as I said before, but of a vicious constitution, a corrupt and euill habite, which therefore he compareth to aAug. de nupt. & con u [...]s l. 2 c. 34 Sicut utala in corpore valetudo &c. Et cont. Iul. l. 6. c. 7. Quodam operamte contagio, id est, cocupiscentra affectir, sicut de pare [...]tibus morbidis m [...]rbida soboles procreatur. corrupt and noysome distemper of the body, wherby diseases are propagated [Page 241] in generation from the parents to the children. The Apostle expresseth the whole corruption of mans nature by the name of infirmitie or weaknesse, when he saith,Rom. 5.6. When we were yet infirme or weake, Christ died for vs. Whereas S. Austin witnesseth the Apostle, byAug epist. 59. Hos dixit infirmos que [...] impios: quos infirmos, eos peccatores, &c. infirme or weake, meaneth the same as he doth when he saith immediatly, vngodly, sinners, enemies vnto God. Infirmitie therfore implieth and importeth sinne, vngodlinesse, enmity against God. Thus doth Austin say, thatDe Triuit. lib. 3. cap. 10. L [...]ue aliquid vinetur. infirmitas sed aliquando talis est vt impietas nomi [...]ciur. infirmitie seemeth a light matter, but yet sometimes it is such as that it is called impietie. And thus doth he call the penall disease of Originall sinne,D [...] peccat. mer. & remiss. lib. 2 cap. 17. an infirmitie, as before was sayd. This isDe nupt. & co [...]cupisc. lib. 2. cap 34. languor quo benè viuendi virtus perijt, the fainting weaknesse whereby we lost the power of liuing well, otherwise by him termed,Ibid. vulnus quod vulnerat ipsam vitam qua rectè viuebatur; a wound that woundeth that life whereby man should liue aright. This infirmitie S. Austin acknowledgeth euery where to continue still,De pec [...]t mer & re [...]ss l. 2 [...]ap [...] Non ex qua nota quisqu mi bap. izatur omnis vetus infirmitas eius absumitur. It is not, he saith, wholy consumed in Baptisme; Cont. 2. epist. Pelag lib 3. cap. 3 Propter hoc dicens, miserere mei Domine quonium infirmus sum. of it and for it we haue still cause to cry, Haue mercy vpon me, for I am weake; Ibid. Haec infirmitas cum qua vsque ad corporis mortem defectu & profectus alternante contendimus. with it we are still to wrastle and striue so long as we here liue, which being the same that it was before,Gal. 5.17. contrary to the spirit of God, Rom. 7.23. rebeling against the law of God, though the guilt thereof be pardoned, must needs in it selfe be sinne, as it was before. And thus much of M. Bishops insoluble argument, containing nothing in it against vs, which the ancient Church doth not wholy disauow.
11. W. BISHOP.
2. Obiect. Euerie sinne is voluntarie, and not committed without the consent of man: but this concupiscence whereof we talke, hath no consent of man, but riseth against his will: therefore is no sinne. M. Perkins answereth; That such actions, as are vsed of one man towards another, must be voluntarie, but sinne towards God may be committed without our consent. For euery want of conformitie vnto the law, euen in our body, although against our will, be sinnes in the Court of conscience. Reply: Full little knowes this man what belongeth to the Court of conscience: the secret faults indeed be examined, but nothing is taken for sinne by any one learned in that [Page 242] facultie, which is done without a mans free consent: all of them holding with S. Augustine:Lib. 3 de lib. ar [...]. cap. 17. That sinne is so voluntarie an euill, that it cannot be sinne, which is not voluntarie: And to say with M. Perkins that any want of conformitie to reason in our body is sinne, is so absurd, that a man might (if that were true) be damned for a dreame, how well soeuer disposed he went to sleepe: if he chance to dreame of vncleannesse, whereupon doth ensue any euill motion in his flesh. This paradoxē of sinning without a mans consent, is so contrarie vnto both naturall and supernaturall reason, Lib de vera Relig. cap. 14. that S. Augustine auerreth, Neither any of the small number of the learned, nor of the multitude of the vnlearned to hold, that a man can sinne without his consent. What vnlearned learned men then are start vp in our miserable age, that make no bones to denie this, and greater matters too?
R. ABBOT
To the obiection here propounded, M. Perkins hath giuen a double answer. To the one M. Bishop replieth, making choice of that that his wit would best serue him to play vpon; but to the other, which is the same that S. Austin still vsed against the same obiection of the Pelagian heretikes, he vseth not a word. Let vs aske M. Bishop himselfe, What, is there not sinne in infants before they be baptized? He will tell vs that there is. But then we vrge him with their owne rule, Euery sinne is voluntarie; but that that is in infants vnbaptized is not voluntarie, because they haue no act of will therefore that that is in infants vnbaptized is no sinne. Will he not here say as M. Perkins doth, according to S. Austins doctrine, which indeed is true, that the sinne that is in infants isAug. Retra [...]t. lib. 1. cap. 13. Supra Sect. 2. voluntarie by the will of him that first sinned, but not by the will of them to whom it is originall; that it is nowDe ciui [...]. Dei. li. 12. ca. 3 Quod vrtium consuetudine [...]mio: è progressu roboratum naturaliter [...]nolenit, à voluntate sumpsit exerdium. naturall to man, but yet the beginning of it was by the will of man. Which answer when he hath giuen vs, let him take it backe againe to himselfe, that the sinne of concupiscence is voluntarie by the will of him by whom it first came, not by our will; and that if he meane that to be voluntarie which is by the act of a mans owne will, his rule is true onely in actuall sinnes, and not in sinne Originall whereof we dispute. But of this point I haue answered sufficiently before in the question ofSect. 18. Free will, and need no further here to stand vpon it; only I wish [Page 243] the Reader to obserue, how M. Bishop hath here foisted in, that sin is not committed without mans consent, whereof M. Perkins mentioned nothing. And therefore as Austine said to Iulian, obiecting how should sinne be ascribed to that person, which hath neither will nor power to sinne, so do I answere to this scholler of Iulian, thatCont. Iulian, lib. 6. ca 4. Aliud est perpetratio propriorum, aliud alienorum contagio delictorum. it is one thing to speake of committing sinnes of a mans owne; another thing to speake of he contagion that commeth by anothers sinne. Our speech is here of a sinne, that without any consent or act of ours, is deriued vnto vs by contagion from our father Adam, which though it be ours without any consent of ours, and against our wils doth tempt vs and entise vs, yet we confesse cannot be perpetrated and committed, but by the consent and liking of the will. M. Bishop if he had meant honestly, should haue accordingly propounded the obiection, as M. Perkins did, that the answer might be seene to be direct and plaine as indeed it is. But he thought that was not for his turne; he knoweth that by truth & simplicity he cannot thriue with bad wares, and therefore must vse shufling and shifting for the vttering of them. But let vs now see what his reply is to M. Perkins answer to that obiection. M. Perkins saith, that the proposition, that euery sin is voluntary, is a politicke rule pertaining to the courts of men, and doth not hold in the court of conscience, which God holdeth in mens hearts, in which euery want of conformity to the law, is made a sinne. To this M. Bishop answereth full wisely: Little knowes this man, what belongeth to the court of conscience: there secret faults indeed be examined, but nothing is taken for sinne by any one learned in that facultie, which is done without a mans free consent. Where when M. Perkins hath spoken of a court of conscience kept by God, he answereth, of a court of conscience kept by men, and those, as we must vnderstand him his owne fellowes, and so to the purpose answereth nothing. In Gods court of conscience, Mat. 15.19. euill thoughts defile a man; what they do in their courts of conscience, it skilleth not. In Gods court of conscience,Rom. 7.7. to lust is to sinne, because the law hath said, Thou shalt not lust: it is a signe that they haue no conscience, that keepe a court of conscience to iudge against that that God hath iudged, that to lust is no sinne. In Gods court of conscience, 1. Iohn. 5.17. all vnrighteousnesse is sinne, and therefore all transgression of the law, because it is vnrighteousnesse, is sinne: if their court of conscience determine otherwise, it must abide the censure of his court, and receiue check and charme frō thence. [Page 244] In Gods court of conscience is requiredDeut. 6.3. all the heart, and all the mind, and all the soule, and all the strength, and the true informed conscience for not giuing all, resteth conuicted of sinne: what court of conscience do they keepe, that giue but a part in steed of all, and yet haue a conscience to say, that they sinne not therein? What court of conscience do they keep, that frame Gods commandements to their conscience, and not their conscience to Gods commandements? whose conscience is like the bed of Procrustes the giant; whatsoeuer God saith, that is too short for it, they haue a rack to stretch it longer: whatsoeuer God saith, that is too long for it, they haue an axe to cut it shorter. M. Bishop did amisse, in steed of a court of conscience kept by God, to tell vs of a court of conscience kept by them. But if we will speake of a court of conscience for resoluing cases of conscience, we may well esteeme by that that we see, that M. Perkins did much better know what belongeth to the court of conscience then M. Bishop doth. As for those learned in that faculty, of whom he speaketh, all whelps of the same foxe, what they think it is nothing to vs, but more learned then they are do know, as hath bene shewed, that sinne may be without consent of the will, nay against the will of him in whom it is sinne. For euill motions and thoughts arise in the regenerate man against his will, and it hath bene sufficiently proued, that such euill motions and thoughts are sinne: and who is there that hath a feeling conscience, that doth not condemne himselfe in the arising thereof, and aske God forgiuenesse, that his mind hath bene ouertaken and caried away into such thoughts, howsoeuer he haue preuented the consent and liking of them? But saith M. Bishop, to say with M. Perkins that any want of conformity to reason in our body, is sinne, is so absurd, that a man might if that were true, be damned for a dreame, how well soeuer he went to sleepe, if he chance to dreame of vncleannesse, whereupon doth ensue any euil motion in his flesh. Where he hath turned conformity to Gods law, into conformity to reason; and maketh M. Perkins to talke of conformity in the body, who mentioneth nothing of the body, onely that he may make way thereby to a dreaming answere of an vncleane dreame. Which dreames notwithstanding are a very strong argument, of a pollution and vncleannesse of nature yet habitually remaining, and a very proper effect thereof, which it is Gods mercy not to impute vnto vs, forAugust. cont. Iulian lib. 4 ca. 2. Cum sopitos deludunt omnia sensus nescio quomodo etiam casiae animae in turpes labū ur assensus; quae si imputares Altissimus, quis viueret castus? if the most high should impute the same, [Page 245] saith S. Austine, who should liue chast? M. Bishop maketh nothing hereof, but S. Austine saith that such dreames are breach of chastity, and therein sinne, if God should impute the same. And therefore he saith, that whenJbid. Si quādo ab eis vllum vel in somnis furatur assensum, cū euigilauerint gemere compellit et inter gemitus dicere, Quomodo impleta est anima mea illusionibus? concupiscence thus in sleepe stealeth a consent, when chast soules hereby fall into consent of filthinesse, they mourne and grieue thereat when they are awake. He teacheth his hearersDe Temp. ser. 45. Aliquando ista concupiscentia sic insidiaetur sanctis vt faciat dormientibus quod non potest vigilantibus: pudet hic immorari sed ne pigeat inde deü precari. not to thinke, much to aske God mercy for it, when concupiscence so snareth them to do that to them when they are a sleepe, which it cannot do when they are awake. And this he himselfe bemoneth to God cōcerning himselfe,Confess. lib. 10 cap. 30. In somnis occursant mihi talium rerum imagines non solum vs (que) ad delectationem, sed etiam vs (que) ad cō sensionē, factū (que) simillimum, &c. Potens est manus tua sanare omnes languores animae mea, &c. Perpetrat istas corrupielarum turpitudines, &c Lugens in eo quod inconsummaetus sum, &c. not onely the delight, but also the consent and act that he admitteth in his sleepe, calling those lasciuious motions a sicknesse of the soule, & saying that the soule therein committeth a filthinesse of corruption, and lamenting that in this kind of euill he continued vnperfect still. Whereby it appeareth, that whatsoeuer M. Bishop deeme of these dreaming fancies & consents, yet that they are indeed a sinfull corruption and vncleannesse of the soule, such as God abhorreth, albeit to the faithfull he imputeth them not. And this haply God would haue to be considered in that, that by the law he was vncleane, from whom by such fanciesLeuit. 15.16. the seed of generation had issued by night, the outward vncleannesse seruing to aduertise of that that is within. And to the clearing of this whole point, that sin may be where the will consenteth not, we may very probably make application of sundry other pollutions that are noted in the law of Moses, arising of those things which were either natural or casual, without any procurement therof by the will. Which Gregory plainly approueth, when speaking of the womans monethly disease, for which by the law she was vncleane, he saith thereof, thatGregor. apud Bedam hist. eccles. gent. Angl. lib. 1. cap. 27. Resp. 10. Menstrua consuetudo mulieribus non aliqua culpa est, videlicet quia naturaliter accidit, sed tamen quia natura ipsa ita vitiata est, vt etiam sine voluntatis studio videature esse polluta, ex culpa venit vitrum in quo seipsa qualis per iudicium facta sit humana natura cognoscat, vt homo qui culpam sponte perpetrauit reatum culpae portet inuitus. it is no sin, because it commeth naturally, but yet because nature it selfe is so corrupted, as that without any furtherance of the will it is seene to be polluted, of sinne came that infirmity, wherein the nature of man may take knowledge, in what case it is become by the iudgement of God, whilest man that sinned by his will, doth now beare the guilt of sin by that that he is against his will, euen byJbid. Resp. 11. in fix [...]. Captiuus ex delectatione quam pertat inuitus. the delight (of concupiscence) which he beareth in him against his will, as he expresseth it afterward. Let M. Bishop therefore learne, that there is a pollution and vncleannesse which is not voluntary to him that is thereby vncleane, but lieth as a punishment vpon the nature [Page 246] of man for that sinne, that voluntarily was committed in the beginning by man. Which serueth him for answer to those two places of Austine which he alledgeth, two as he citeth them, but indeed but one, and that in the booke and chapter which he quoteth last; for in the other place Austine hath no such words. He saith indeed, thatAugust. de vera relig cap. 14 suprae. sect. 2. sinne is so voluntary an euill, as that in no wise it is sinne if it be not voluntary, and this is so manifest, as that neither the small number of the learned, nor the multitude of the vnlearned do dissent therefrom. But as he saith so, so he himselfe telleth vs in what meaning he saith it, which M. Bishops learning should not haue bene ignorant of.Retract. lib. 1. cap 13. It must be vnderstood of that sinne, saith he, which is onely sinne, not which is also the punishment of sinne; that is to say, of Actuall, not of Originall sinne. But it is Originall sinne whereof we here dispute, and therefore by S. Austines owne interpretation, those words make nothing against vs; albeit Originall sinne also was voluntary by the will of the first man, as before was said. Now therefore the vnlearned learned men of whom he speaketh, are learned enough, to see that he wanted not onely learning, but discretion also thus to vrge against vs a saying of Austine against the Manichees, which the same Austine to salue it against the Pelagians, hath expounded in our behalfe directly against him.
12. W. BISHOP.
The third reason for the Catholike is this: Where the forme of any thing is taken away, there the thing it selfe ceaseth: but in baptisme, the forme of Originall sinne is taken away, ergo. M. Perkins shifteth in assigning a wrong forme: affirming vs to say, that the forme of Originall sinne is the guiltinesse of it: which we hold to be neither the forme, 1. 2. q. & art. 3. nor matter of it, but as it were the proper passion following it. See S. Thomas: who deliuereth for the forme of Originall sinne, the priuation of Originall iustice, which iustice made the will subiect to God.
The deordination then of the will, Mistres and commaunder of all other points in man, made by the priuation of originall iustice, is the forme of Originall sinne; and the deordination of all other parts of man (which by a common name is called concupiscence, as that learned Doctor noteth,) is but the materiall part of that sinne, so that the will of the regenerate bring by grace through Christ rectified, and set againe in good order [Page 247] towards the law of God, the forme of Originall sinne, which consisteth in deordination of it, is taken quite away by baptisme, and so consequently the sinne it selfe, which cannot be without his proper forme, as the argument doth conuince.
R. ABBOT.
Of the first proposition of the argument there is no question, because the essentiall forme giueth to euery thing to be that that it is. The question then is, wherin consisteth the forme of sinne; what it is that giueth to it properly the nature & name of sin. M. Bishop saith, that M. Perkins shifteth in assigning a wrong forme; yet he assigneth in their behalfe the same forme that S. Austine doth, and inasmuch as they make S. Austine the ground of their opinion, there is great reason, that they should vnderstand sinne in the same manner as S. Austine doth. But herein appeareth their singular falshood, & they shew plainly, that they alledge him but onely for a colour, knowing that if they take sinne in the same meaning as he doth, their opinion cannot stand. Why do they bring vs Austin to proue for thē, that concupiscence is no sinne, when in one meaning it is that he denieth it, and they deny it in another? S. Austine, as before I haue shewed, placeth the nature of sinne in the effect of it, which is, to make a man guilty. When it doth not so, he vnderstandeth it not to be sinne, opposing sinne not to righteousnesse, as we vnderstand it in this question, but to remission and forgiuenesse of sinnes. He saith, thatAugust. de nupt. et concup. lib. 1. ca. 26. supra. sect. 9. to be guilty of sinne, is to haue sinne; not to be guilty of sinne, is to haue no sinne. Cont. Iulian. lib 6 ca. 5. supra. sect. 9. The baptized is without all sinne, but not without all euill, that is, saith he, he is without the guilt of all euill, not without the euill it selfe. And thus much in infinite places he giueth to vnderstand. So farre therefore as sinne implieth guilt, he denieth concupiscence in the regenerate, to whom it is forgiuen, to be any longer sinne, because they are not thereby holden guilty, and in this we gainsay him not, because it is but as if he should say, that though in it selfe it be sinne, yet to the faithfull it is as if it were no sinne, because it is not imputed for sinne, whereto willingly we accord. But the question is, whether in it owne nature it be not such, as that it should make guiltie, saue onely that it is pardoned, and that [Page 248] did S. Austine neuer deny, as before hath bene proued: he confesseth it to beIbid. vt suprae. such an euill, as should draw vs vnto euerlasting death, onely for being in vs, but that the guilt thereof is remitted. Now this cannot be affirmed of any thing but that that is properly and truly sinne, and therefore it cannot be doubted, but that S. Austine did take concupiscence to be sinne, according to the true and proper vnderstanding of the name of sinne. This true and proper nature of sinne, is before shewed to consist in a defect, obliquity or swaruing from the law of God. For the law of God is the true image and description, and perfect rule of righteousnes, and euery declining from the rule of righteousnesse is vnrighteousnesse, and1. Iohn. 5.17. all vnrighteousnesse is sinne; therefore euery declining from the law of God, is sinne. And this is so true, as thatPigh. de peccat. origin. cont. 1. Propriā veram (que) peccati rationem Ioannes explicat; peccatum est iniquitas, &c. id est, obliquatio à rectitudine quae nobis lege praescribitur aut legu transgressio. Pighius in his time a maine pillar of the church of Rome, doth fully approoue it, and maintaineth it with all his might, that it is a true and perfect definition of sinne, which S. Iohn hath set downe, that sinne is the transgression of the law. Now because the law requireth not onely outward actions, but also the inward fixed disposition and quality of righteousnesse; not onely workes of charity, but also the inward habite of charity, whence all such workes are to proceed, it followeth, that if there be a contrary quality or habite, the same is sinne, because it is a declining from the law. Seeing therefore concupiscence not onely in the first acts & motions of it, but euen habitually isAugust. cont. Julian. lib. 2. defectus à iustitia, a defecting or declining frō righteousnesse, as S. Austine calleth it; seeing it is a very habituallRom. 7.23. et 8.7. enmity and rebellion against the law of God, all M. Bishops learning cannot auoid it, but that it must necessarily be concluded to be sinne. But yet to giue some shew of auoiding it, he sendeth vs to Thomas Aquinas, to learne of him now in the end of the world another forme and definition of sinne, which is, the deordination of the will; so that howsoeuer other faculties and powers be distorted and corrupted, yet we must thinke there is no sinne so long as there is an integrity and right disposition of the wil. Which position is absurdly false, because the loue of God requirethDeut. 6.5. Luc 10.27. all the heart, all the mind, all the soule, all the thought and strength. August de doct Christ. lib. 1. ca. 22. Nullum ase riuulum duci extra patitur, cuius deriuatione minuatur. It endureth not that any streame should be drawen from it, by the deriuing whereof it should any way be diminished. But the will of man is not the whole man, and therefore albeit there be supposed a rectitude and integrity of the will, yet is not sinne hereby excluded, if there [Page 249] be a defect or failing in any other part. Yet that being graunted to M. Bishop, he is no whit the neerer to his purpose hereby. For if the deordination of the will be sinne then concupiscence is sinne, because concupiscence is the deordination of the will. For it hath bene before declared, thatRetract. lib. 1. cap. 15. Jpsa capiditas nihil est aliud quam volūtas vitiosa. peccato (que) seruiens. concupiscence is nothing else but the will of man corrupted and seruing sinne, and therefore the remainder of concupiscence in the regenerate, is nothing else but a remainder of the corruption of the will, and according to that remainder, a seruing of the law of sinne. Whereas then he affirmeth, that in baptisme the deordination of the will is taken quite away, it appeareth hereby that he is wholly deceiued, because so long as concupiscence remaineth, so long still there remaineth in part a deordination of the will. And indeed that rectifying of the will which he affirmeth, is but an Idea, a meere fantasticall speculation, contrary to the common sight and experience of all men. The defendour thereof sheweth a will naughtily resolued against conscience and truth. All men find, all men see and feele in themselues and others a great distortion, a crosnesse, a crookednesse and vntowardlinesse of will. And if there be that cure and healing of the will of which he speaketh, what hindereth that there is not perfect righteousnesse? ForDe spir. e [...] lit. cap. 35. Fieret (perfecta iustitia) si tanta ad [...]ib. retur voluntas quanta sufficii [...] [...]aer [...]. there should be perfect righteousnesse, saith S. Austine, if there were so great will as sufficeth for so great a matter. And that the will is lesse hereto then it ought to be, Epist 29. ex vitio est, it is by reason of De lib arbit. lib. 3 ca. 14. Vitij nomen maximè solet esse corruptio. Quod perfectioni naturae deesse perspexeris, id vocas vitium. a corruption, an imperfection whereby there is somewhat wanting to the perfection of it. And if there be still a corruption, and a want of perfection in the will, then the will is not yet fully rectified; and because the will is not yet fullie rectified, sinne remaineth still, for sinne saith M. Bishop, is the deordination of the will. But it is further to be obserued, that to the perfect rectifying of the will, belong cleare light of vnderstanding, and perfect delight of loue. ForDe peccat. mer. et remiss. lib. 2. cap 17. Nolunt homines facere quod iustum est siue quia latetan iustum sit siue quia no delectat. Tāto enim quod (que) vehementius volumus quantò certuis quàm bonum sit nouimus, eo (que) delectamur ardentius. Ignorantia igitur & infirmitas vitia sunt quae impediunt vsluntatemne moueatur ad faciendum opus bonum vel ab opere malo abstinendum. therefore haue men no will to that that is iust, either because they know it not to be iust, or because they delight not in it. For so much the more earnestly do we will any thing, by how much the more certainly we know how good it is, and more earnestly are delighted therein. Therefore ignorance and infirmitie (the one in the vnderstanding, and the other in the will it selfe, being theDe nataet grat. cap. 67. Paenalia omni animae, ignorantia & difficultas. two penalties of euery soule of man) are defaults or corruptions hindering the will both in the doing of that that is good, and eschewing of that that is euill. So long then as these defaults of ignorance and infirmity [Page 250] do remaine, so long there cannot be a perfect rectifying of the will. But ignorance and infirmity are not taken away in baptisme. Therefore baptisme doth not wholly take away the deordination of the will. Of the former of these, it is manifest which S. Ambrose saith,Ambros. in Psal. 118. ser. 3. Omnes sanctem vmbra sunt quamdus sunt in corpore: non perfectè videns sed ex parte cognoscunt. All the Saints are in a shadow so long as they are in the body: they do not see perfectly, but know in part onely. He learned it of the Apostle saying,1. Cor. 13.9. We know in part, we prophecy in part; we see through a glasse darkly. And if it might be so said of the Apostles, how much more is it to be vnderstood of the common condition and state of men? We cannot but acknowledge much blindnesse, much errour, much imperfection of knowledge, and therefore resolue that the vnderstanding cannot giue due information to the will. And so long as we are thus weake in knowledge, all other things must needs be vnperfect in vs, because we cannot loue beyond that we know, nor delight beyond our loue. Therefore our loue is vnperfect, our desire is vnperfect, our delight is vnperfect, and yet not onely because our knowledge is vnperfect, but also because we haue yet receiued not the perfection, butRom. 8.23. the first fruites onely of the spirit, by whom all these things are effected in vs. For this cause S. Austine euery where acknowledgeth, that this default of infirmity continueth still in the regenerate, and that there is not perfect newnesse in the mind and inner man, as we haue seene before; by reason whereof the will is distracted and diuided in it selfe, and by one motion of it selfe fighteth against another, whilestAugust. in Ioan. tract. 81. supra. sect. 1. we will one way, because we be in Christ, and will another way, because as yet we are in this world. Now sith there is not by baptisme perfection of knowledge to direct the will, and the will it selfe by corruption yet remaining is infirme and weake to the loue and delight of the law of God, it cannot be but absurdly said which M. Bishop saith, that the will in baptisme is fully rectified and set in order againe towards the law of God. Or if the meaning be, that it is rectified and set in order, but yet not fully and perfectly, then he saith as we say, that the deordination of the will continueth yet still in part, and because sinne consisteth in the deordination of the will, therefore sinne by baptisme is not altogether and wholly done away. Thus we see him very hardly bested, that making choise himselfe, yet he cannot find one corner where he can in safetie shrowd himselfe.
13. W. BISHOP.
4. Obiect. Lastly saith M. Perkins for our disgrace, they alledge that we in our Doctrine teach, that Originall sinne after baptisme, is onely clipped or pared like the haire of a mans head, whose roots remaine in the flesh, growing and encreasing after they be cut as before. His answer is, that they teach in the very first instant of the conuersion of a sinner, sinne to receiue his deadly wound in the root, neuer after to be recouered. Conferre this last answer with his former Doctrine (good Reader) and thou maist learne what credit is to be giuen to such Masters, no more constant then the wind. Here sinne is deadly wounded in the root, there it remaineth still with all the guiltinesse of it, although not imputed there it still maketh the man to sinne, intangleth him in the punishment of sinne, and maketh him miserable: All this be comprehended before in this first reason, and yet blusheth not here to conclude, that he holdeth it at the first: Neither clipped nor pared, but pulled vp by the roots: In deed they do him a fauour, who say that he holdeth sinne to be clipped, and as it were razed for albeit haire razed grow out againe, yet is there none for a season: but this Originall sinne of his is alwaies in his regenerate, in vigour to corrupt all his works, and to make them deadly sinnes. But let this suffice for this matter.
R. ABBOT.
This obiection they haue borowed of the Pelagian heretikes, who altogether denying Originall sinne, and acknowledging onely sinnes actuall by voluntary imitation and custome, defended that those being pardoned and forgiuen in baptisme, a man was made fully and perfectly without sinne. When therefore the Catholike Bishops and Pastours of the Church, did teach that after baptisme there was concupiscence still remaining, whence did grow euill motions and lusts, tempting and entising to sinne and wickednesse, they hereupon fell to cauilling in this sort, thatAugust. cont. duas epist Pelag lib. 1. cap. 13. supra sect. 9. sinnes then were not wholly remitted, and that baptisme did not take away sinnes, but onely pare them and shaue them so, as that the rootes did still stick, whence other sinnes should grow againe in like sort to be cut off. Now this Saint Austine denieth, and teacheth that [Page 252] baptisme giueth to the regenerateDicimus baptisma dare omnium indulgentiam peccatorum & auferre crimina non radere, vt omnium peccatorum ra [...]ices in mala carne teneantur. remission and release of all sinnes, and doth not pare of faults (crimina, faults of behauiour and conuersation) but doth wholly take them away, because of actuall sinnes which onely and no other they acknowledged, there remaineth nothing when the same are forgiuen and pardoned.Sed de ista carnis co [...]upiscentiae falli eos credo vel fallere cum qui necesse est vt etiam baptizatus et hic si diligentissimè proficit et spiritu dei agitur pea mente confligat. But as touching concupiscence, saith he, I hold that they are deceiued and do deceiue others, with which the regenerate hath still to fight, albeit he haue well profited, and be guided by the spirit of God. Yet this he saith, is no sinne to him, that is, it is not imputed for sinne, because the guilt thereof drawen by generation, is remitted and forgiuen by regeneration. Now this concupiscence, as S. Ambrose saith, isAmbros. Apolog. Dauid cap. 13. mala radix, an euill root; August. de verb. Dom. serm. 12. radix omnium malorum, the root of all euils, saith Austine, euen as charity is the root of all goodnesse: Idem de verb. Ap [...]st. se [...] [...] llo [...] peccati nomine appelat vnde oriuntur cuncta peccata, id est, ex carnali concupiscentia. from which root of concupiscence he saith againe, that all sinnes do spring and grow. Thus S. Austine confesseth, that albeit there be remission of sinnes in baptisme, and nothing remaining of any actuall sinnes, yet the root of Originall sinne continueth still, which being the same that it was before, must needs be sinne as it was before, albeit in respect that the guilt thereof is released, he forbeareth to call it by the name of sinne. But of this root M. Perkins further saith and that rightly, that though it be in substance the same that it was before, yet in extent and power and strength, it is not the same. It holdeth not the whole man captiue as before; the yoke thereof is broken; the kingdome of it is dissolued; it is as an enemie conquered and disarmed, not hauing theRom. 6.13. members at commandement, to be the weapons of vnrighteousnesse vnto sinne, as before it had. In the first instant of the conuersion of a sinner, saith he, sinne receiueth his deadly wound in the root, neuer afterward to be recouered. Now here M. Bishop though he knew not well what to say, yet to shew both his wit and his honesty, would not forbeare to say somewhat. He wisheth the Reader to conferre this last answer of M. Perkins with his former doctrine, bearing him in hand, that he shall find him no more constant then the wind. And why so? Forsooth he saith here, that sinne is deadly wounded is the root, and had [...] before, that sinne remaineth still with all the guiltinesse of it, [...] [...]mouted. But what contradiction it there betwixt these [...] deadly wounded, and yet remaineth sti [...]? What hin [...] [...] his deadly wounded, [...] may truly be said to [...] to had [...] the guilt [...] [Page 253] wherewith it held vs, and vntill it be healed by perfect buriall it still rebelleth being dead. Yea, but M. Perkins saith, it remaineth s [...]ill with all the guiltinesse of it, although not imputed. But I answer him, that he abuseth M. Perkins, who for this matter stopped this wranglers mouth in the answer last before, and he dissembleth it as though he saw it not. The guilt of sin he saith remaineth potentially, not actually, that is, it remaineth such as that in it owne nature it is sufficient to make a man guilty, but yet it doth not so, became the guilt thereof is remitted and pardoned, which S. Austine manifestly proueth, as I haue said before. He doth not say then, that it remaineth with all the guiltinesse of it, though not imputed, because it cannot be said to remaine with all the guiltinesse of it, but it must also be said to be imputed. Therefore in this whole disputation he confesseth with S. Austine as touching actuall guilt, that Originall sinne is wholly and fully dead to the regenerate, but yet remaineth still to rebell though it be dead. And yet as touching rebellion, it hath also receiued a deadly wound, because it hath not now the same power to rebell, as it had before to raigne, and if sometimes it do gather power againe, yet doth it neuer totally or finally recouer the kingdome that it had, or preuaile vtterly to separate the faithfull from the loue of Christ, as naturally it doth, but by the first stroke and wound that it receiued by the grace of Christ, becommeth in the end euery way and altogether dead, and is vtterly abolished, neuer to be againe. He further alledgeth, that M. Perkins first saith, that concupiscence maketh a man to sinne, intangleth him in the punishment of sinne, and maketh him miserable, and yet here blusheth not to conclude, that he holdeth it at the first neither clipped nor pared, but pulled vp by the roots. But where doth he find this conclusion in M. Perkins words? Surely the paper whereon he wrote this, would haue blushed if it had had a forehead, for very shame, to carie the report of so manifest a lie. But let the paper do what it will, M. Bishop blusheth not; for if he had bene a man of a blushing face, he had wanted the name of being the writer of this booke. What, M. Bishop, is it all one to be deadly wounded in the root, and to be pulled vp by the roots? M. Perkins saith not any where that concupiscence or sinne is pulled vp by the roots, but as a man hauing receiued a deadly wound, yet liueth afterwards for the time, and stirreth and moueth, euen so concupiscence though it receiue a deadly wound, whereof in the end it [Page 254] dieth, yet liueth, and strugleth, and rebelleth for the time, stirring vp many noisome and euill motions and lusts, from the consent whereof no man can say that he is altogether free, and therein maketh a man to sinne, and entangleth him in the punishment of sinne, and maketh him miserable, in such sort as before hath bene declared. I may here turne M. Bishops words vpon himselfe, Learne here gentle Reader, what credit is to be giuen to such maisters as he is: to such Maisters did I say? nay to such remorselesse beasts, who make no scruple or conscience to lie, to falsifie, to depraue those things against which otherwise they can haue nothing to except. As for that which he glaunceth at in the end, that concupiscence defileth all the works of the regenerate, so that though they be in themselues good works, yet they are stained with that, which though it be not imputed, yet is in it selfe mortall and deadly sinne, it hath bene in part already declared and proued in theSect. 19. answer to his epistle dedicatorie, and shall be more fully handled in his due place in the question of iustification, where he professedly disputeth of that matter.
CHAPTER. 3. OF THE CERTAINTIE OF SALVATION.
1. W. BISHOP.
M. PERKINS FIRST CONCLVSION.
VVE hold and beleeue, that a man in this life,Pag. 37. may be certaine of saluation: and the same doth the Church of Rome teach.
M. P. 2. Conclu. We hold, that a man is to put certaine affiance in Gods mercy in Christ for the saluation of his soule: and the same holdeth the aforesaid Romane Church.
M. P. 3. Conclu. We hold, that with assurance of saluation in our hearts is ioyned doubting, and there is no man so assured of his saluation, but he at sometime doubteth thereof, especially in the time of temptation: and in this the Papists agree with vs. Not so Sir.
M. P. 4. Conclu. They goe further and say, that a man may be Certaine of the Saluation of men, and of the Church, by Catholike faith: and so say we.
M. P. 5. Conclu. They hold, that a man by faith may be assured of his owne saluation, through extraordinarie reuelation; In this sence onely the first conclusion is true.
M. P. 6. Conclu. The sixt, and second be all one: that we may be assured of our Saluation, in regard of God that promiseth it: though in regard of our selues, & our own indisposition we cannot.
THE DISSENT.
1. VVE hold, that a man may be certaine of his saluation in his owne conscience euen in this life, and that by an ordinarie and speciall faith. They hold, that a man is Certaine of his Saluation, only by hope, both hold a Certainty, we by faith, they by hope.
2. We say our Certaintie is infallible: they, that it is onely probable.
[Page 256]3 Our confidence in Gods mercy in Christ, commeth frō certaine and ordinary faith, theirs from hope: False. Thus much of the difference, now let vs come to the reasons, to and fro.
R. ABBOT.
In this first diuision M. Bishop giueth vs onely some briefe notes, which need not to be stood vpon. In the third conclusion, he denieth their agreement with vs, but if he vnderstand it as M. Perkins doth of ordinary assurance, he had no cause to denie it. For seeing in the first conclusion of dissent, he graunteth Certainty or assurance by hope, and requireth therewith doubting, yea affirmeth still that it cannot be without doubting, what reason had he to denie the conclusion, being indifferently propounded of assurance afterwards more particularly to be distinguished, but that he well knew not what he was to say? But in that conclusion, he should haue taken knowledge what manner of Certainty or assurance of Saluation it is that we teach, not such as whereby a man is meerely secure, and made absolutely out of doubt, but such as many times is assaulted and shaken with many difficulties, and feares, and doubts, which oft do intricate and perplexe the soule of the righteous and faithfull man. Which notwithstanding arise not of the nature and condition of faith, as if it ought so to be, but of the frailty and corruption of our euill nature, by reason whereof faith is not such as it ought to be. For the true and proper worke of faith, is to giue to the beleeuer a stedfast and vnmoueable assurance of the loue of God, that he may fully enioy the comfort thereof without interruption or let; and whatsoeuer is aduerse and contrary to this assurance and comfort, is to be accounted the enemie of faith. Therefore it is not the office of faith to cherish and maintaine such feares and doubts, but to resist them, to fight against them, and so much as is possible to expell them and driue them out. But yet by reason of the strength of our naturall corruption and the weakenesse of our faith, we attaine not to this, and how much the weaker our faith is, so much are we the further from it. So that the case standeth betwixt faith and doubting, as it doth betwixt righteousnesse and sinne. For there is true righteousnesse in the faithfull, and sometimes it mightily preuaileth, and the conscience euen gratulateth [Page 257] it selfe, and reioyceth in the vse and practise thereof. But anone it beginneth to find defect, the temptations of sinne iustle it aside, the man stumbleth & falleth, and the light whereby he shined before as a starre in the firmament, becommeth eclipsed and darkned, and he seemeth to himselfe not to be the man that he was before. Neither doth this seldome fall out, but euen daily is there a vicissitude and change by turnes, euery day bringing his griefes of infirmity and weaknesse, and sometimes giuing occasion of great lamentation and mourning, by great and grieuous trespasse against God and men. But God that2. Cor. 4.6. commaundeth the light to shine out of darknesse, and can of a poison make a preseruatiue, turneth these infirmities to their good, making them by experience of sinne, to loue righteousnesse the more, and to become more wise and warie against temptation, and in rising to take the better heed not to fall againe. Euen in like sort the case standeth with the assurance of faith, wherein is a comfortable testimonie of the loue of God towards vs, which we receiue as1. Kings. 19.7.8. Elias did his meate from the hands of the Angel, securing our selues to go in the strength thereof vnto the mount of God, and that1. Pet. 1.5. thereby we shall be kept through the power of God vnto that saluation, which is prepared to be shewed in the last time. But yet in the course thereof there is much variety and change, by reason that we apprehend not this assurance directly and immediatly as a principle, but by consequence and collection as a conclusion, so that being subiect to alteration in the apprehending of the premisses, there must necessarily be an alteration in the apprehending of the conclusion. Our eies are not alwaies alike intent to the word of God; we do not alwaies alike conceiue the promises of God, nay temptation sometimes hideth them out of our sight. The effects of grace do not alwaies appeare the same, yea sometimes they seeme to be quite ouerwhelmed with contrarie effects. Moreouer in nature it selfe is a voluntary shrinking and relinquishing of the comfort of faith, through the seeds of vnbeleefe that originally are sowen in vs, so that the ground of our owne hearts is euery while casting vp obiections and questions, as mire and dirt, to troubleIohn. 7.38. the spring of the waters of life, that they runne not so pure and cleare, as otherwise they should do. By all which occasions it commeth to passe, that the daies of faith are as the daies of the yeare, some faire, some foule; one while a sunneshine [Page 258] sommer, another while a long and tedious winter, sometimes no more but a storme and away; one while cast downe as it were to hell, another while seeming to be as it were in the courts of heauen, where is assured standing and no falling; sometimes labouring and strugling, some other times triumphantly reioycing; but in all perplexities and distractions conceiuing still what it hath felt, and striuing to attaine to the same againe. And as a child affrighted runneth to the father, looking for defence and helpe of him, euen so in the middest of all feares and temptations faith, is stil running vnto God, stil importuning of him, calling vpon him, expostulating with him, casting it selfe stil vpon him, depending vpon his aid, and expecting of him that things become otherwise then presently they are, and seldome going so farre, but that it seeth a glimse at least of light in darknesse, of hope in despaire, of comfort in distresse, of life in death, of heauen in hell, or if it loose the sight thereof, yet recouereth it soone againe. Of all which we see pregnant example in the distresses and temptations of the Saints, which for our instruction and comfort, are recommended vnto vs in the word of God. And this God doth, to the intent that being in some sort for the time put off from him, we may take the faster hold when we returne againe; that the tast of his loue may be the sweeter, and our ioy thereof the greater, when out of these flouds of temptations we arriue vnto it; thatRom. 5.3. affliction may bring forth patience, and patience experience, and experience hope neuer to be ashamed, whilest by this meanes the loue of God as touching the assurance thereof towards vs, is more and more shed abroad in our hearts by the holy Ghost which is giuen vnto vs. This haue I set downe the more largely, good Christian Reader for thy sake, that thou maiest vnderstand hereby what manner of certaintie and assurance it is that we defend; that thou maiest know that it is the property of true faith to giue this assurance, and that our assurance is the greater, by how much our faith is greater, and the weaknesse of our assurance the weaknesse of our faith; that so thou maiest see what it is whereunto thou art to striue, reioycing in that that thou hast attained vnto already, and for that that is behind praying as the Apostles did,Luk. 67.5. Lord increase our faith; not being discōforted at the feeling of thine imperfection, because it is the cōmon frailty of Gods children, and faith that it may be strong, must haue time and occasion to grow, [Page 259] and haply seemeth weake to thee when it is strong to God; but alwayes resoluing, that those sparkles of true light which God hath kindled in thee shall neuer be quenched, and thy little graine of faith, euenMat. 17.20. Mar. 11.23. little as a graine of mustard-seed, shall yet be strong enough to cast all mountaines into the sea that shall rise vp to diuide betwixt God and thee. As for M. Bishop, it is no maruell if being an enemy of faith, he be vnacquainted with the secret of faith, the ioy of the faithfull beingCant. 4.12. Bernard. Epist. 10 [...]. Eli fons signatus cui alienus non communicat: sol iustitiae qui timentibus Deum tantùm oritur. &c. as a garden inclosed, and a spring and fountaine shut and sealed vp to be priuate to themselues;Psal. [...]8.9. a gracious raine, which God hath put apart for the refreshing of his owne inheritance. What maruell is it if he know not thatReuel. 2 17. new name which no man knoweth but he that receiueth it, because theIohn. 14.17. world knoweth not nor receiueth that COMFORTER the spirit of truth, by which it is written, yet grudgeth at the sheepe of Christ, that they should feede in pastures which they know not, or should be sayd to know that which they cannot conceiue or vnderstand. And this is the cause that he talketh so rudely and absurdly of the hope of saluation in all this discourse, ouerthrowing the whole doctrine of the Gospell, crossing the whole vse of faith and of the word of God, and speaking no otherwise of this question then a Philosopher, or Iew, or Pharisee would do, as hereafter we shall see. In the meane time to go forward with his briefe notes, he telleth vs in the fift conclusion of consent, that onely in the sence there expressed the first conclusion is true, that is, that onely by extraordinarie reuelation a man may be certaine of his saluation, which being the maine point of the controuersie, I referre to the processe of this discourse. At the sixt conclusion he noteth, that the sixt and second are all one, but the tautologie was in his head, not in M. Perkins writing. For the second conclusion serueth to note the efficient and materiall causes of saluation, whereupon our affiance resteth, which is the mercy of God in Christ; but the sixt serueth to note the manner of our apprehending thereof. To the third conclusion of dissent, he noteth that it is false, namely that our confidence in Christ commeth from certaine and ordinarie faith. But we say that it is true, and now he and I must ioyne vpon that issue.
2. W. BISHOP.
Here M. Perkins contrary to his custome, giueth the first place to our reasons, which he calleth obiections, and endeuoureth to supplant them: and afterward planteth his owne. About the order I will not contend, seeing he acknowledgeth in the beginning that he obserueth none, but set downe things as they came into his head. Otherwise he would haue handled Iustification before Saluation. But following his method, let vs come to the matter.
The first Argument for the Catholike party is this.
1. Obiect. Where is no word of God, there is no faith, for these two are Relatiues. But there is no word of God: saying, Cornelius beleeue thou Peter, beleeue thou that thou shalt be saued: therfore there is no such ordinarie faith, for a man to beleeue his owne particular saluation.
M. Perkins answer.
Although there be no word of God to assure vs of our particular saluation: yet is there another thing as good, which counteruailes the word of God, to wit, the Minister of God applying the generall promises of saluation vnto this and that man. Which when he doth, the man must beleeue the Minister, as he would beleeue Christ himselfe, and so assure himselfe by faith of his Saluation.
Reply. Good Sir, seeing euery man is a lyar, & may both deceiue, and be deceiued, and the Minister telling may erre: how doth either the Minister know, that the man to whom he speaketh is of the number of the elect; or the man be certaine that the Minister mistaketh not, when he assureth him of his Saluation? To affirme as you do, that the Minister is to be beleeued aswell as if it were Christ himselfe, is plaine blasphemie: equalling a blind and lying creature, vnto the wisedome and truth of God. If you could shew out of Gods word, that euery Minister hath such a commission from Christ, then had you answered the argument directly, which required but one warrant of Gods word: but to say that the assurance of an ordinarie Ministers word counteruailes Gods word, I cannot see what it wanteth of making a pelting Minister Gods mate. On the other side, to auerre that the Minister knowes who is predestinate (as it must be granted, he doth if you will not haue him to lie when he saith to Peter, thou art one of the elect,) is to make him of Gods priuie Councell, [Page 261] without any warrant for it in Gods word: Yea S. Paul not obscurely signifying the contrarie in these words.2. Tim. 2.19. The sure foundation of God standeth, hauing this seale: our Lord knoweth who be his, and none else, except he reueale it vnto them. M. Perkins then flieth from the assurance of the Minister, and leaues him to speake at randon, as the blind man casts his club; and attributeth all this assurance vnto the partie himselfe, who hearing in Gods word, Seeke ye my face, in his heart answereth: Lord I wil seeke thy face: And then hearing God say, Thou art my people, saith again: The Lord is my God. And then lo without al doubt he hath assurance of his Saluation. Would ye not thinke that this were rather some seely old Womans dreame, then a discourse of a learned Man? How know you honest man, that those words of God spoken by the Prophet 2000. yeares past to the people of Israel, are directed to you? Mine owne heart, good Sir, tels me so. How dare you build, vpon the perswasion of our owne heart any such assurance?Ierem. 17. When as in holy writ it is recorded: Wicked is the heart of man, and who shall know it? Are you ignorant, how Saul before he was Saint Paul, being an Israelite, to whom those words appertained, perswading himselfe to be very assured of his faith, was notwithstanding fouly deceiued, and why may not you farre more vnskilfull then he, be in like manner abused? Moreouer suppose that this motion commeth of the holy Ghost, and that he truely saith, The Lord is God, how long knoweth he that he shall be able to say so truely?Math. 22. When our Sauiour Christ Iesus assureth vs that many be called, but few of them are chosen to life euerlasting; how knoweth he then assuredly, that he being once called, is of the predestinate? M. Perkins saith, that he who beleeueth, knoweth that he beleeueth. Be it so; if he beleeue aright, and medle no further then with those things, which be comprehended within the bounds of faith: But that the Certaintie of Saluation is to be beleeued, is not to be begged, but proued, being the maine question: he saith further, that he who truely repenteth, knoweth that he repeateth: he knoweth indeed by many probable coniectures, but not by certaintie of faith: as witnesseth that holy person: If God come to me, Iob. 9. (as he doth to all repentant sinners;) I shall not see him, and if he depart away from me, I shall not vnderstand it: Which is sufficient to make him thankefull, yea if he receiued no grace at all, yet were he much beholding vnto God, who offered him his grace, and would haue freely bestowed it vpon him, if it had not bene through his owne default. And thus our first Argument [Page 262] stands in his full strength and vertue, that no man can assure himselfe by faith of his Saluation, because there is no word of God that warranteth him so to do.
R. ABBOT.
He was beholding to M. Perkins, that their reasons being no better then they be, he did vouchsafe here to giue them the first place. By the first of these reasons, they labour to defeate vs of all profitable vse of the word of God, denying vs libertie to beleeue any thing particularly of our selues, because the word of God doth no where speake namely and particularly to any of vs. M. Perkins rightly answereth, that God hath appointed the ministerie and preaching of his word, for the particular application thereof, whilest thereby it is layed to the heart and conscience of euery particular man, so as that by the word of Christ deliuered out of the Gospell by the minister, Christ himselfe in effect saith, Cornelius beleeue thou and thou shalt be saued, Peter beleeue thou and thou shalt be saued. M. Bishop somewhat deformeth the answer by his butcherly and slouinly handling of it, as his manner is, but though in more words, it is to the same meaning that I haue mentioned. Now M. Perkins intended not in that answer, that the minister speaketh to euerie man particularly one by one, but that speaking to the assembly, he laboureth to make euerie man conceiue of that that is spoken as particularly spoken to himselfe. For the word of God being as a Proclamation in writing common to all, the minister is as the voyce of the crier, to giue notice to that congregation, that the matter of the Proclamation concerneth them and euery of them, saying in effect,Act. 13.26. To you is the word of this Saluation sent. Cap. 3 26. Vnto you hath God raised vp his sonne Iesus, and hath sent him to blesse you, in turning euery one of you from your iniquities. Cor. 5.50. Now then we are Ambassadors for Christ; as though God did beseech you through vs, we pray you in Christ steed that ye be reconciled to God. 2. Act. 2.28. Amend your liues euery one of you, &c. Therefore as euery man conceiueth the proclamation, according to the matter of it, no lesse to concerne him, then as if it had bene spoken in particular to him alone, so doth the minister leaue euerie man alike interested in the message of Saluation; what he saith to all men, he saith to euerie [Page 263] man; what to penitents, to euery penitent; what to beleeuers, to euerie beleeuer, what to sinners, to euery sinner. Therefore somtimes he speaketh in the singular number as to one, that it may be knowne that he speaketh to any or euerie one.Eph. 5 14. Awake thou that sleepest, and stand vp from the dead, and Christ shall giue thee light. Rom. 10.9. If thou shalt confesse with thy mouth the Lord Iesus, and beleeue in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be safe, euen thou, or thou, or thou, or whosoeuer it be amongst you. Thus God gaue his law to all Israel, speaking to all, as if he had spoken namely and particularly to euery one,Exod. 20. [...]. Thou shalt haue no other gods; Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen image: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vaine, &c. euerie man was therein to conceiue that he himselfe was spoken to. Thus the message both of life and death, both of Saluation and damnation is deliuered, that thereby euerie man particularly may take knowledge of his owne estate. Therefore a man duly hearing the word of God, and receiuing it not as the word of the minister,1. Thes. 2.13. not as the word of man, but as it is indeed the word of God, and accordingly beleeuing it as from God, from that which he beleeueth generally, frameth a conclusion to be beleeued priuatly as touching himselfe: The minister saith,Luc. 13.3. Except ye repent, ye shall perish. This he beleeueth, and therefore beleeueth as touching himselfe, Except I repent, I shall perish. The minister saith,Mar. 1.15. & 16.15.16. Repent and beleeue the Gospel, and ye shall be saued. This he beleeueth, and therefore also beleeueth of himselfe, If I repent and beleeue the Gospell I shall be saued. Now the minister sometimes hath occasion to speake to some one man alone, and then he himselfe out of the generall deduceth a particular to that one man, as Paul doth to the iayler,Act. 16.31. Beleeue thou in the Lord Iesus and thou shalt be saued. For by what authoritie Paul spake this to the iayler, by the same authoritie doth the minister in the like case speake the same to any other man. For Christ said nothing namely as touching the iayler, that if he did beleeue he should be saued, but onely sayd,Iohn. 3, 15. whosoeuer beleeueth shall be saued. Thence the Apostle inferreth: Beleeue thou and thou shalt be saued, because whosoeuer beleeueth shall be saued. Vpon the same warrant therefore the minister saith to any man vpon the like occasion, Beleeue thou and thou shalt be saued. This whether spoken publikly, or priuatly, the conscience of the hearer apprehendeth, [Page 264] this he beleeueth, and therein beleeueth not the minister, but the word of Christ, and because he beleeueth in Iesus Christ, and by the word of Christ beleeueth that whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall be saued, therefore he beleeueth concerning himselfe that he shall be saued. Thus much is implied though not expressed in M. Perkins answer; now let vs heare what M. Bishop saith to the contrarie, and there we shall heare not one wise word. Good Sir, saith he, seeing euery man is a lyer (as M. Bishop namely for example) and may both deceiue and be deceiued, and the minister telling may erre, how doth he know that the man to whom he speaketh is of the number of the elect? I answer him; Good Sir, M. Perkins no where telleth you that the minister taketh vpon him to know that the man to whom he speaketh is of the number of the elect, but doth onely assure him, that if he beleeue in Christ he shall be saued; and therein the minister knoweth, and the man to whom he speaketh knoweth that be mistaketh not, when vnder this condition he assureth him of saluation, because he assureth him not vpon any deceiueable word or warrant of his owne, but vpon the vndeceiueable word and warrant of Christ, thatRom. 9.33. whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall not be confounded. He goeth on: To affirme as you do, that the Minister is to be beleeued as well as if it were Christ himselfe, is plaine blasphemie. I answer him againe, To talke as you do, you know not what, is the part of a brabling Sophister, not of a learned diuine. For M. Perkins doth not affirme that the minister is to be beleeued as well as Christ himselfe, but that the word of the Gospell preached by the minister, is to be beleeued as if Christ himselfe did here personally speake, because it is the word of Christ himselfe, who when he saith, whosoeuer beleeueth shall be saued, doth therein say, Cornelius, beleeue and thou shalt be saued; Peter beleeue and thou shalt he saued, or if he meane not so, cannot truly say, whosoeuer beleeueth shall be saued. And for this he hath the warrant of Gods word, and commission from Christ, because being for Christ a minister of the Gospell, his office is to preach the Gospell, and it is the word of the Gospell, that whosoeuer beleeueth in Christ shall haue euerlasting life. Therefore this is not to say, that the ministers word counteruailes Gods word, or to make euery pelting minister Gods mate, as the paltry shaueling prateth, but it is to challenge assent and credit to the word of God, to the Gospell [Page 265] of Christ, vpon which onely and not vpon the minister, the faithfull beleeuer doth rely himselfe. But to quit M. Bishop with a question we will aske him, Good Sir, may Iohn a Stile beleeue that you haue authorie from Christ to giue him absolution of all his sinnes? You will vndoubtedly tell him, Yes, that he must so in any case. But Iohn a Stile asketh againe, I pray Sir, where doth Christ speake of you or of me? For I do not find in the Gospell that euer Christ made mention of either of vs. M. Bishop will tell him, that Christ said to the Apostles, & to all Priests their successors,Iohn. 20.23. Whose soeuer sinnes ye remit, they are remitted, and because he is a Priest therefore this authoritie belongeth to him. So then because Christ hath sayd to all Priests, whose sinnes ye remit, they are remitted, though he sayd it to farre other purpose then M. Bishop practiseth it, therefore Iohn a Stile must beleeue that M. Bishop hath authoritie from Christ to absolue him from all his sinnes. Now will not M. Bishop be so fauourable to vs, as that from a generall we may inferre a particular, as well as he. Surely if when Christ sayd, Whose sinne sye remit, they are remitted, he spake in effect of M. Bishop and Iohn a Stile, we see no reason why we should not be permitted the like construction that when Christ saith, Whosoeuer beleeueth in me shall not perish but haue euerlasting life, he saith, and by the minister may be reported to say in effect to this man or that man, Beleeue thou in the Lord Iesus and thou shalt haue eternal life. This matter need not so many words, but that we haue to do with impudent wranglers, who being blinded with malice are as farre from common discretion as they are from truth. Whereupon it is that in the next words he cauilleth againe, as if M. Perkins had sayd that the minister knowes who is predestinate, or did say to Peter, for example, Thou art one of the elect, whereas he hath not a letter or syllable to giue any shew hereof, but onely expresseth a conditionall assurance by the word of the Gospell to this man, or that man, or whomsoeuer, that if he repent and beleeue the Gospell, he shall be saued, the minister not taking vpon him to know that any man truly repenteth or beleeueth, which God onely can know, but leauing the man to apprehend the promise vpon conscience of his owne repentance and faith in Christ. Therefore all this idle talke of M. Bishops is but for want of matter, as his alledging of the words of the Apostle, to proue that whereof there is no question made, [Page 266] that the Lord onely knoweth who are his, and none else but only as it is reuealed from him. He goeth on and telleth vs, that M. Perkins flieth from the assurance of the minister, and leaues him to speake at randon as the blind man casts his club. Bur M. Perkins flieth from nothing that he had before sayd, but still leaueth the word of Christ onely preached by the minister in Christs name, to be the onely assurance for the faithfull to build vpon. Neither doth the minister speake at randon, but certainly and definitely he affirmeth by the same word to him that repenteth and beleeueth, that he shall be saued, though he know not who it is that shall repent or beleeue and so be saued, and therefore in that respect, if M. Bishop will needs haue it so, speakes at randon euen as the blind man casts his club, not knowing whom he shall strike; as the fisherman casts his net, not knowing what fish he shall catch; no otherwise then the Apostles did, at whose preaching some beleeued, other some blasphemed and beleeued not, according to that which S. Austin saith,August. de praedest. sanct. cap. 6. Many heare the word of truth; some of them beleeue it, some contradict and speake against it. So therfore the minister as touching the effect of preaching, speaketh vncertatnly, not knowing where the seed shall grow, but yet certainly deliuering, that wheresoeuer it shall bring forth the fruit of faith, it shall also bring forth eternall life. Which assurance he giueth by the word of Christ, and the faith of the hearer thence apprehendeth, and thereof concludeth assurance to himselfe. Thus doth M. Perkins referre the assurance to the ministerie of the word, and thus to the partie, and no otherwise after then he had done before. But to distinguish true assurance of the heart from carnall presumption and floating fancies swimming in the head, he noteth it to be accompanied with the spirit of grace and of prayer, or rather to issue therefrom, by which the heart is so seasoned and conformed to the voyce of God, as that his word doth still rebound from it by ioyfull acceptance and affectionate desire, and prayer, and purpose, and promise of that that is vttered thereby. So that when God saith,Psal. 27.8. Seeke ye my face, the faithfull soule answereth to God, Thy face Lord will I seeke. When God saith,Z [...]ch. 13.9. Thou art my people, it soundeth from it backe againe, Thou art the Lord my God. When Christ saith,Mar. 9.23. If thou beleeue, all things are possible to him that beleeueth, it answereth, Lord I beleeue, helpe my vnbeleefe. When God requireth toPsal. 40.7 8. do his will, [Page 267] it saith to him, Lo I come ô my God, I am content to do it, yea thy law is within my heart. This is the fruit and effect of thatRom. 8.16. spirit of adoption, which giueth witnesse to our spirit, that we are the Sonnes of God, &1. Ioh. 5.6. beareth record that God hath giuen vnto vs eternall life. Which we do not wonder, that to M. Bishop it seemeth rather an old womans dream, then a discourse of a learned man, becauseAct. 17.18. 1. Cor. 2.14. the things of God seeme but babling and foolishnesse to prophane & carnal men. And out of that prophanenesse issueth that speech of his that followeth, How know you, honest man, that those words of God spoken by the Prophet 2000. yeares past to the people of Israel are directed to you, &c. Where many an honest & faithful soule is ready to answer him, Good Sir, becauseRom. 15.4. whatsoeuer things were written before time, were written for our learning, that we through patience & comfort of the Scriptures might haue hope, & because I find that the Scripture it self doth applie to euery of Gods faithful people, that that was sayd to Iosuah, Iosuah. 19. Heb. 13.5. I will not faile thee nor forsake thee, & teacheth thereupon euerie faithfull soule to say as Dauid did,Psal. 118.6. The Lord is on my side, I wil not feare what man can do vnto me, therfore I1. Cor. 7.27. hauing obtained mercy to be faithfull, do in like sort take to my selfe whatsoeuer God hath any where spokē for the comfort of his elect, & the rather because I know that GodEph. 46. being one Father of all, carieth without respect of persōs, the like regard to all his childrē. Neither is it mine own hart that giueth me this assurāce; for mine own hart could minister no such comfort vnto me, but being cast down with the acknowledgement of mine own misery, God gaue me a hart to hearkē to the voice of Christ, deliuered by the minister out of the Gospel,Mat. 11.28. Come vnto me all ye that labor & are heauy laden & I wil refresh you, & I found in him indeed that refreshing and ioy Iohn. 16.22. that no man shall take from me. And though I be a sinner, yet that dismaieth me not, for1. Tim. 1.15. Christ came into the world to saue sinners, repentant sinners, of which by the grace of Christ I am one. And though Paul were deceiued whē he builded himselfe vpō himself, yet whē he built vpon Christ, as I do, he was not deceiued. And whereas you aske me, Sir, whether I know how long I shal say so, I must tel you, that my assured trust & cōfidence is, that God wil neuer forsake the worke which he hath begun, because he hath said, thatRom. 9.33. he that beleeueth in Christ, shall neuer be confounded or ashamed, that is,August. in Psal. 36. conc. 2. Infra. sect. 20. Iohn. 10.2 [...]. his hope shall not be deceiued, & Christ hath taught me that his sheepe which heare his voice, of which I am one, shal neuer perish, but that he will giue vnto them eternall life. And howsoeuer I know that the wickednes & corruption of mine own heart is such, that being left vnto my self, I shold soone fall away frō God, yet I look vnto that promise [Page 268] that God hath made to al his faithful seruāts,Ierem. 32.40. I wil put my feare into their harts, that they shal not depart from me, resting my selfe not onely in this, that I haue apprehēded Christ, but much more in thatPhil. 3.12. that he hath apprehēded me; not only in this, that I know God, but much more in this,Gal. 4.9. that I am known of God. Neither doth it touch me that you say, that many are called but few are chosen, for many are called which come not indeed though they seeme to come, & thereby shew that they are not chosen, but there is a calling,August. de praedest sanct. ca. 16. Ex vocante non quacunqut vocatione, sed qua vocatione, fit credens. whereby God so calleth, as that he maketh a man to beleeue, of which Christ saith,Iohn. 6.45. Euery one that heareth and learneth of the Father cometh vnto me, & of which S. Paul saith;Rom. 8 30. Whom he hath predestinate, he hath called, & whom he hath called, he hath iustified & glorified. Of which inward and effectuall calling, he hath made me partaker, opening the eares of my soule to hearkē vnto him, & subduing the affectiōs of my hart to the obedience of his wil. And becauseIbid. 11.29. the gifts & calling of God are without repentāce, therfore I rest vndoubted, thatIbid. 14.8. if I liue, I shal liue vnto the Lord, & if I die, I shall die vnto the Lord, & whether I liue or die, I am the Lords, Ibid. 8.39. neither shall any thing separat me from the loue of God, which is in Christ Iesus our Lord. Thus many an honest faithful christian wold answer M. Bishop, & stop his mouth as the pooreRuffin. hist. lib. 1. cap. 3. simple man did the mouth of the proud philosopher in the coūcell of Nice, that he could not tell for his life what to reply against him. But let vs aske him in the behalfe of this honest man, whereas he saithSect. 3. afterwards, that he beleeueth that he shall haue life euerlasting if he fulfill that which Christ taught the yong man in the gospell, to wit, if he keep all Gods cōmandements, how he knoweth that those words of Christ spokē to the yong man so many hūdred yeares past, are directed vnto him, or that there is any such condition made with him, that if he keepe the cōmandements he shall enter into life. Looke by what rule he shal answer vs, that that cōditiō belōgeth to him, that if he keep the cōmandements he shal enter into life, by the same rule doth the honest mā take vpon him to beleeue, that because he beleeueth in Christ he shall haue euerlasting life. By the same rule doth he hearken to all the promises of God as pertaining to him. By the same rule doth he interest himselfe in al the gracious & louely speeches, wherwith God frō time to time hath cōforted his people, & therfore as occasiō serueth he putteth himself into the person & cōditiō of the saints & faithful that formerly haue bin, into their ioys, & sorows, & hopes, & feares, & praiers, & cōplaints, taking vnto himselfe those answers and assurances that God hath at any time giuen vnto thē, resoluing of al the rest that which in one case the [Page 269] Apostle exēplifieth of that that was written of the iustificatiō of Abraham, Rom. 4.23.24 that those things were not writtē for thē only, but for vs also which beleeue as they haue done, that we may be assured that God will be the same God to vs as he hath bin to thē. As for certainty of perseuerance & testimony of predestination & election, more followeth to be said hereafter. But here he confesseth, that he that beleeueth knoweth that he beleeueth; whereof we infer, that then he knoweth & beleeueth that he hath eternal life, because1. Iohn. 5 13. they that beleeue in the name of the Son of God, are to know that they haue eternal life: which is not to be excepted frō being within the bounds of faith, because S. Iohn hath so deliuered by the word of faith, & therfore that the certainty of Saluation is to be beleeued, is not begged but proued, & shal yet further be proued if god wil. M. Per. saith, that he that truly repēteth, knoweth that he repenteth. M. Bi. answereth, that he knoweth it indeed by many probable coniectures, but not by certainly of faith, as if we made our repētance & faith the matters of our faith to beleeue that we beleeue, or to beleeue that we repēt, idlely talking he knoweth not what. Our faith & repētance are not matters of faith, but matters of cōscience & feeling, which in our affections we discern & know; & finding the same in our selues, do beleeue the word of God, that he that repēteth & beleeueth in the Son of God hath euerlasting life. As for that which he saith, that a man knoweth his repentance no otherwise but by probable cōiectures, it is a ridiculous deuice. He that repēteth knoweth further thē by cōiecture the wound of his own hart, & the grieuāce that he hath towards himself, by the cōsciēce of his own sin. Surely if he himself had euer truly repēted, he wold make it no question whether he that repenteth doth know himself to repēt or not, but hitherto he hath bin vnacquainted, what either repentance or faith do mean; God giue him the true knowledge therof before it be to late. But to proue that a mā knoweth not his own repētance but by probable cō iectures, he bringeth a place of Iob most absurdly & impertinētly: If God come to me I shal not see him, & if he depart from me I shal not vnderstād it. Which words of Iob rightly trāslated,Iob 9.11. Whē he goeth by me I see him not, & when he passeth by I perceiue him not, do serue to set forth vnto vs the vnsearchablenes of the waies and works of God, which we are not able to cōprehēd euē in those things which are by vs & before vs, & wherin he seemeth most neerly to approch vnto vs. But let vs take the words as he readeth thē, & I pray thee gentle Reader to obserue in what sort he vseth thē. The thing that he would proue, is that a man knoweth not his own repentance but by probable cōiectures. And how is it proued? [Page 270] Because we see not nor vnderstand Gods cōing to vs or departing frō vs. Wherupon he inferreth, which is sufficiēt to make a man thankfull: yea though he receiued no grace, yet were he beholding vnto God who offred him his grace, & would haue freely bestowed it on him, if it had not bene through his own default. Now what is that that is sufficiēt to make the man thākful? That he knoweth not his own repētance? that he neither seeth nor vnderstādeth Gods coming to him nor departing frō him? If Gods visitation be not perceiued nor vnderstood, what thanks can there be, or conuiction of vnthankfulnes? Doth a man thank God & not know for what, or whether there be any thing or not to thāk him for? How doth he know any default in this case, or can say that God offered him any grace, or that he wold freely haue bestowed the same vpon him? Out of doubt his wits were a wool gathering whē he wrot this, or else his hād out ran his head; yet haply he thought it good enough for thē to whom he meant it, who must thinke of their ghostly father, that he speaks most learnedly whē they vnderstand him least. But let me answer him to the place, that indeed we see not God, nor perceiue him coming to vs, or departing from vs, but yet we feel him working in vs, & as Ber. noteth by the alteration that we find in ourselues, take occasion to say,Bernard. Haec est mutatio dexterae Excelsi: This change cometh of the right hand of the most high. Of this visitation Cyprian speaks most fitly for our purpose:Cypr. Prolog. de cardinalibus Christi operibus. Quomodo fulgur nubes disrumpit & repentina coruscaetio non tam illuminat quàm hebetat oculum, ita aliquādo nescio quo motu tā geris & tangi te sentis, eum tamē quite tangit non intueris. Dicuntur tibi quaedam verba aercana intrinsecus quae efferre non sufficis vt dubitare non possis, quiae juxta te est iminò intra te qui te solicitat nec tamē sicuti est se tibi videndum concedat. As the lightning breaketh the clouds, & the sudden shining therof doth not so much enlightē as dul the eie, so somtimes thou art touched with I know not what motion, & feelest thy self to be touched, & yet seest not him that toucheth thee. There are inwardly spoken vnto thee certaine secret words, which thou art not able to vtter; so as that thou cāst not doubt but that he is neere thee, yea euē within thee which doth solicit thee, & yet doth not yeeld thee to see him as he is. Which words plainly shew, that though a man see not God either coming or departing, yet he certainly knoweth & perceiueth in himself the work of God. Therfore of the very words which M. Bish. citeth Hier. saith; that Hieron. in Iob. cap. 9 Dicit quòd veniētis Dei praesentia sit quando homini innotescit & quando occulitur quasi abeū tis absentia indicitur. the presence of God coming to a man, is when he becōeth known to him, & his hiding of himself is termed the absence of him as going away; in neither of which we are able sufficiētly to cōceiue or cō prehend him. Wherby we may see with how great discretiō this place was brought to proue that gods work in mās repētāce, is not certainly known to him Now therfore the word of God is warrant to a faithful man to assure himself of his Saluatiō. For it biddeth him toMar. 1 15. beleeue the Gospell, & the Gospell is, thatIoh. 3.15.16. whosoeuer beleeueth in Christ shall haue euerlasting life. He is therefore to beleeue, that whosoeuer beleeueth in Christ shall haue euerlasting life. He is therfore to beleeue of himself, [Page 271] that because he beleeueth in Christ he shall haue euerlasting life. Or if he do not beleeue of himselfe, beleeuing in Christ that he shall haue euerlasting life, he beleeueth not the Gospell, that whosoeuer beleeueth in Christ, shall haue euerlasting life. And thus the strength of M. Bishops argument is very feeble, neither is it onely vaine in it selfe, but he hath dealt as absurdly in the handling of it.
3. W. BISHOP.
The second is. It is no article of the Creed, that a man must beleeue his owne Saluation, and therefore no man is bound there unto.
M. Perkins answereth. That euerie article of the Creed containes this particular faith of our owne Saluation, namely three: First (saith he) to beleeue in God, is to beleeue that God is our God, and to put our trust in him for our Saluation.
Answer. I admit all this, and adde more (that M. Perkins be no longer ignorant of the Catholike knowledge of the Creed) that we must also loue him with all our heart and strength: thus we vnderstand it more fully then he: Yet find not out that thirteenth article, Thou must beleeue thine owne particular Saluation. For albeit, I beleeue and trust in God, yet not being sure of my loue towards him, I am not assured of Saluation, for as S. Iohn testifieth, He that loueth not,1. Iohn. 3. abideth in death.
So I answer to the second article named by M. Perkins, that is, I beleeue that God of his infinite mercie, through the merits of Christs passion, doth pardon all those, who being heartily sorie for their sinnes, do humbly confesse them, and fully purpose to leade a new life: that I my selfe am such a one, I do verily hope, because I haue as farre forth as I could, to my knowledge performed those things which God requires of me, but because I am but a fraile creature, and may perhaps not haue done all that so well as I ought, or am not so well assured of that, which by Gods helpe I haue done, I cannot beleeue it, for in matter of faith (as you shall heare shortly) there can be no feare or doubt.
The like answer is giuen to the article of life euerlasting. Mat. 19. I beleeue that I shall haue life euerlasting, if I fulfill that which our Sauior taught the young man, demaunding what he must do to haue life euerlasting: to wit, if I keepe all Gods commandements, but because I am not assured that I shall do so (yea the Protestants (though falsly) assure vs, that no man by any helpe of Gods grace can so do,) I remaine in feare. [Page 272] But (saith M. Perkins) the diuell may so beleeue the articles of the Creed, vnlesse we do apply those articles to our selues. First, I say the diuell knowes to be true all that we do beleeue, and therefore are said by S. Iames to beleeue, but they want a necessarie condition of faith, that is a godly and deuout submission of their vnderstanding vnto the obedience of faith, and so haue no faith to speake properly. Againe, they trust not in God for Saluation, nor indeuour not any maner of way to obtaine Saluation, as Christians do, and so there is great difference betweene their beleefe in the articles of the Creed, and ours.
R. ABBOT.
To this argument M. Perkins iustly saith, that the pillars of the Church of Rome do not vnderstand the Creed, who hauing corrupted all points of Christian faith, must needs frame the articles of the Creed to the same corruption. Whether they were the Apostles or other after them, that layed together this briefe of faith, they intended not therein a narration of common historie, but a profession of priuate hope. And that may appeare by the phrase wherein they haue expressed this beleefe; I BELEEVE IN GOD THE FATHER; I BELEEVE IN IESVS CHRIST; I BELEEVE IN THE HOLIE GHOST. For well doth M. Perkins note that to say, I beleeue in God, is all one as to say, I beleeue that God is my God, and I haue an assured confidence and trust in him to be saued by his mercie. M. Bishop mentioneth the answer in superficiall and generall termes, that to beleeue in God is to beleeue that God is our God, and to put our trust in him for our Saluation, and in this sort admitteth it, but to that purpose as M. Perkins spake it, he will by no meanes admit it, because so to admit it, should be to graunt the point in question. He can be content that we in common beleeue God to be our God by right of soueraigntie and authoritie, but he will not endure that any man shall say as M. Perkins intended, I beleeue that God is my God, by affection of loue. He will like well enough that we put our trust in him for our Saluation, so as to looke to be saued by him if we be saued, and haply to cary some probable opinion that we shall be saued, but in no case will suffer vs to conceiue so of our selues, as to say with the Apostle,1. Thess. 5.9. God hath not appointed vs to wrath, but to obtaine [Page 273] Saluation by the meanes of Iesus, as M. Perkins meant. To beleeue that God is our God, is to beleeue that he is our life, our peace, our strength, our deliuerance and Saluation; not only that he is these things in himselfe, but that he is indeed the same to vs, assuredly perswading our selues, that because God is ours, therefore whatsoeuer is his is ours, that is, for vs and for our vse, his mercie, his power, his prouidence, to watch ouer vs, and to preserue and keepe vs to himselfe both in life and death. This did God import when by his new couenant he bound himselfe to his heires of promise, saying,Ierem. 31.33. I will be their God and they shall be my people, whereupon they shall be emboldened to say,Esa. 25.9. Lo this is our God, we haue waited for him and he will saue vs; we will reioyce and be ioyfull in his Saluation. And thus doth S. Austin teach vs to makeAugust. in Psal. 32. conc. 2. An temerè dicimus faciendo nobu Deum possessionem? &c. Dicat anima, secura dicat, Deus meus es tu quidicit animae nostrae, salus tua ego sum, &c. God our God, to make him our possession, as he speaketh, and therefore without doubting to say vnto God, Thou art my God, because he saith to our soule, I am thy Saluation. And indeed no man can with a true heart say vnto God, Thou art my God, whose soule doth not with inward comfort heare God saying vnto him by his word, I am thy Saluation. Seeing therefore that M. Bishop cannot deny, but that to say, I beleeue in God, is as much as to say, I beleeue that God is my God, he must graunt, that for a man to professe to beleeue in God, is to professe the assured beleefe of his owne Saluation. The first degree of faith is credere Deum, to beleeue that God is. The second degree is credere Deo, to beleeue God, that is to beleeue that his words and promises are true. But credere in Deum; to beleeue in God, addeth further to trust in God according to that word and promise, and to beleeue the same, not onely generally and indefinitely, but particularly and to his owne vse, firmely resoluing that God will do to him according to that that he hath promised, and therefore to his repentance and faith, according to his promise will giue euerlasting life. Thus Eusebius Emisenus distinguishing those phrases rightly, saith, thatEuseb. Emissen. de symb. hom. 2. no man is approued to haue beleeued in God, but he that hath deuoutly trusted in him, which is that that the Prophet Dauid nameth, to put trust in his mercie, whereby we stedfastly expect at his hands, and of his meere goodnesse, to receiue all things for our safetie and Saluation. But M. Bishop making shew to admit that which M. Perkins [Page 274] saith, addeth more, that he might not be ignorant of the Catholike knowledge of the Creede, that we must also loue God with all our heart and strength, and thus saith that they vnderstand it more fully then we do. Where we may obserue what a wise construction he maketh for himselfe. For he telleth vs by and by that he is not sure whether he loue God or not, and afterward againe that charitie is seated in the darke corners of the will, and a man cannot be sure that it is in himselfe. So then because to beleeue in God, is to loue God with all his heart and strength, and M. Bishop doth not know whether he loue God or not, it must needs follow that for ought he knoweth, he doth but lie so often as he saith, I beleeue in God. This doth he gaine by his vnderstanding this point more fully then we do. But we respect not here any largenesse or fulnesse, but rather proprietie of vnderstanding. It is true indeed that Saint Austin sometimes declareth beleeuing in God by the loue of God, and other such signes and tokens thereof, not as properly to define what it is to beleeue in God, but rather to shew who they are that truely doe beleeue in God, that men may not flatter themselues with opinion of beleeuing, when indeed they doe not beleeue. Thus doth he say, thatAugust. in Psal. 77. Adhaerere ad [...]enè cooperandum bona operanti Deo. to beleeue in God is to cleaue vnto God, to worke well with him, working that that is good in vs; thatDe verb. dom. ser 61 Jlle credit in Christum qui & sperat in Christum & diligit Christum. he that beleeueth in Christ both hopeth in Christ and loueth Christ; thatIn loan. tract. 29. Quid est crederem eum? Credendo amare, credendo diligete, &c. to beleeue in Christ, is in beleeuing to affect, in beleeuing to loue Christ. But it is one thing to describe a thing by adioyned properties and effects, another thing to define it out of the nature and proprietie of it selfe. We doubt not but that faith and loue are alwayes conioyned, and true beleefe in God doth alwayes infallibly bring forth the loue of God, but yet as diuerse members of the body necessarily concurring for the perfecting of the whole, haue euerie one their seuerall office, the eye to see, the eare to heare, &c. so these vertues of the soule, namely faith and loue, though they alwayes meete and neuer are diuided, yet in office and act are distinct each from other, neither is to beleeue the same as to loue, nor to loue the same as to beleeue. For we do not make the question that Christ asked the man that had beene blind,Iohn. 9.35. Beleeuest thou in the Sonne of God; to be the same with that that he demaunded of Peter, Cap. 21.15. Louest thou me? Now therefore to beleeue in God, is in it selfe to haue a [Page 275] full affiance and assured trust in him that he will saue vs, and accordingly the summe of that that I professe to beleeue in the Creed, is that God is my God and Father by the mediation of Iesus Christ, through the sanctification of the holy Ghost, whereby he hath made me a member of his Catholike Church, which is the communion and society of his Saints, to which, and all the members whereof, and so namely to me, he will giue remission and forgiuenesse of sinnes, and a happy resurrection of the body, to be partaker with the soule of euerlasting life. And that this is a matter of beliefe without any thirteenth article of the Creed, let him learne of Dauid saying,Psal. 27.13. I beleeue to see the goodnesse of the Lord in the land of the liuing. Which what is it else but to say, I beleeue mine owne Saluation? And let him learne of Fulgentius, that it was not proper to say so; forFulgent. ad Monim. lib. 1. Justus ex fide viuens fiductaliter dicit. Credo vt lere bona Domini &c. the iust liuing by faith, saith he, boldly saith, I beleeue to see the goodnesse of the Lord in the land of the liuing, Let S. Austine also teach him this matter of beleefe:August. in Psal. 148. Quid tibi promisti Deus ò homo mortalis? Quia victuri es in aeternum. Non credu? Crede, crede: Plus est tā quod fecit quam quod promisit. God hath promised thee, O man, that thou shalt liue for euer. Doest thou not beleeue it? Beleeue it, beleeue it; for that that he hath already done for thee, is a greater matter then that that he hath promised. To the same effect Cyprian speaketh,Cyprian. de mortalit. Deus tibi de hoc mundo recedenti immortalitatem pollicetur at (que) aeternitatem, & tu dabitas? hoc est Deum omnino non nosse; hoc est Christū credentium magistrum peccato incredulitatis offendere; hoc est in ecclesia constitutum fidem in domo fidei non habere. God hath promised vnto thee when thou departest out of this world, immortality and eternity, and doest thou doubt thereof? This were not to know God: this is to offend Christ the maister of beleeuers with the sinne of vnbeleefe? this is for a man being in the house of faith to be without faith. So that by Cyprians iudgement to haue faith, is for a man to beleeue his owne Saluation, and not to beleeue his owne Saluation, is to be without faith. But Saint Bernard handleth this point most pregnantly of all other.Bernard. in Annunciat. ser. 1. Necesse est primo omnium credere quod remissionem peccatorum habere non possis nisi per indulgentiam Dei, &c postremò quòd aeternam vitam nullis potes operibus promereri nisi gratis detur & illa, &c. Verum haec non omnino sufficiunt sed magis initium quoddam & velut fundamentum fidei sunt habenda. Idee (que) sicredis peccata tua non posse deleri nisi ab eo cui soli peccasti benefacis; sed adde adhuc vt & hoc credas quia per ipsum tibi peccata donantur. Hoc est testimonium quod perhibit in corde nostro Spi. sanctus dicens, Dimissa sunt tibi peccata tua; Sic enim arbitratur Apostolus gratis iustificari hominem per fidem. Sic & de vita aeterna habeas necesse est testimonium spiritus quòd ad eam sis diuino munere peruenturus. It is necessarie for thee to beleeue that thou canst not haue forgiuenesse of sinnes but by the mercie of God, and that by no works thou canst obtaine eternall life, vnlesse it also be giuen thee. But these things are not sufficient, nay they are to be accounted but the beginning and as it were the foundation of faith. Therefore if thou beleeuest that thy sinnes cannot be put away, but by him to whom onely thou hast [Page 276] sinned thou doest well, but adde hereto to beleeue, THAT BY HIM THY SINNES ARE FORGIVEN THEE. This is the testimony that the holy Ghost giueth in our heart, saying, Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee: for thus doth the Apostle define, that a man is freely iustified by faith. So also as touching eternall life, it is needfull that thou haue the testimony or witnesse of the spirit, THAT THOV SHALT COME VNTO IT BY THE GIFT OF GOD. Here then it is plaine, that without any thirteenth article of the Creed, the faith wherby the Apostle saith a man is iustified, is such a faith as whereby I beleeue mine owne Saluation; whereby I beleeue that my sinnes are forgiuen me, and that I shall attaine by the very gift of God vnto euerlasting life. But saith M. Bishop, I beleeue and trust in God; Yet not being sure of my loue towards him, I am not assured of Saluation. Where he plainly sheweth, that he hath no loue towards God, because where loue is, it cannot but be certainly felt and knowne, and if he loued God, he could not but assure himselfe thereof. Now therefore it is no maruell that he hath no assurance of Saluation, when there wanteth in him the certaine and infallible effect of that faith whereby he should be assured of Saluation. For true faith is the fountaine of our loue towards God, whilest beleeuing God to be such and so mercifull vnto vs, it swaloweth vp our affections, and draweth our loue and deuotion vnto him. Which is not vnfelt in vs, but by the feeling thereof in our selues, we gather a further confirmation and assurance to our selues, that we are beloued of God. Both which S. Bernard well declareth, saying of the faithfull man:Bernard. epist. 107. Vermis vilissimus & odio dignissimus sempiterno, tamen confi lit amari, quia se sentit amare; immo quia se amari praesentit non redar [...]are confunditur. A vile worme and worthy to be hated euerlastingly, yet assureth himselfe that he is beloued, because he feeleth himselfe to loue; nay because he first feeleth himselfe to be beloued, therefore he is ashamed not to loue againe. So againe he saith, thatJdem in Cant. ser. 69. Amor Dei amorem animae parit &c. Ex eo quod se diligere sentit eti am diligi non ambigit. the loue of God breedeth in the soule loue towards God, and by feeling it selfe to loue, it is also out of doubt that it selfe is beloued. Now what a miserable case is M. Bishop in, that neither is sure of his loue towards God, nor dare assure himselfe of Gods loue towards him? If he had not a senselesse and dead heart, he could not but much grieue and lament at his owne estate. And yet forsooth he telleth vs, that he doth beleeue and trust in God; but therein he lieth vnto God. ForCyprian. de duplici martyr. Non credit in deū qui non tu cosolo collocat totius faelicitatis suae fiduciam. he doth not beleeue in God, that doth not place the confidence of his felicity in God onely; which he doth not place in God onely, but partly in God and partly in himselfe. [Page 277] He doth not trust in God, that doth not rely wholly vpon Gods mercy, and thereby looke for that at his hands for which he trusteth in him, so as to account himselfe deceiued by him if he faile thereof, which neuer hath befallen to any, not shall befall that doth put his trust in God. M. Bishop diuideth this trust betwixt God and himselfe, and so trusteth in God, as that he maketh that for which he professeth to trust in God, to hang chiefely vpon himselfe, and therefore no maruell if he haue no assurance of Saluation, because he incurreth rather the curse denounced by the Prophet,Ierem. 1 [...].5. Cursed is the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arme. For what doth he else when he leaueth the whole worke of God, as we haue heard before, to be confirmed and made good by his own free wil? Now as touching that other article of beleeuing in Christ, to haue by his merits remission of sinnes, S. Austine teacheth vs, thatAugust. in Ioan. tract. 29. & de verb. dom. ser. 61. Credendo in cum ire & membru [...]ius incorporari. &c. Quoquo modo vnitur in eum & menibrum in corpore [...]ius efficitur. to beleeue in Christ is to be vnited vnto Christ, to be made one with him, to be incorporated, to be members of his body. He expoundeth it to be all one with that which Christ saith in the Gospell, ofIdem in Ioan. tract. 26. Credere in Christum hoc est manducare panem viuum. eating his flesh & drinking his bloud, which whosoeuer doth,Iohn. 6.54.56. dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him; he hath eternall life, and Christ will raise him vp at the last day. Thus the Gospell of Christ instructeth vs, and he that beleeueth in Christ, because he beleeueth the Gospell, must beleeue that he is a member of Christ, one with Christ and Christ with him; that he dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him, that Christ hath giuen vnto him eternall life, and will raise him vp at the last day; being assured, that as a head wil not suffer a member of it owne body to perish, which it hath in his power to preserue; so Christ hauing made him a member of his body, and hauing power to saue him, will not suffer him to perish, but as a faithfull Mediatour will performe that charge, whichIohn. 6.39. the will of the heauenly Father hath laid vpon him, that of all that he hath giuen him he should loose nothing, but should raise it vp at the last day. Now M. Bishop saith, that he beleeueth that God for the merits of Christes passion, doth forgiue them that are heartily sorie for their sinnes, and humbly confesse them, with a full purpose of a new life. And this he hopeth that he hath done, but he cannot assure himselfe that he hath done it, or that he hath done it so well as he ought to do, and therefore cannot beleeue the forgiuenesse of his sinnes. Where we see, that the merit of Christes passion is not sufficient in his opinion, to purchase for him the forgiuenesse of sinnes, but it must further [Page 278] hang vpon the sufficiencie and perfection of his owne repentance. It is not enough that he truly repent, vnlesse he repent so well as he ought to do, that his repentance may deserue the pardon that he seeketh for▪ But we for our parts know and confesse, that our repentance, our faith, our righteousnesse, are neuer such as they ought to be: we are short and vnperfect in the sorow for our sinnes; our purposes of new life and amendment of our defaults, proue often times likeOse. 6.4. the morning dew that is quickly dried vp. And therefore it is not the value and woorth of our repentance that we rest vpon to merit pardon and forgiuenesse, but we require a sincerity and truth thereof, faithfully to craue the same, being but as the paine and greefe which maketh to seeke the medicine whereby it is eased; as the hunger and thirst which maketh to craue the food whereby it is releeued; as the feeling of beggerie and want, which maketh to seeke the treasure and riches by which it is supplied. Which supply and reliefe spiritually we find in this, thatRom. 3.24. we are iustified freely by the grace of God, through the redemption that is in Christ Iesus, whom God hath set forth to be an attonement for vs (not by the merit of our repentance) but by faith in his bloud. Rhem. Testam. Explicat. of certaine words: in the end. Freely, for god a mercy, for nothing, as the Rhemists expound the word gratis, willing to shew a little truth in giuing the right signification of the word, but craftily suppressing the same truth, and plainly contradicting it by a colourable glose deuised against the text of the Apostle, and against the signification of the word, which force of truth hath wrested from themselues.Ambros. in Rom. cap. 3. Gratit quia nihil operantes, ne (que) vitem reddentes sola fide iustificati sunt dono Dei. Freely, saith Ambrose, because hauing no works, nor yeelding any requitall euen of the gift of God, we are iustified by faith onely. Chrysost. ni Rom. hom. 7. Nullu ad hoc vsus operibus sed fidem tamum exigens. Freely, saith Chrysostome, because he vseth hereto no works of ours, but requireth faith onely. And he requireth faith onely, onely as a hand whereby we receiue, not as a worke whereby we deserue this forgiuenesse of our sinnes, that so the true penitent may firmly expect it in Christ onely by beleeuing, not hang in suspense of it by being in doubt of vnsufficiencie in repenting; God hauing therefore appointed it to beRom. 4.16. by faith that it may be of grace, that the promise (thereof) may be sure (not in it selfe, not with God; who doubteth but in that respect it is sure enough? but) to all the seed, that is, to euery one that beleeueth; the promise being that Act. 10.43. through the name of Christ, euery one that beleeueth in him shall haue forgiuenesse of sinnes. Which faith, though it be yet but weake and [Page 279] little, and sometimes interrupted with feares and doubts, yet God accepteth it and cherisheth it, that by more experience it may grow to more strength, neither is it true which M. Bishop saith, that in matter of faith there is no feare or doubt, as anone after shall appeare. In the mean time he further addeth as touching the article of Eternall life, that he beleeueth he shall haue it, if he shall keepe all Gods commandements, but because he is not assured that he shall so do, he remaineth in feare. And very iustly may he be in feare that looketh for eternall life vpon no other condition then he doth. The Apostle indeed doth plainly debarre him from all hope and expectation therof, when he saith,Gal. 3.10. So many as are of the works of the law; are vnder the curse, for it is written, Cursed is euery one that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law to do them. Where he plainly taketh it for graunted, that no man continueth in all things that are written in the law, that is, that no man keepeth all Gods commandements, and therefore concludeth, that he that for eternall life dependeth vpon keeping all Gods commandements, cannot auoid the curse. Yea, but Christ saith to the yong man in the Gospell,Mat. 19.17. If thou wilt enter into life, keepe the commandements. It is true; but Christ saith it to induce the young man to the knowledge of himselfe, and very ill is it applied to seduce men from the true acknowledgement of the faith of Christ. The young man asketh what he might do to inherit eternall life? Our Sauiour Christ referreth him to the law, asGal. 3.25. the Schoolemaister to traine him vnto Christ; that finding itRom. 8.3. Gal. 3.21. a thing impossible for the law to giue him life, and therefore casting off all vaine confidence of the righteousnesse thereof, he might be fitted to embraceAct. 4.12. the faith of that name, in which onely life and Saluation is offered vnto vs. Which it plainlie appeareth this young man conceiued not, by reason of a presumption that he had by misunderstanding the law, that he had obserued the law. The vaine opinion whereof to discouer, our Sauiour biddeth him to sell all & giue to the poore, promising him treasure in heauen, and willing him in the meane time to come and follow him, that it might appeare how far he was frō that loue of God and his neighbour which the law required, in whose heart the loue of riches bare so great a sway, as that he could not be content at Gods cōmandement vpō promise of heauenly treasure, to bestow the same to the necessity of his neighbour. Now if he had rightly esteemed of [Page 280] himselfe how farre he was from being answerable to the righteousnesse of the law, he would haue profited by the words of Christ, and haue taken occasion thereby to come to Christ for the obtaining of eternall life, the true meanes whereof he directeth when he saith,Iohn. 17.3. This is life eternall, to know thee the onely true God, and Iesus Christ whom thou hast sent. Which knowledge of Christ seeing this man had not, without which M. Bishop himselfe I hope will say there is no eternall life, surely euen by his owne grounds it must be absurd, to say that Christ by these words did simply intend to direct him a way for the obtaining of eternall life. And if he will say, that he was indeed first to beleeue, and then by faith to keepe the commandements, thereby to enter into life, the Apostle taketh exception against that, when citing the words of the Prophet, The iust shall liue by faith, he inferreth,Gal. 3.11. Now the law is not of faith, but saith, He that doth these things shall liue in them. For if the law saying, He that doth these things shall liue in them, do not accord with the faith of Christ, then it is not for them that professe the faith of Christ, in the doing of these things, that is, in the keeping of the commandements to expect the obtaining of eternall life. Yea,Tertull. de praescript. Euaetuatur gratiae Euangelica si ad legem Christum redigit. the grace of the Gospell is made void if it bring Christ to the law, saith Tertullian, which he learned of the Apostle, saying,Gal. 5 4. Ye are voided of Christ, ye are fallen from grace that will be iustified by the law. Therefore he saith:Rom. 4.14. If they which be of the law be heires, then faith is made void, and the promise is made of none effect: Gal. 3.18. If the inheritance be by the law, it is no longer by promise. But God hath giuen it by promise, and therefore faith beleeueth1. Ioh 5.10.11. that God hath giuen vnto vs eternall life, and this life is (not in our keeping the commandements but) in his sonne, and in him only we are to expect it, that from the beginning to the end we may still confesse, thatRom. 6.23. eternall life is the gift of God through Iesus Christ our Lord. The commandements of God therefore are now laid before vs, not as the condition for obtaining of eternall life, but as the way to walke in vnto eternall life, assured vnto vs by the free promise and gift of God. And of this promise and gift of God the keeping of Gods commandements is a part, who hath said,Ierem. 31.33. I will put my law in their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; Ezech. 36.27. I will put my spirit into them, and will cause them to walke in my statutes, and to keepe my iudgements and do them. Whereto agree the words of the Apostle,Ephe. 2.10. We are his workmanship, created in Christ Iesus vnto good works, which God [Page 281] hath prepared for vs to walke in. Which workmanship when by the grace of God it is begun in vs, albeit by reason of many imperfections it be not such, as that by the vertue thereof we may expect eternall life, yet our faith receiueth further confirmation and assurance thereby, that he that hath wrought this beginning of life, will go forward therewith to the end, and hauing made vs partakers of one part of his promise, will make vs also partakers of the other, taking these first fruites of sanctification, as an earnest and pledge from him of the performance of the whole. Therefore albeit we well know, that we do not keep the cōmandements of God as we ought to do, yet we do not for that cause stand in doubt of eternall life, but finding our hearts truly affected towards God,Mat. 5.6. hungring and thirsting after righteousnesse, vnfainedly hating sinne, and groning vnder the burden of itHeb. 12.1. hanging so fast on, we comfort our selues, that God hath made the light of his Saluation to shine vnto vs, resoluing according to his promise, that this Sunne-rising though it be not yet fully cleare, and may haply sometimes be ouercast with clouds, yet shall neuer haue any night, but that accepting our godly indeauours, pardoning our defects and wants, forgiuing vs all our sinnes, he willPhil. 1.6. perfect the good worke which he hath so graciously begun in vs, so that the true faithfull soule may alwaies boldly say,Psal. 23.6. Thy louing kindnesse and mercy shall follow me all the daies of my life, and I shall dwell in the house of the Lord for euer. Now because M. Bishop laieth no other but a rotten foundation, no maruell if he build no other but a tottering and shaking house; because he looketh to haue life grow out of his keeping of the commandements, which is as a reed continually shaken with the wind, no maruell if he deny to himselfe any stedfast assurance and trust of attaining thereunto. But yet it is a falshood of his to charge the Protestants with affirming, that no man by any helpe of Gods grace can keepe Gods commandements. The Protestants onely say, that God giueth vs not that fulnesse of grace whilest here we liue, as that we can fully and perfectly keepe the commandements of God so as to be iustified thereby, but they deny not, but that all the faithfull according to the degrees and measure of grace receiued, do in a measure keepe Gods commandements, and as grace is increased, so they increase in the keeping of the commandements, and that this grace shal yet further renew and sanctifie them, in such sort, as that in the end corruption & sin [Page 282] being wholly abolished for euer, they shall be fully conformed to that image of righteousnesse that God hath described in the law. But of this hereafter. In the meane time we see by that that M. Bishop hath told vs of faith, that the Church of Rome indeed teacheth no other faith but the same that deuils haue. Which being obiected by M. Perkins, he laboureth to cleare, but saith nothing to serue the turne, but by ouerthrowing that which he buildeth otherwhere. He saith, that the deuils know all to be true which we beleeue, but yet do want a necessary condition of faith, which is a godly and deuout submission of their vnderstanding to the obedience of faith, and so haue no faith to speake properly. But if godly and deuout submission of the vnderstanding to the obedience of faith, be a necessary condition of faith, as he telleth vs here, so as that that which is called faith without this is not properly so called, how then standeth it which elsewhere he determineth, that faith truly and properly so called, may be without charity and good works? For what godlinesse, what deuotion, what submission or obedience can there be where charity is not? Godlinesse, deuotion, submission, obedience, what are they but good works? If then faith properly so called, cannot be without these, then it is true which we say, that true faith can neuer be without charity and good works. But that he denieth in the other place, and with common consent they all deny it. Therefore he must denie that which here he himselfe saith, that godly and deuout submission of the vnderstanding to the obedience of faith, is a necessary condition of faith properly so called, and so, as yet there is no exception but that their faith is the same with the deuils faith. But taking this which he saith, which indeed is true, though he by no meanes must stand to it, that godly and deuout submission, &c. is a necessary condition of true faith, yet because it is but a condition adioined, and not the very nature of faith it selfe, surely vnlesse he describe faith in other sort then he doth, he answereth yet nothing as touching the very act of faith, but that the faith of deuils is all one with their faith. His other exception is, that the deuils trust not in God for Saluation, nor indeauour any manner of way to obtaine it as Christians do. Which is euen as vaine as the former was, because he answereth nothing to put difference as touching faith it selfe, he himselfe still denying that trust in God for a mans owne Saluation, is any part of faith. But he should haue answered directly to the point, what there is in the [Page 283] very nature of faith it selfe, whereby their faith is to be distinguished from the faith of deuils, whereof he is not able to giue vs any certaine answer. And to be short, all that he hath here said is but framed for a shew, to serue for present shift, because he dareth not deny but that there haue bene and are many desperate rakchels (yea of their Popes and Cardinals there haue not wanted such) in whom there is no godly or deuout submission of vnderstanding to the obedience of faith, no trust in God for Saluation, no indeauour to obtaine it, who yet haue had their Catholike faith, to beleeue that Christ hath died, and risen againe, and that by his bloud there is forgiuenesse of sinnes, though not for them, yet for them that repent: so that in that which he saith hitherto, there is nothing at all whereby to put difference betwixt their faith & the deuils faith, and hereafter we shall see, that he is able to say no more then here he hath said.
4. W. BISHOP.
M. Perkins in his first exception graunts: Pag. 54. That commonly men do not beleeue their Saluation, as infallibly as they do the articles of the faith (yet saith he) some speciall men do.
Whereof I inferre by his owne confession, that our particular Saluation is not to be beleeued by faith: for whatsoeuer we beleeue by faith, is as infallible as the word of God, which assureth vs of it. Then if the common sort of the faithfull do not beleeue their Saluation, to be as infallible as the articles of our Creed, yea as Gods owne word, they are not by faith assured of it. Now that some speciall good men, either by reuelation from God, or by long exercise of a vertuous life, haue a great Certaintie of their Saluation, we willingly confesse: but that Certaintie doth rather belong to a well grounded hope, then to an ordinarie faith.
R. ABBOT.
M. Perkins rightly saith, that the Scriptures in this matter of faith & assurance, do direct vs the duty of faith, what it ought to do, and what we are to pray and labour for, though we do not all and alwaies attaine vnto it. Secondly, that though commonly men do not with the like assurance beleeue their owne Saluation, as they do the doctrine of faith expressed in the articles of the Creed, yet [Page 284] that some speciall men do so, as did Abraham, and the Prophets, and Apostles, and martyrs of God in all ages, who without doubting laied downe their liues for the testimony of God, and for the name of Christ, assuring themselues to receiue a better resurrection. And so we make no question, but that by the same spirit that certified them, many faithfull also now do receiue the like certificate of eternall blisse, and are thereby ready if occasion serue to do the same that they haue done. Now because he saith that commonly men do not so infallibly beleeue their owne Saluation, though some speciall men do, hereof, saith M. Bishop, I inferre by his owne confession, that our particular Saluation is not to be beleeued by faith. But of his confession followeth no such illation. For he cannot conclude, that therfore our own Saluation is not infallibly to be beleeued by faith, because men do not cōmonly so beleeue it, but rather that it is so to be beleeued by faith, because some special men do beleeue it so, for that in those speciall men is example to the rest what they ought to striue vnto. But saith M. Bishop, Whatsoeuer we beleeue by faith, is as infallible as the word of God that assureth vs of it. And we graunt that it is as infallible in it selfe, but not alwaies so in our apprehension & feeling. And if he will say that it is alwaies as infallible to vs and our vnderstanding and conscience, he speaketh very falsly and absurdlie: for there are diuers degrees of faith,Mat. 8.26. little faith, Cap. 15.28. great faith, Rom. 4.21. full assurance of faith, euen as a weake eie and a strong eie. And as a weake eie seeth but weakly and vnperfectly, and a strong eie seeth strongly, and more fully discerneth the thing seene, so a little faith beleeueth faintly, though truly, greater faith beleeueth more stedfastly; full assurance of faithIbid. ver. 18. beleeueth vnder hope euen against hope. The disciples of Christ said vnto him,Iohn. 6.69, We beleeue & know that thou art Christ the Sonne of the liuing God. Which in it selfe was infallibly true, and yet they did not so infallibly apprehend it, but that this faith was soone shaken: and because they did not yet infallibly beleeue it, our Sauiour telleth them, that therefore he forewarned them of his death & resurrection, thatIbid. ca. 14.29. when it was come to passe they might beleeue, namely as S. Austine saith,August. in Ioan. tract. 79. Quo vtso illud fuerant creditu ri quòd ipse esset Christus filius Dei viui, &c. Creditur autem hoc no fide noua sed aucta, aut certè cū mortuus esset defecta, cùm resurrexisset refacta. Ne (que) enim eum Dei filium non & ante credebant, sed cùm in illo factū est quod ante praedixit, fides illa quae tunc quā do illit loquebatur fuit parua & cùm moreretur penè tā nucta & reuixit & creuit. that he was Christ the Son of the liuing God. Which, as he addeth, they should beleeue not with a new faith, but with a faith increased, which was quailed in his death, but repaired in his resurrection. For they were not without this faith before, that he was the Sonne of God, but when it came to passe which he [Page 285] foretold, that faith which when he spake vnto them was little and small, and when he died in a manner none, both reuiued and increased. It was faith that madeMat. 14.28. Peter vpō Christes word to step into the sea to go to Christ vpō the waters, beleeuing that he should be safe; but yet he beleeued it not infallibly, & the faintnesse of his faith made him begin to sink, so that being vehemently afraid, he cried out vnto Christ for help, saying, Maister, saue me. Therfore our Sauiour saith to him,Ver. 31. O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt? In which sort when another time the disciples were afraid, by reason of a tempest vpon the sea, & awaked him being asleepe, saying vnto him,Cap. 8.25. Maister saue vs, we perish, he answered thē, Why are ye fearefull, O ye of little faith? in both these places shewing that little faith, such as now the faith of the Apostles thēselues was, doth not make a man so infallibly to beleeue, as that he is thereby wholly voided of feare and doubt; yet sheweth it selfe to be true faith, in that the same feare & doubt maketh him alwaies to runne to Christ, as expecting succour and strength in him. Such is the faith whereby the common sort of faithfull men do beleeue their owne particular Saluation, truly and effectually to the comfort of their soules, yet not so fully and infallibly, as to be altogether freed from feare and doubt. For it is to be obserued, which was intimated before, that matters of faith concerning our owne Saluation, do consist partly in principles deliuered by the word of God, and partly in conclusions thence deriued to our selues. Now albeit faith sometimes do wauer & stagger, as touching the very principles themselues and immediate words of God, yet because the truth & Certaintie thereof is more easily and better conceiued, they are for the most part more familiarly & readily beleeued. But the conclusions, because of themselues they are vnknowne, and haue their light only from the principles, are not so firmly apprehended as the principles themselues, whilest doubts haply may be cast, least there be any errour committed in the application & vse thereof. It is a principle deliuered for assurance of Saluation;Act. 16.31. Beleeue in the Lord Iesus Christ & thou shalt be saued. Hereupon the faithful man inferreth to himself, I beleeue in the Lord Iesus Christ, therfore I shal be saued. In this either cōfusely or expresly inferred, he cōforteth himselfe, & reioyceth in God, & in hope hereof cheerefully serueth God, calleth vpō his name, & in patience expecteth the reuealing of his Saluation. And yet sometimes it falleth [Page 286] out that he questioneth his faith, and not seeing such effects thereof as he supposeth there ought to be, maketh doubt least haply he be deceiued, and though the principle be true by which he first beleeued, yet is ielous least he haue misapplied it to himselfe. Thus sometimes by other temptations true faith is assaulted and greatly shaken, so that he that greatly reioyced in the Saluation of the Lord, by hastie cogitations is ouertaken and brought to say as Dauid in that case did,Psal. 31.22. I am cast out of the sight of thine cies. This was the manner of the Apostles faith at first, and this manner of faith and assurance do we teach, and do teach men to pray with the Apostles,Luk. 17.5. Lord increase our faith, that from weaknesse of faith and slender assurance, we may grow to strength of faith and full assurance, as the Apostles did. In the meane while therefore it is false and contrary to the word of God which M. Bishop saith, that the faithfull haue not by faith assurance of Saluation, vnlesse they beleeue it to be as infallible as the word of God it selfe. Now for conclusion he confesseth, that some either by reuelation from God, or by long exercise of vertuous life, haue a great Certaintie of Saluation, but that, he saith, doth rather belong to a well grounded hope, then to an ordinarie faith. But we answer him, that there is no well grounded hope, but that which is grounded vpon ordinarie faith and beleefe of that that is hoped for. For hope is the proper effect of ordinary faith, and nothing else, as we shal see hereafter, but a patient expectation of that that we beleeue shall be, and if we do not beleeue that it shal be we cannot be said to hope for it in that sence wherein the Scripture teacheth hope. Of ordinarie faith it is that the Apostle saith;Rom. 5.1. Being iustified by faith, we haue peace towards God through Iesus Christ our Lord, by whom we haue accesse through faith vnto this grace wherein we stand and reioyce vnder the hope of the glory of God; thereby shewing, that to reioyce vnder the hope of the glory of God, is the effect of an ordinarie faith, whereby we are assured of peace with God. Of ordinarie faith S. Iohn speaketh where he saith,1. Iohn. 5.13. These things haue I written vnto you that beleeue in the name of the Sonne of God, that ye may know that ye haue eternall life. By ordinary faith therefore the faithfull are (not vncertainly to hope, but assuredly) to know, that they haue eternall life. But it is here to be obserued, that Maister Bishop affirmeth not onely of that Certaintie that is gotten by long exercise of vertuous life, but also of that that [Page 287] s by reuelation from God, that it rather belongeth to hope then to ordinarie faith, writing he wist not what himselfe, because if he be asked the question, he will not deny, but that whatsoeuer God hath reuealed is to be beleeued by ordinary faith, because he saith afterwards that it is the Catholike faith, that is, ordinary [...]aith to beleeue all that to be true which God hath reuealed. Howsoeuer the reuelation be extraordinarie, as we know he intendeth it, yet it is ordinarie faith by which a man beleeueth such extraordinarie reuelation, so as that neither that assurance that is had by this extraordinarie reuelation, is altogether free from feares and doubts, shaking sometimes the confidence of that which a man hath receiued immediatly from the oracle of Gods owne mouth, or by speciall messengers directed from God for certificate in that behalfe. Which is to be seene in the examples of Abraham, and Isaac, and Dauid, and others, to whom God hath giuen speciall promise of his protection and fauour, and yet vpon occasions they haue bewraied great infirmitie in the apprehension thereof. And if this befall to faith in those things that are extraordinarily reuealed, much more we may assure our selues that it befalleth there, where we haue no other but ordinary reuelation by the written word of God. Therefore on euery side M. Bishops assertion is false, that there can be no assurance by faith of our owne Saluation, vnlesse we beleeue it with the like infallible Certainty, as we do the truth of the word of God.
5. W. BISHOP.
The th [...]rd reason for the Catholikes, is, that we are bidden to pray daily for the remission of our sinnes. But that were needlesse, Math. 6. if we were before assured, both of pardon and Saluation.
M. Perkins answereth, First, that we pray daily for the remission of new sinnes committed that day. Be it so. What needs that, if we were before assured of pardon? Marrie (saith he) because our assurance was but weake and small, our prayer is to increase our assurance. Good Sir, do you not see how you ouerthrow your selfe? If your assurance be but weake and small, it is not the assurance of faith, which is as great, and as strong, as the truth of God.
We giue God thanks for those gifts which we haue receaued at his bountifull hands, and desire him to increase, or continue them, if they may be lost. But to pray to God to giue vs those things we are assured of by [Page 288] faith, is as fond and friuolous, as to pray him to make Christ our Lord to be his Sonne, or that there may be life euerlasting to his Saints in heauen, of which they are in full and assured possession. And so these three Arguments by M. Perkins propounded here for vs, are very substantiall and sufficient, to assure euery good Christian, that he may well hope for Saluation doing his dutie, but may not without great presumption, assure him by faith of it.
R. ABBOT.
The comfort of the faithfull mans praier, is the same assurance that Dauid had,Psal. 4.3. When I call vpon the Lord, he will heare me, it being a promise of God to his people,50.15. Call vpon me and I will heare thee, in which sort our Sauiour Christ giueth vs incouragement to pray, saying,Iohn. 14.13. Whatsoeuer ye aske in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Sonne. Therefore S. Iohn saith,1. Iohn. 5.14. This is the assurance that we haue of him, that whatsoeuer we aske according to his will he heareth vs, and if we know that he heareth vs, we know that we haue the petitions that we aske of him. Being therefore bidden to pray for the forgiuenesse of sinnes, and hauing the promise of God,Ierem. 31.34. I will be mercifull vnto them, and their sinnes and iniquities will I remember no more, we beleeue and by faith stand assured, that when we do pray to haue our sinnes forgiuen vs, God heareth vs and giueth vs pardon and forgiuenesse thereof. We do not then teach at randon the assurance of the forgiuenesse of sinnes, but in such tenure and forme as we are directed by the word of God, according to which S. Austine saith of himselfe,August cont. Iulian. Pelag. lib 6. ca. 5. Qua gratia liberor, vt scio, ne intrem in tentationē, &c. at (que) vt exaudiar cum confort [...]hat meis, dicens. Dimitte nobis, &c. By the grace of God I am freed, I know, that I enter not into temptation, and that I am heard saying with my fellowes, Forgiue vs our trespasses. Psa. 32.6. For this therefore, that is,August. in Psal. 31. Pro hac: pro ipsa venia peccatorum. for forgiuenesse of sinnes, shall euery one that is godly, saith Dauid, make his praier vnto thee in a time when thou maiest be found, so being assured that in the great water flouds they shall not come nigh him. Our faith then assureth vs not of forgiuenesse of sinnes without praier, but that God forgiueth vs when we pray; so that his obiection being framed to our doctrine aright, is as if he should say, Seeing faith assureth vs of forgiuenesse of sinnes when we craue it of him by praier, what need we pray? Which was one of Wrights drunken reasons, whereby he would haue laied an absurditie vpon our Church, being himselfe an absurd [Page 289] blind-asinus, and not vnderstanding what we say. But to make the matter more plaine, it is to be noted, that in three respects we continue daily to aske of God forgiuenesse of sinnes, of which M. Perkins hath noted two. First as S. Austine saith,August. de vera & fals. paenit. ca. 5. Quia quotidimana est offensio oportet vt sit quotidiana etiam remissio. because we daily commit offence, we haue need daily to craue pardon. But what needs that saith M. Bishop, if we were before assured of pardon? I haue answered him, that our assurance before hand and alwaies is, that our praier obtaineth it at Gods hands. Therefore we pray, and by faith do rest assured, that vndoubtedly we haue that for which we pray. Secondly, we pray for forgiuenesse, not for that we haue no assurance thereof, but for that we desire greater assurance and more comfortable feeling of it, that as forgiuenesse with God is full and perfect, so the same may accordingly be sealed in our hearts. Our faith being weake giueth but weake assurance, and therefore we begge of God that our hearts may be enlarged, thatBernard. in Annunciat. ser. 1. supra sect. 3. the testimonie of the spirit may more freely sound vnto vs, Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee. Now here saith M. Bishop: Good Sir, do you not see how you ouerthrow your selfe? And why so? Forsooth if your assurance be but weake and small, it is not the assurance of faith, which is as great and strong as the truth of God. But good Sir, we haue alreadie shewed you, that therein you tell vs a sencelesse and vnlikely tale. The truth of God is alwaies alike, not subiect to alteration, neuer increased or diminished; but our faith is greater and lesse; somtimes hath a full and sometimes a wane, and to vs the truth of God is according to our faith, and according to our apprehension & feeling of it. Wherein we are variable and diuerse, euen after the manner of Peters faith, of whom S. Austine saith:August. de verb. Dom. ser. 13 Illum vidite Petrum qui tunc erat figura vestra modo fidit, modo titubat; modò immortalē confitetur, modō timet ne moriatur. Peter was the patterne of vs all; sometimes he beleeueth, sometimes he wauereth; one while he confesseth Christ to be immortall, another while he is afraid least Christ should die. The poore distressed man saith in the Gospell,Mar. 9. Lord, I beleeue, helpe my vnbeleefe. August. de verb. Dom. ser. 36. Credo inquit, ergò est fides. Sed adiuua incredulitatem meam; ergo non est plena fides. He saith, I beleeue; therefore there is faith, saith Austine: helpe my vnbeleefe saith he; therefore there is not, yet full and perfect faith. If there be true faith, and yet with faith a remainder of vnbeleefe, then the assurance of faith cannot be said to be as great and strong as the truth of God; yea the vntruth hereof is so palpable and grosse, and contrarie to the common experience of all beleeuers, as that we may iustly maruell at the wilfull absurditie of this man in the assertion of it. [Page 290] The third reason of our praying continually for forgiuenesse of sinnes, is for the obtaining of the fruit & effect thereof. For so long as we2. Cor. 5.7. walke by faith and not by sight, we stil pray for the sight of that as touching which we haue now but the comfort of faith and hope. We beleeue that we are redeemed both in body and soule, yet still weRom. 8.23. sigh in our selues, waiting for the adoption euen the redemption of our bodies. August. in Psal. 37. Gaude te redemptum, sed non dū re: spe securu esto. Ece nim si no gemueris in spe, nōperuentes adrem. Ioy that thou art redeemed, saith Austine, but not yet in reall effect; in hope, or as touching hope, be without all doubt. If thou shalt not now grone in hope, thou shalt not attaine to the reall effect. Thus then by praier we sigh and grone for our redemption, who yet by faith beleeue that already we are redeemed. So therefore albeit we beleeue that God hath forgiuen vs our sinnes, yet still we pray for forgiuenesse of sinnes, that that may appeare to vs which we now beleeue. The Prophet Dauid giueth vs to vnderstand, thatPsal. 32.1. forgiuenesse of sinnes is blisse and happinesse, and therefore a freedome from all misery and sorow. We still liue in misery and sorow, and seeme wholly strangers to all title of blisfull state. Therefore being still in case as if our sinnes were not forgiuen vs, we still pray for forgiuenesse of sinnes, that as we haue heard so we may see, and by effects may discerne and enioy the same forgiuenesse. But here M. Bishop telleth vs, that to pray to God to giue vs those things we are assured of by faith, is as fond and friuolous, as to pray him to make Christ our Lord to be his sonne, or that there may be life euerlasting to his Saints in heauen, of which they are in full and assured possession. Which is so fond and friuolous a speech, as that well we may perswade our selues that it neuer came from any wise man. For matters of faith are of diuers sorts. Some are already fully acted and done, and those we onely beleeue, we do not pray for them, as the creation of the world, the birth, and death, and resurrection of Christ, and other such like. Other some are beleeued, as designed and pronounced by God, but not yet fully acted and effected to vs, which we so beleeue, as that still we pray for them till they be effected, praier being nothing else butAugust. de verb. Dom. ser. 36. Ostendit fidē fontem [...]sse orationu [...] [...]e [...] posse [...]re ru [...]ū vb. caput aquae siccatur. the streame or riuer of faith, & an issue of the desire of that which ioyfully we beleeue. A notable example whereof we see in Dauid, who when God had sent Nathan to him, to certifie him that he would stablish the kingdome for euer in his house & posterity, albeit he beleeued & ioyfully accepted the tidings hereof, yet forbeareth not therfore to pray that it might be so. [Page 291] 2. Sam. 7.25. Now therefore, saith he, confirme for euer the word that thou hast spoken concerning thy seruant and his house, and do as thou hast sayd. For thou O Lord of hosts hast reuealed vnto thy seruant, saying, I will build thee an house; therefore hath thy seruant bene bold to pray this prayer vnto thee. Therefore now let it please thee to blesse the house of thy seruant, that it may continue for euer before thee; for thou O Lord God hast spoken it. Where we plainely see him praying vnto God, that that might be, whereof he was assured by faith vpon the promise of God that so it should be, and not onely so, but did therefore pray, because God had reuealed vnto him that it should be so. And do we not thinke that Dauid beleeued the word spoken to him from God by the same Prophet, when he had admonished him of his grieuous trespasse, and he repented,2. Sam. 12.13. The Lord hath taken away thy sinne; and yet afterwards he prayeth:Psal. 51.1. Haue mercy vpon me, O God, after thy great goodnesse, according to the multitude of thy mercies do away mine offences. Our Sauiour Christ beleeued that hisIoh. 10 28. sheepe shall neuer perish, and therefore that the Father would keepe them, and none should take them out of his hands, and yet he prayeth,Cap. 17.11. Holy Father keepe them in thy name, euen them whom thou hast giuen me. He was assured by faith that God would deliuer him from death,Psal. 16.10. that he would not leaue his soule in hell, nor suffer his holy one to see corruption; yetHeb. 5 7. in the dayes of his flesh did offer vp supplications with strong crying and teares to him that was able to saue him from death, and was also heard in that which he feared. He was assured by faith that God would glorifie him; yet he prayeth;Ioh. 17.5. Now glorifie me O Father with thine owne selfe. The Apostle S. Paul was assured by faith, that2. Tim. 4.18. the Lord would deliuer him from euery euill worke, and preserue him vnto his heauenly kingdome; yet he ceased not to pray, Leade vs not into temptation, but deliuer vs from euill. We beleeue by faith, and are assured that Christs kingdome shall come; yet we daily pray, Let thy kingdome come. Thus therefore albeit by faith in the promise of God, we now rest assured of the remission of sinnes, yet because it is not yet reuealed, we still pray, Forgiue vs our trespasses, that we may enioy by realitie and possession, what we beleeue we alreadie haue in Gods affection. Now albeit these three arguments hitherto be idle and vaine conceits, yet for conclusion he commendeth them for substantiall and sufficient, to assure euerie good Christian that he well may hope for Saluation [Page 292] doing his duty, but may not without great presumption assure him of it by faith. But it hath bene alreadie shewed, that doing of dutie can yeeld vs neither faith nor hope truely so called, because we come so short of the doing of it. Therefore Hierome rightly saith, thatHieron. in Esa. lib. 17. cap. 64. Si consideremu [...] merita nostra desperandū est. if we consider our owne merites, we must needs desfaire. But God would haueAugust. in Psal. 88. Non secundum merita nostra sed secundū ill [...]us mi sericordiam firma est promissio. the promise to be sure, not according to our merites, but according to his mercie. He would haue it to depend vpon his promise and his oath, Heb. 6.18. that by two immutable things wherein it was impossible that God should lie, we might haue strong consolation, which can be but very weake, yea none at all, so long as we hang it vpon any other thing. It is therefore a wicked presumption to hope for Saluation by vertue of our owne doings, but the presumption that groweth of faith, is a commendable presumption.Ambros. de Sacrament lib. 5. cap. 4. Praesume non de operatione su [...] sed de Christi gratia, &c. Bona praesumptio. It is a good presumption, saith Ambrose, to presume, not vpon thine owne worke, but vpon the grace of Christ. Such a presumption S. Austin teacheth,August. in Psal. 85. Quicquid est circae te vel inte vnde possit praesum [...]re, abijce à te & tota praesumptio tua Deus sit. Whatsoeuer there is about thee, or in thee to presume of, cast it from thee, and let God be thy whole presumption, or presume wholy vpon God. Namely in that sort as S. Ambrose teacheth by occasion of Dauids words,Psal. 119.116. Receiue me according to thy word. Ambros. in Psa. 118. Ser. 15. Intolerādae praesumptionis videretur Deo dicere, suscipe me nisi promissum eius adiungeret, hoc est, vt auderemus ipse feei [...]i, tuo te chirographo conuenimus. It were a matter of intollerable presumption, saith he, to say to God, Receiue me, but that he addeth the promise of God, as if he should say, Thou hast caused vs to presume, we challenge thee vpon thine owne bond. This is the presumption of true faith, whereby we withdraw our eyes from our selues, and cast them wholy vpon God, assuredly beleeuing that we shall receiue, because we beleeue in him that promiseth. Therefore Gregorie saith,Greg. Magn. in Ezech. hom. 22. Per praesumptionem gratiae & vitae caniant iusti iudicium quod ti iusti omnes pertimescunt. By presuming of grace and life, the righteous sing of that iudgement which all the vnrighteous are afraid of. Let M. Bishop then learne, that there is a godly presumption of Saluation and eternall life, which because it cannot arise of any sufficiencie of our workes, must necessarily be grounded vpon faith alone. Wherein notwithstanding faith receiueth comfort and strength by the good fruits and effects of grace, in the feare and loue of God, in faithfull care and conscience of duty towards God and men, because albeit of themselues they cannot be presumed of, yet being fruits of faith, euen in their beginnings & imperfections, areBernard. de grat. & lib. arbit. Occuliae praedestinationis indicia, future foep [...]citatis praesagia, tokens of Gods secret election, foretokens of future happinesse, so [Page 293] that a manIdem. epist. 107. Vocatus quisque per timorem, iustificatus per amorem, praesumit se qu [...]que esse de numer [...] beatorum. called to God by feare, and framed to righteousnes by loue, presumeth that he is of the number of them that shalbe blessed. M. Bishop is not acquainted with true faith, and professeth that he knoweth not whether he haue any feare or loue of God, and therfore no maruell that he is a stranger to this presumption, & do take that to be an vnlawfull presumption, which indeed is nothing but true faith.
6. W. BISHOP.
To these I will adde two or three others, which M. Perkins afterwards seekes to salue by his exceptions, as he tearmes them. To his first exception, I haue answered before. The second I will put last for orders sake, and answer to the third first, which is:
The Catholikes say,Pag 56. we are indeed to beleeue our Saluation on Gods part, who is desirous of all mens Saluation, very rich in mercie, and able to saue vs, but our feare riseth in regard of our selues, because the promises of remission of sins depend vpon our true repentance: Vnlesse you do penance, ye shall all perish. Luke 13. And the promises of Saluation, is made vpon condition of keeping Gods commaundements. If thou wilt enter into life keepe the commaundements. Againe, No man shall be crowned,Math. 19.2. Tim. 2. except he combat lawfully. Now we not knowing whether we shall well performe these things required by God at our hands, haue iust cause to feare, lest God do not on his part, performe that which he promiseth vpon such conditions. To this M. Perkins answereth, That for faith, and true repentance, euerie man that hath them knoweth well that he hath them. To which I replie, that for faith being rightly taken, it may be knowne of the partie that hath it, because it is a light of the vnderstanding, and so being like a lampe, may be easily seene: but true repentance requires besides faith, both hope, and charitie, vvhich are seated in the darke corners of the vvill, and cannot by faith be seene in themselues, but are knowne by their effects: vvhich being also vncertaine, do make but coniectures and a probable opinion, so that place of S. Paul may be omitted where he saith: Proue your selues whether you be in faith or no.2. Cor. 13. Because we accord that it may be tried by vs, whether we haue faith or no: although I know well, that Saint Pauls words carrie a farre different sence. But let that passe as impertinent. To the other. 1. Cor. 2.12. That we haue receiued [Page 294] the spirit, which is of God, that we might know the things which are giuen of God. What things these are which the spirit reuealeth to vs, S. Paul teacheth in the same place, That which the eye hath not seene, nor eare hath heard, &c. God hath prepared for them, that loue him: but to vs, God hath reuealed by his spirit: All this is true: but who they be that shall attaine to that blessed Banquet by God so prepared, God onely knoweth, and by his spirit reuealeth it to verie few. And will you learne out of S. Ierome that ancient Doctor, the cause why: In 3. caput. Ion. Therefore (saith he) it is put ambiguous and left vncertaine, that while men are doubtfull of their Saluation, they may do penance more manfully, and so may moue God to take compassion on them.
R. ABBOT.
The condition of repentance is required, not as whereby we worke our Saluation, but whereby we seeke it, and that not by the keeping of the commandements, wherein we all faile, but in Christ alone, by faith in him, whence followeth a measure of keeping Gods commandements, and of striuing lawfully vnto him, not as any proper cause of Saluation, but as parts and tokens and preparations of and to that Saluation which we receiue and haue by Christ alone. Now here M. Perkins bringeth in the Popish Doctors, affirming that we cannot be assured that we haue true faith and repentance, because we may lie in secret sinnes, and so want that which we suppose our selues to haue. M. Perkins answereth, that he that doth truely repent and beleeue, knoweth that he doth so. To this M. Bishop replieth, that faith being rightly taken, may be knowne of the partie that hath it, but true repentance cannot. But how must we conceiue of faith when it is rightly taken. Forsooth he telleth vs that it is a light of vnderstanding, and so being like a lampe may be easily scene. But true faith is not onely a matter of vnderstanding, but a mixt action of the vnderstanding and will▪ and consisteth not onely in knowing, but in seeking, and desiring, and embracing the thing that we vnderstand. Therefore Oecumenius obserueth, that the faith recommended by S. Paul beside stedfast assent, importethO [...]cumen. in epist. Iac. cap. 2. Consecutionem ex affectu procedentem cum firmo assensu no mine fidei vocamus. a further matter prooceeding out of the affection. So we saw before that Bernard maketh it to be such as whereby a man beleeueth [Page 295] that his sinnes are forgiuen him, Which M. Bishop might haue learned also of Ferus one of their owne Prophets, though a more faithfull Prophet then commonly theirs are, who faith, thatFerus in Mat. cap 27. Credere est confidere Deū per Chr [...]stum peccata non imputaturum. to beleeue is to trust that God for Christs sake wil not impute our sinnes. But that we may see the spirit of giddinesse wherewith this man is caried vp and downe, he himselfe but a little before hath told vs, that godly and deuout submission of the vnderstanding to the obedience of faith, is a necessarie condition of faith properly so called. Faith then is not only a light of vnderstanding, but implieth godlinesse, deuotion, and submitting of the vnderstanding to the obedience of faith, which because it cannot be without repentance, hope and charitie, it necessarily followeth, that if a man knoweth that he hath faith, he knoweth also that he hath godlinesse, deuotion, obedience, repentance, hope, charitie, and so M. Bishops replie euen by himselfe is vtterly ouerthrowne. And to this purpose S. Austin telleth vs, thatAugust. de verb. Dom ser. 61 Qui fidem habet sine spe & dile [...]ane Christum ess [...] cred [...], non in Christum credit. a man cannot beleeue in Christ without hope and loue, and S. Bernard, thatBer [...]ard. in Cant serm. 24. Mors fi [...]es separatio esi charitatis. the separation of charitie is the death of faith, and Origen, thatOri [...]enan Ro. ca 4 Scie [...]s fidei spe [...] insen [...] ibiater conarere. hope cleaueth inseparably vnto faith. Then if a man know that he hath faith, he cannot be ignorant that he hath also hope and charitie, without which there is no true faith. It is therefore a meere fiction of M. Bishop, that a man may know that he hath faith, but he cannot know that he hath true repentance, because repentance requireth hope and charitie, which forsooth are seated in the darke corners of the will, and cannot certainly be discerned. What a fond toy is this, that a man hopeth, and knoweth not that he hopeth; that he repenteth, and knoweth not that he repenteth; that he loueth, and knoweth not that he loueth? Surely where these things are, they are knowne; and if they be not known, it is because they are not. For2. Cor 2.11. the spirit of man knoweth the things that are in man; he discerneth what is in himselfe, though not alwayes the measure and quantitie thereof. Otherwise how doth S. Iohn say:1 Ioh. 3.14. By this we know that we are translated from death to life, because we loue the brethren. How shall we know that we are translated from death to life, because we loue the brethren, if we cannot know that we loue the brethren?August. i [...] Ioan. epist. tract. 5. Attendat in cor: vidcat si habeat charitatem, & tunc dicat, natus sum ex Deo. Let a man looke into his heart, and see if he haue charitie, and then let him say, I am borne of God, saith S. Austin, but to what end, if a man cannot see and know whether he haue charitie or not? The same S. Austin [Page 296] saith:De ver. Apost. ser. 6. Si quis spiritum Christi non habet, non se fellat, hic non est eius. Ecce adiuu [...]n [...]e ipsius misericordia, spir [...]tum Christi habemus ex ipsa dilectione iustitiae, integra fide, catholica fide, spiritum Dei nobis inesse cognoscimus. If a man haue not the spirit of Christ, let him not deceiue himselfe, he is none of Christs. Behold saith he, by the helpe of Gods mercie we haue the spirit of Christ. By the loue of righteousnesse and true faith, the Catholike faith, we know that there is in vs the spirit of God. How shall we know by the loue of righteousnesse that the spirit of God is in vs, if we cannot know that there is in vs the loue of righteousnes? But to infringe that idle deuice, M. Perkins alledgeth the words of S. Paul, 2. Cor. 13.5. Proue your selues whether you are in the faith. For to what end is this spoken, if we cannot know whether we are in the faith or not? But M. Bishop saith, that they accord that it may be tried whether a man haue faith or not, importing therefore that the place is nothing against them. But he may not so auoide; for the being in the faith whereof the Apostle speaketh, signifieth more then he intendeth thereby. Which appeareth plainely by the words which the Apostle addeth: Knovv ye not that Christ is in you, except yee be reprobates? thereby shewing that to proue a mans selfe vvhether he be in the faith, is to proue whether Christ be in him, because the faith of which he speaketh is thatBernard. in oc [...]aua Pasch ser. 1 Eacommendatur fides per quā Christus in cordibus nostris habitat. liuely faith, vvhereby Christ dwelleth in our hearts. AndRom. 8.10. if Christ be in you, saith the same Apostle, the bodie is dead as touching sinne, but the spirit is life for righteousnesse sake, which cannot be without repentance, hope, charitie, and such other vertues wherewith the spirit of Christ endueth them in whom Christ doth dwell. He therefore that knoweth himselfe to be in the faith, as the Apostle meaneth it, knoweth Christ to be in himselfe; he knoweth himselfe to be dead to sinne, and aliue to righteousnesse, and that he is not without repentance, hope, charitie, and other vertues wrought in him by the spirit of Christ. As for that other meaning of the place which M. Bishop speaketh of, if he had set it downe, I doubt not but we should haue taken him tardie therein, as well as we do in all the rest. To the other place of the same Apostle,1 Cor. 2.12. that we haue receiued, not the spirit of this world, but the spirit which is in God, that we may know the things that are giuen vnto vs of God, he answereth, that the Apostle meaneth it of those things whereof he there speaketh, The things which neither eye hath seene, nor eare hath heard, &c. God hath prepared for them that loue him, &c. but who shall attaine to that blessed banquet, saith he, by God so prepared God onely knoweth, and reuealeth it by his spirit to [Page 297] very few. Which answer of his giueth him no euasion at all. For if we do vnderstand the words concerning the ioyes of heauen, and that blessed banquet of which he speaketh, the Apostles words must import, that we know the same to be giuen vnto vs. For how shall we be said to know the things that are giuen vnto vs of God, if we do not know that they are giuen vnto vs? Neither may we conceiue it as he doth, to know that such things are prepared for the faithfull and righteous; for that the diuels themselues also know. Balaam a wicked castaway knew so much when he said,Numb. 23.10. Let my soule die the death of the righteous, and let my latter end be like vnto his. Saul knew so much, when1. Sam. 10.10. he prophecied, as theHieron. tradit. Hebraic. in lib. Regum. Prophetasse eum ibi Iudaei dicunt de futuro seculo, de Gog & Magog, & de praemijs iustorum & poena impiorum. Iewes say of the world to come, of the rewards of the iust, and punishments of the vniust. We haue therefore receiued the spirit of God, that we may know not onely that such things are prepared of God, but that we may know that God hath giuen the same vnto vs. But the Apostle there meaneth not onely the ioyes and blisse of heauen, but all the gifts of God, whereby the same are wrought and effected vnto vs. The originall of all which gifts is the giuing of Christ vnto vs, whereof the Prophet speaketh,Esa. 9.6. Vnto vs a child is borne, and vnto vs a sonne is giuen, in whom2. Cor. 1.20. all the promises of God are yea, and are in him Amen, for his sake first made, and in him performed; whom the Father giuing to vs and for vs, Rom. 8.32. hath together with him giuen vs all things, the gift of 1. Iohn 4.13. the spirit, the gift of Act. 5.31. repentance, the gift of Eph 2.8. faith, the gift of Rom. 5.17. righteousnesse, the gift 2. Tim 1.7. of loue, the gift of Phil. 1.29. suffering for Christ, the gift of 2. Pet. 1.3. all things pertaining to life and godlinesse, the gift of Rom. 6.23. eternall life. All these things Oecumonius compriseth when he expoundeth the things which eye hath not seene, &c. to beOecumen. in 1. Cor. ca. 2. Quae praeparau [...] Deus? &c. Christum videlic [...]t & salutē quae per incarnationem facta est. Christ and the Saluation which is wrought by his incarnation, euen as Chrysostom doth vnderstand the same, ofChrys. in Cor. 1. hom. 7. Quoniam per eam, quae videtur esse stultitia praedicationis orbem terrae superabit, & gentes allicientur, et Dei ad homines erit reconciliatio & tanta nobis accedent bona. the surprising of the world by the foolishnes of preaching (as the world accounteth it) of the conuersion of the Gentils, of the reconciliation of God to men, and the great benefits that should come therby, euen as the Apostle saith,Eph. 1.3. all maner spiritual blessings in heauēly things. In a word we are to vnderstand in the Apostles words,Cap. 3.5.8.9. the vnsearchable riches of Christ preached vnto the Gentils, a mystery which from the beginning of the world was hid in God, & not opened to the sons of men, eie had not seene it, neither had mans heart conceiued it, nay to the veryVers. 10. Angels, principalities and powers, it was not knowne, so that when it was done,1. Pet. 1.12. they did euen desire and [Page 298] delight to looke into it. The accomplishment of which riches is the glorie & ioy of heauen, which yet we know not nor can conceiue, as the Apostle S. Iohn saith,1. Iohn 3.2. Now are we the sonnes of God, but yet we know not what we shall be, we know not the glorie and happinesse that he hath prepared for vs; for we areCol. 3.3 4. now dead, and our life is hidden with Christ in God, but when Christ which is our life shall appeare, then shall we also appeare with him in glorie; for we know that when he shall appeare we shall be like vnto him, for we shall see him as he is. In the meane time the Apostle saith, that by the spirit we know the things that are (alreadie) giuen vs of God, not by speculation onely of vnderstanding, but by practicke, and experimentall, and effectuall knowledge,2. Pet 1.3.4. whereby we are made partakers of the diuine nature, andCol. 3.10. renewed to the image of him who first created vs. These things therefore we know in our selues, when we know the things that are giuen vs of God, and consequently do know our faith, repentance, hope, loue, in which consisteth that newnesse and communion with God. As for the blisse and glorie of heauen, though yet we know it not, yet we know that God hath giuen vnto vs the interest and title of it alreadie, and by faith do stand assured through the spirit, that he will in due time giue vs the full sight and fruition of it. Which indeed none can know but they that haue it reuealed vnto them from God, but God reuealeth it by the spirit in his word to all those that do beleeue in him. As for the place of Ierome which M. Bishop alledgeth to the contrarie, it sheweth his wretched vnfaithfulnesse, but maketh nothing against vs. Ionas had preached destruction to Niniue within fortie dayes. The king of Niniue calleth his people to repentance, to sackcloth and ashes, to fasting and mourning, and crying mightily vnto God; forIonas 3.9. who knoweth, saith he, if God will turne and repent and turne away from his fierce wrath? thereby signifying, that albeit God had by peremptorie sentence threatned their destruction, yet by repentance and earnest intreatie they might haply find mercie. Hereupon Hierome saith,Hieron in Ion. cap. 3. Illud quod dicitur, Quis scit. &c ideo ambiguum ponitur & incertum, [...]t dum homines dis bij sunt de salute fortiùs agant paenitentiam & magis ad misericordi [...]m improuocent D [...]um. That that is sayd, Who knoweth if God will turne, is therfore set downe vncertaine and doubtfull, that whilest men are doubtfull of their safetie, they may the more earnestly repent, and the rather moue God to take mercie on them. Now what a reason is this, that because God threatning destruction to wicked and vngodly men, leaueth it in doubt whether he will spare them, that they may the more [Page 299] earnestly repent and call for mercie, therefore the faithfull and godly man whom God hath deliuered from euerlasting destruction, and called to the hope of euerlasting life, should stand in doubt of that Saluation that God hath promised vnto him? The very place and occasion of the speech might haue made M. Bishop to forbeare to vse the same to that purpose that he hath done; but that he is stil like his maister Bellarmine; so that it carrie some shew, it neuer skilleth whether it be right or wrong.
7. W. BISHOP.
Another reason of this vncertaintie, De cor. & gra. cap. 13. yeeldeth Saint Augustine in these words: In this place of temptation, such is our infirmitie, that assurednes might engender pride. To this agreeth S. Gregorie,Lib. 9. moral. cap. 17. saying: If we know our selues to haue grace, we are proud. So that to strike downe the pride of our hearts, and to humble vs, and to make vs trauaile more carefully in the workes of mortification, God doth not ordinarily assure men at the first of their owne Saluation: but to cheere vp their hearts on the other side, doth put them in great hope of it, like to a discreet and good Lord, who will not at the first entrance into his seruice, infeofe his seruant in the fee simple of those lands, which after vpon his good deserts he meaneth to bestow on him. This is another kind of Doctrine, then that which M. Perkins in his last supply deliuered, to wit: That if we regard our owne indisposition, we must despaire, because we be not worthie of his mercie. Not so good Sir: Because we know that he bestoweth mercie vpon the vnworthie, at the first iustification of a sinner, but will not admit into the Kingdome of heauen any vnworthie, but giues men grace while they liue to worke, that they are made worthie of his heauenly Kingdome, according to that: Apoc. 3.4. They shall walke with me in whites, because they are worthie, but of this more fully in the chapter of Merits.
R. ABBOT.
The place of Austin is true, as touching immediate and perfect assurance, such as is free from all assault and impeachment of doubt and feare. For this is a place of temptation and weaknesse, [Page 300] as he truly saith, by reason whereof as we neuer attaine to a perfection of righteousnesse against sinne, so we neuer attaine to a perfection of assurance against doubting. But yet as we haue a measure of true righteousnesse against sinne, wherein we doubt not but God accepteth vs, so haue we also a measure of true and comfortable assurance against all feare and doubt, whereby our hearts do rest perswaded, that God for euer will preserue vs. Thus God as a wise and carefull father both giueth comfort to his children, and yet prouideth to keepe them within their bounds, that tasting the ioy of his Saluation, and finding it thenceforth bitter and grieuous vnto themselues to be distracted by perplexities and feares from the quiet enioying thereof, they may the more carefully endeuour to cleaue fast vnto him, and beware of doing any thing that should interrupt their ioyful peace. He knoweth how readie we are by the corruption of our nature to abuse the comforts and assurances that he giueth vnto vs, and therefore so ordereth the same, as that somtimes out of our nature, somtimes by other afflictions they are nipped and sneaped, that they grow not proud and ranke to the decaying and destroying of themselues. And as somtimes by his admirable wisdom he maketh sin the whetstone of righteousnesse, so by affliction and trouble of mind, by distrusts and fearfull doubts, he whetteth & sharpeneth our faith and assurance, which by fighting increaseth, and the longer it wrastleth the stronger it waxeth, whilestAugust. de verb. Dom. ser. 36 Fides fundit erationem, fusaoratio impetrat fidei firmitatem. faith (specially when it is assaulted) powreth forth prayer, and powring forth of prayer obtaineth further strength of faith. And as a man in danger of drowning catcheth for hold to saue himselfe, so whilest the comfort of life maketh offer to go from vs, we take the better hold thereof, and it becommeth so much the more precious and deare vnto vs. But as we do not approue sinne, for that it is vsed sometimes for a helpe of righteousnesse, so no more do we commend doubting, for that it is vsed for the increase of faith, but as against the one so against the other we fight and labour to abandon it wholy from vs, that we may say,Rom. 8.35. Who shall separate vs from the loue of Christ? shall tribulation, or anguish, or persecution, or famine, or nakednesse, &c? Nay in all these things we are more then conquerours through him that loued vs. For I am perswaded that neither life, nor death, nor things present, nor things to come, nor any creature shall be able to separate vs from the loue of [Page 301] God which is in Christ Iesus our Lord. Thus therefore we so take the words of Austin, as that we leaue place for that which elsewhere he saith, thatAugust. in Psal. 32. Non est ista remeri [...]as: affectus est desiderij, dulced [...] spei. Dicat anima, omnino securā dicat, Deus meus es tu, qui dicit animae, salus tuaego sum. God saith to the soule of the faithfull, I am thy Saluation, whereupon it is boldly to say to him, Thou art my God, which, saith he, is no rashnesse or presumption, but affection of desire and sweetnesse of hope. For that voice of God whereby he saith to our soule, Psa. 35.3. as Dauid for himselfe prayeth, I am thy Saluation, what is it else butRom. 8.16. the spirit that giueth witnesse to our spirit that we are the sonnes of God? The words of Gregorie, if there be any such, for in the place by him cited they are not, may import, how readie our corruption is to misconuert the graces and gifts of God, but to denie to the faithfull man the knowledge of Gods grace in himselfe, is to bereaue him of all stedfast hope, and to quench in him all true conscience of thankfulnesse towards God, because he cannot hope, that knoweth nothing wherupon to hope, nor hartily giue thanks, that knoweth not whether he haue cause to giue thankes or not. And how doth S. Iohn say,1. Iohn. 4.13. By this we know that we are in him and he in vs, because he hath giuen vs of his spirit if we do not know that he hath giuen vs of his spirit? and how should we not know that we haue receiued grace, if we know that we haue receiued the spirit of grace? But of this matter sufficient hath bene spoken in the former section. Now whereas M. Bishop saith that God doth not ordinarily assure men at the first of their owne Saluation, if he meane that God doth not at the first offer any such assurance, he saith vntruly. For God speaketh by the same word in the beginning and in the end, and therfore both in the beginning and in the end, giueth the same assurance, although our faith being perhaps weake, doth not by and by so fully & firmely lay hold therof. Therfore whereas he compareth God to a master who wil not at the first entrance into his seruice infeofe his seruāt to the fee simple of those lands which after vpon his good deserts he meaneth to bestow vpon him, he doth wrong to the maiesty of God, thus to limit his bounty to the prouident and wary courses of men, occasioned, partly by their ignorāce & vncertainty of other mens future condition, & partly by their impotency and vnablenes to preuent & help that, that haply may proue amisse. For man knoweth not what the behauior of his seruāts hereafter wil be, wheras he intēdeth his gift no otherwise to him but vpon his good behauior, neither is it in his power to better it, if he become of worse qualitie [Page 302] then he expected: but God from the beginning knoweth our mould and making, and that there is no good qualitie to be expected of vs, but what the power of his owne hand graciously worketh in vs, and therefore his promise is what he will do for vs, not what he would haue vs to do for our selues, and as he freely giueth vs the inheritance, so taketh vpon himselfeCol. 1.12. to make vs meete to be parta [...]ers of his inheritance. To which purpose S. Austin notably speaketh, wholy ouerthrowing M. Bishops comparison;August in Ps l. 109. Promisit hominibus diu [...]itatem, mortalibus immortalitatem, pe [...]catoribus iustifi [...]ationem, ab [...]xtis glorifi [...]ationē Quicquid promisit indigma promisit, vt non quasi operibus merces promitteretur sed gratiae à suo nomine gratis duetur; quia hoc ipsum iustè viuere inquentum homo potest iustè viuere non meriti humani sed beneficij diuini est. God promised to men fellowship with God, immortalitie to vs being mortall, iustification to vs being sinners, glorification to vs being abiects and castawayes. Whatsoeuer he promised, he promised to vs being vnworthie, that it might not be promised as a vvages or reward for workes, but being grace by name, might be gratis and freely giuen, because to liue iustly, so farre as man can liue iustly, is not a matter importing mans merite but the benefite and gift of God. Let M. Bishop therefore learne hereby, that God doth not rest vpon our good behauiour to infeofe vs to the fee simple of the land of the liuing, but that good behauiour it selfe is a part of that blessing whereto by his free promise he hath infeofed vs. The originall of which infeofment consisteth in the grace of Gods election, the liuerie and seisin in the grace of his adoption, wherein he hath made vs his children, andTit. 3.7 heires as touching hope of euerlasting life, which therefore we expect by title of inheritance, not by purchase of merit, hauing receiued forEphes. 1.14. earnest and pledge thereof the spirit of Christ, sanctifying and preparing vs thereunto. Which sanctification notwithstanding he so measureth out vnto vs whilest we liue here, as that he leaueth vs nothing whereof to glorie in our selues, but when we measure our selues to his iudgement, we see still that there is that corruption remaining in vs, for which he might take occasion iustly to condemne vs, that thereforeBernard. in Cant. serm. 50. Vt s [...]ramus in die illa quia non ex operibus iustitia, &c. we may know at that day, as Saint Bernard saith, that not for the workes of righteousnesse which we haue done, but of his owne mercie he hath saued vs. Rightly therefore doth M. Perkins say, that in regard of our selues and our owne indisposition we haue to despaire of our Saluation, euen to the verie death, as being vnworthie thereof. But saith M. Bishop, Not so good Sir, because we know that he bestoweth mercie vpon the vnworthie in the first iustification of a sinner. But what is that to giue vs hope, to say that God in Baptisme sheweth mercie to vs [Page 303] though vnworthie, if it be true which he addeth, that he will not admit into the kingdome of heauen any vnworthie; when as after Baptisme we are all so farre from being worthie thereof? Nay saith he, God giues men grace while they liue to worke that they are made worthie of his heauenly kingdome. But where is that man that hath receiued so great grace, as that he may be thought to be made worthie of the heauenly kingdome? Iohn Baptist saith of Christ,Mar. 1.7. I am not worthie to loose the latchet of his shoe; and who is he then of whom it may be sayd, that he is worthie to raigne with Christ in his kingdome of glorie? The Centurion of whom Christ gaue testimonie, thatMar. 8.10. he found not so great faith, no not in Israel, yet confesseth of himselfe,Vers. 8. I am not worthie that thou shouldest enter vnder my roofe; who is he then of whom we may be perswaded that he is worthie to enter vnder the roofe of heauen?Chrysost. in Col. hom. 2 Nemo talem vitae conuersationem ostendit vt regno dignus esse possit, sed hoc totum est donum Dei. No man sheweth such conuersation of life, saith Chrysostome, as that he is worthie of the heauenly kingdome, but this is wholy the gift of God. How then shall we beleeue M. Bishop, that any man so worketh, as that thereby he is made worthie of the heauenly kingdome? As for the place which he citeth out of the Reuelation, it is at large to be handled, as is this whole point concerning worthinesse, in the question of Merits, and therefore thither I referre the Reader for the explication thereof.
8. W. BISHOP.
The fift reason for our opinion is taken out of M. Perkins second exception, to wit; howsoeuer a man may be assured for his present state, yet no man is certaine of his perseuerance to the end. And therefore, although we might be assured of our Iustification, yet can we not be certaine of our Saluation. For he onely that perseuereth to the end, shall be saued. M. Perkins answer is, that prayer doth assure vs to perseuer to the end: for God bids vs pray, that we fall not into temptation, and promiseth an issue forth: 1. Cor. 10. So then the assurance depends vpon prayer, and not vpon our former faith. What then if we do not pray so as we should? may not the enemie then, not onely wound, but kill vs to? it cannot be denied: and therein, as in diuerse other workes of pietie, many haue bene too too slacke, as the pitifull fall of thousands haue taught vs. Oh saith M. Perkins, it cannot be, that he which [Page 304] was once a member of Christ, can euer after be wholy cut off. O shamelesse assertion, and contrary to many plaine texts, and examples of holy Scriptures: Iohn 15. Doth not our Sauiour say in expresse words, That euery branch in me not bearing fruit, he will take it away? And againe, If any abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as the branch, and shall wither, and be cast into the fire: which doth demonstrate, that some which were members of Christ, be wholy cut off, and that for euer. Are we not by faith made members of Christ by our aduersaries owne confession? and doth not our blessed Sauiour say, expounding the parable of the sower, Luke 8. That the seed which fell vpon the rocke, doth signifie them, who with ioy receiue the word, and these (saith he) haue no root, but for a time they beleeue, and in time of temptation reuolt. Doth not S. Paul in expresse tearmes say, 1. Tim. 1.19. That some hauing faith and good conscience, expelling good conscience, haue made shipwracke of their faith: of whom were by name, Hymenaeus and Alexander. The like, 1. Tim. 4. That in the last dayes, some should reuolt from the faith: Againe, 1. Tim. 6. That some for couetousnesse sake, had erred from the faith. And for example amongst other, take Saul the first king of Israel, who was at his election (as the holy Ghost witnesseth) so good a man, 1. Reg. 19. that there was no better then he in all Israel, and yet became reprobate, as i [...] in Scripture signified. 1 Reg. 15. & 16. The like is probable of Solomon, and in the new Testament of Iudas the traytor, & Simon Magus whom S. Luke saith, that he also himselfe beleeued,Act. 8. and after became an Arch-heretike, and so died: the like almost may be verified of all Arch-heretikes, who before they fell, were of the faithfull.
R. ABBOT.
This argument were somewhat worth, if God hauing made vs partakers of his grace did thenceforth leaue vs to our selues and to our owne keeping, for then there were not onely casualtie but certaintie of our falling away from him. But looke by what our faith assureth vs of present standing, by the same and a [...] farre it secureth vs against future falling, the assurance of faith being thatRom. 8.38. neither things present nor THINGS TO COME shall separate vs from the loue of God, which is in Christ our Lord. It looketh vpon God as a carefull father, who himselfeEsa. 54.13. Ierem. 31.33. teacheth all his children that they may be sure to learne; as a good shepheard thatIere. 23.3.4. so gathereth his [Page 305] flecke as that none of them shall be lacking: as a good husbandman, that so fencethEsa. 27.3. his vineyard and keepeth it night and day, that none assaile or hurt it; as aMat. 16.18. rocke strong and sure, so that the gates of hell shall not preuaile against the Church of the faithfull, that are founded and built vpon it. It looketh vnto Gods promise,Ier. 32.40. I will put my feare into their hearts that they shall not depart from me, whereby it expecteth perpetuall and assured establishment from him alone. It looketh vnto the mediation of Christ, who hath not prayed for Peter only, thatLuke 22 32. his faith might not faile, butIoh. 17.11.20. for all that beleeue in him, Holy Father keepe them in thy name, whereupon the Apostle Peter telleth vs, that1. Pet. 1.5. we are kept by the power of God through faith vnto Saluation. He that keepeth vs by faith, must necessarily be vnderstood to preserue and keepe our faith, not by any power of ours, but by his owne onely power,August. de bono perseuer. cap. 7. supra. Of Free will Sect. 14. who since the fall of man will not haue it to belong to any thing but his only grace, that either we come vnto him or do not afterwards depart from him. In a word, faith seeth in the word of God that the worke of grace is irreuocable, and standeth fast and inuiolate for euer,Idem ad artic. Sibi falso impos. art. 12. Nec qua illuminatu [...] obcaecat, nec quae aedificauit destrui [...], nec quae plantauit euellit. Sine paenitentiae enim sunt dona & vocatio Dei. neither doth God blind them whom he hath enlightened, nor destroy what he hath builded, nor plucke vp what he hath planted, because the gifts and calling of God are without repentance, De praevest. sanc. ca 16 tu est, sine mutatione stabiliter fixa sunt. that is, they are firmely established to be without any change, so thatRom. 8.30. whom he hath called and iustified, them he glorifieth, becauseAugust. de prae [...]st. sanct ca. 17. Non a [...]t [...]s sed quos praedestinauit, ipsos & vocauit, &c. he calleth and iustifieth none but whom he hath predestinated vnto glorie, and therefore it followeth, that he giueth them perseuerance for the attainement of the said glorie.Ambros de Iacob. & vit. beat. [...]b. cap 6. Num Deus p [...]ior ipse qui comtilit potest dona [...]ua resindere, e [...] quos adoptione [...]u [...]cepit eos à paterni affect [...] gratia relegere The Father, saith Ambrose, that was the giuer cannot reuoke his gifts, nor put away him from the grace of his fatherly affection, whom he hath entertained and receiued by adoption. Chrys. in Rom. hom 9. [...]alis ipsa Dei gratia finem nullum habet, t [...]rminum non nouit sed & ad maiora sin. per propagatu [...] atque progreditur. Id quod non itam hominibus vsuuenit; verbi gratia, assecutus est quis magistratum, gloriam pri [...] ci [...]atum: tamen in eo perpetuus non manet, sed confestim ab [...]o excutitur. Nam vt honorem ilium humano ma [...]u [...] [...] eripiat, certè superuenie [...]s mors omnin [...] ereptura est. At quae Deus bona largitur haudquaquam talia sunt, a quibus v [...] delicet non homo, non tempus, non rerum aduersarum vu, non ipse diabolus, non mors ingruens deturbare nos p [...]t [...] qui [...] vel mortici cum sumus, ium demùm firmiùs ea possidemus, at (que) adeo quo progredimur magis, eo ma [...]oribus effectis f [...]uimu [...]. For such is the grace of God, saith Chrysostome, it hath no end, it neuer determineth, but still proceedeth to greater benefits. Which is not wont to be so in the gifts of men: for a man hauing obtained an office, an honor or principality, hath no perpetuitie therein, but is soone bereft of it. For albeit the hand of man do not take it away, yet death will which speedily shall ouertake him. But the good gifts which God giueth are not so, as from which neither man, nor time, nor any power [Page 306] of aduersities, nor the diuell, nor death approaching can remoue vs, yea when we are dead, we do more assuredly possesse the same. In a wordOrigen in Ierem. hom. 1. Impossibi [...]e est quod semel viuificauit Deut aut ab eo ipso tut abalio occidi. it is impossible, saith Origen, that that which God quickeneth should be slaine, either by himselfe or any other. It is true then that he (onely) that perseuereth to the end shall be saued, but it is true also that God giueth preseuerance vnto Saluation to all them to whom he hath giuen the true faith of Saluation,Aug. de corrupt. & grat. ca. 12 Sanctis in regnum Dei per gratiam Dei praedestinatis tale adiutor [...]um perseu [...]rantiae ditur vt eis pers [...]uerā tia ipsa d [...]netur, non solum vt sine isto d [...]no perseuerantes esse no [...] possint, verumetiam vt per hoc donum non nisi persiuirantes sint, & sides eorum non deficies vs (que) insinem, nec eam nisi manent [...]m vitae huta inueuit fi [...]. such a gift of perseuerance, as not onely without which they cannot perseuere, but by which they do no other but perseuere, or by which they do certainely perseuere, so as that their faith doth neuer finally faile, neither shall their end find it but continuing in them. As touching this point M. Perkins answered very effectually, that we pray that God would not suffer vs to be wholy ouercome of the diuell in any temptation, when we say, Leade vs not into temptation, and that to this petition we haue a promise answerable, that God with temptation will giue an issue, and therefore that the diuell howsoeuer he wound the faithfull, yet shall neuer be able vtterly to ouercome them. Whereto M. Bishop very idlely replieth according to his maner, by a fallacie of diuision, that then the assurance dependeth vpon prayer, and not vpon our former faith. But let him take the same answer in effect againe, that the assurance still dependeth vpon faith, whichAug. de verb. Dom Ser 36. Fides fo [...]s orationis faith is the fountaine of prayer, which prayer beggeth of God as Christ hath commaunded. Leade vs not into temptation, which to whomsoeuer it is graunted,Idem de bono perseuer. cap. 6. Si conce [...]tur ei quod orat vt non inferatur in tentat one [...] in sanctifi [...]tione vti [...]ue qu [...]m Deo do [...]nte percepit, Deo donante persi [...]tit. Et pa [...]lo prius. Ne (que) [...]uisquam perseuerare d [...]sistit nisi i [...] t [...]tati [...]tē pri [...]tùs infera [...]ur. he by the gift of God perseuereth in that sanctification which by the gift of God he hath receiued, because no man faileth of perseuerance but by being led into temptation, and concerning temptation the Apostles words import the promise of God to all the faithfull,1. Cor. 10.13. God is faithfull, who will not suffer you to be tempted aboue your strength, but together with the temptation will giue the issue, that ye may be able to beare it. Whereupon S. Ambrose saith most notably to the purpose we haue in hand.Amb in 1. Cor. 10. I [...]eo fidelem dicit Deum, &c. qui [...] d [...]tucu [...] se promisit Deus dilig [...]tibus se regna caelestia, & de [...] necesse est quia fidelis est. Propter [...]a ergo tribulatis pros [...]rit, [...] possit. sed faciet vt aut [...]stò cesset tentatio, aut si prolixa fuere [...]ti [...] [...] promisit quia [...]cetur qui patitur. Homo est enim infirmitati subre [...]tu [...] promisit, subuenit vt impleat quod prom [...]sit, &c. Non plus per [...] [...] [...]tatur qui scitur vl [...]ra noc posse quàm tridu [...] to [...]e [...]. Therefore doth the Apostle say, that God is faithfull and will not suffer them to be tempted aboue their strength, because he hath promised to giue the kingdome of heauen to them that loue him, and must needs giue the same because he is faithfull. For that cause [Page 307] therefore he will be present to them being in trouble for his sake, and will not suffer so much to be laied vpon them as is not to be suffered, but either will cause the temptation to cease, or if it be long, will giue strength to endure it: otherwise he shall not giue that which he promised, because the party suffering shall be ouercome, being a man subiect to infirmitie, and so shall not be to receiue the promise. But because God is faithfull which hath promised, he helpeth him, that he may fulfill his promise, and no more is permitted to be laid vpon him, then it is knowne to God that he is able to beare, so that he is not suffered to be tempted the fourth day that is knowne not to be able to endure beyond the third day. So then by this Fathers iudgement, the Apostle in those words giueth to vnderstand, that God hauing promised to the faithfull the kingdome of heauen, doth so prouide, as that he may performe vnto them his promise, which he should not performe, if either their owne lightnesse or any aduerse power should preuaile to make them vncapable thereof, and therefore he suffereth them not by any temptation to be taken away from him, but giueth them constancie and perseuerance, whereby they wade out of the flouds thereof, that they neuer be drowned in them. This is the promise of God, and this promise faith apprehendeth, and accordingly praieth and beleeueth according to the promise, that it shall obtaine that which it praieth for, & therfore shall not by any temptation be vtterly ouerthrowne. But what then, saith M. Bishop, if we pray not so as we ought? may not the enemie then not onely wound but also kill vs? We answer, Yes indeed M. Bishop, he would so, and both faith & praier and all would faile, if God were not the keeper and maintainer therof. But it hath bene before said, that faith is the fountaine of praier, and therefore God in the keeping of our faith, continueth our praier, because the streame cannot faile, so long as the fountaine faileth not. Praier is the breath of faith, which neuer ceaseth to breath, so long as it is aliue. Praiers are the beames of faith; if the light of faith be not quenched, it certainly sendeth forth his beames of praier.August. de corrept. & grat. ca. 12. Prohit interpellante Christo ne deficiat fid [...]s eorum, sine dubio non deficies vs (que) in finem. Christ therfore hauing praied for his, that their faith may not faile, it shall neuer faile finally in any of them. And therfore they shal neuer vtterly giue ouer to pray vnto him, that it may be fulfilled to them which is promised,Rom. 10.13. Euery one that calleth vpon the name of the Lord, shall be saued. And surely God wanteth not meanes whereby to preserue & continue both the one & the other, not only by instruction & aduertisement of the word & sacraments, but also by correction and discipline of [Page 308] crosses and afflictions, and many grieuances of temptations, by which as occasion serueth, he fretteth off the rust, & bloweth away the ashes of carnal security; by occasion wherof as children affrighted or grieued, runne to their father for succour, so we are moued to go by praier vnto God, according to the saying of the Prophet Esay: Esa. 26.16. Lord in affliction they haue visited thee, they haue powred forth a praier when thy chastisement was vpon them. Albeit therefore of our selues we easily grow slack both in praier, and in all other works of piety & godlinesse, yet God prouideth to the contrary, to keepe the fire of his spirit continually burning in our hearts,Iob. 33.16.17. opening our eares by his corrections, to cause vs to cease from our (euill) enterprises, and to heale our pride, and to keepe back our soule frō the pit, which is the same that the Apostle saith:1. Cor. 11.32. When we are iudged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world. And whereas M. Bishop alledgeth, that thousands pitifully fall away, we answer him, that they which finally fall, did neuer truly stand, though they seemed to stand, nor euer did truly beleeue, though they seemed to beleeue, but euen of their fals doth God also make vse, to make those that are truly his to stand the faster, striking thereby a dread & feare into their hearts, wherby they abhorre to think of that befalling in thēselues, which hath befallen in the other, that they may the more instantly call vpon him, and embrace the meanes whereby they should firmly apprehend & take hold of him. We say the same that M. Perkins doth, that it cannot be that he that is once indeed a member of Christ, can euer after be wholly cut off. But this disliketh M. Bishop much, so that he exclaimeth, O shamelesse assertion! Where we may more iustly cry out of him, O shamelesse man, that maketh Christ l [...]sse affectionate & kind to the spirituall members of his mysticall body, then he himselfe is to the earthly members of his own natural body. M. Bishop wil not suffer any member of his body to putrifie & rot away, if he can saue it; and wil he make vs beleeue, that Christ suffereth his members to rot away frō him? Shal we think that Christ doth lesse respect a faithfull soule, thē any of vs doth respect a finger or a toe?Ambros. de Iacob & vit. beat. l. 1. ca. 6. Poterit ergo ille te damnare quē red [...]mi [...] a m [...]rte, pro quo se ob [...]u [...]it, cuiu [...] vitam mortis suae mercedem esse cognoscit? Nonne dicet, Qu [...] vtilitas in sanguine meo, fidamno quem ipse salua [...]? Can Christ condemne thee, saith Ambrose to the true beleeuing man, whom he himselfe hath redeemed frō earth, and whose life he knoweth to be the reward of his own death? Wil he not say, What profit is there in my bloud, if I condemne him whō I haue saued? He is faithful & wil not deny himself; he wil not vndo that which he hath done, nor blot out his owne name, or suffer it to be blotted out, which he hath [Page 309] written by his spirit, in the heart of euery one that beleeueth. He wil not dismember himself, or receiue a maime in thatEphe. 1.23. body which (generally in the whole, & respectiuely in euery part) is the fulnesse of him that filleth all in all. Seeing therfore euery true beleeuer is truly a mē ber of this body, & helpeth to make vp this fulnesse of Christ, it cānot be that Christ should suffer any true beleeuer to perish, but quickeneth & cherisheth euery such mēber with his spirit of life, & healeth the wounds and sicknesses thereof, that it may neuer die. But of this point further in the section next saue one, here it shall suffice to examine those texts & examples of holy Scriptures, which he saith are cōtrary to that that M. Perkins here affirmeth. Which if they be many and plaine, as he saith, we may think him a very silly man, that of those many could make no better choise then he hath done. The first place is that of our Sauiour Christ,Iohn. 15.2 Euery branch in me not bearing fruit, he will take away. Wherein the Reader may easily see, that he doth but only abuse the simplicitie and ignorance of such as cannot espie his fraud. He telleth vs of taking away the branches that beare no fruit, wheras the matter in question is of the perseuerance of those branches that do bring forth fruit. We doubt not but the branches which beare no fruit shalbe taken away, but we speake of branches, which as touching present state do bring forth fruit, & of thē our Sauior addeth;Ibid. Euery branch that beareth fruit the Father purgeth that it may bring forth more fruit. The branch then that beareth fruit shall perseuer, & shall neuer be cut off, because the Father purgeth it that it may bring forth more fruit. But M. Bishop will vrge that Christ saith, Euery branch in me, therby to signify, that euē those branches which do not beare fruit are in Christ, & yet are cut off & taken away. But there is no necessitie of any such construction: the words are rather to be taken as we read thē, Euery branch that beareth not fruit in me. For euery man is compared to a branch, & naturally we are al branches of a wild vine, as we grow frō the corrupted stocke of Adam, & bring forth none but sowre & vnsauourie fruit, so that to bring forth good fruit we had need to be transplanted & remoued from the stocke of Adam, to be ingraffed into Christ. And this may the words of Christ import, that the Father taketh & destroyeth euery branch that stil cōtinueth to bring forth fruit in Adā, and is not implanted into Christ to bring forth fruit in him. Which construction if we follow, as it carieth most probability, then here [Page 310] is nothing said of any to be cut off that is a branch in Christ the true vine, but of branches taken and cast away that are not in him. But yet graunting him that reading of the words which he desireth, yet he is no whit the nearer to his purpose thereby. For men are diuersly vnderstood to be in Christ; some by semblance & shew, other some in deed and truth: some by outward calling & profession only; other some by grace and inward regeneration: some according to the flesh, and in the eie of the Church; other some according to the spirit and power of Christ, & in the eie of God. The Church is the floore wherein is both corne & chaffe; the field wherein groweth both wheat and tares; the net that catcheth all sorts of fishes both good & bad; the pasture where feed both sheepe and goates: the banquet house that entertaineth all guests that come both clothed & vnclothed, all yet comming vnder the name of friends; all saying, Lord, Lord; all professing themselues to take part with Christ:August. de v [...]t. eccles. cap. 13. Vnde appellat s [...]nas nisi propter malignitatem morum? Et eas [...]ē vnde filias nisi propter cemmunionem sacramentorum? & cap. 12. Propter sacramenta quae cum sanctis communiter habent in eu est quaedam forma pietatis cuius virtutē negant. all children by communion of Sacraments, whereby there is in them a shew of godlinesse, but many thornes by malignity of behauiour, whereby they deny the power thereof: all sheepe in outward complement & couplement to the Church, butDe bapt. cont. Donatist. lib. 6. ca. 1. Characterē dominicū multi & lup [...] & lupis insigunt qui videntur quide [...] intus esse, veruntamen ad [...]ll [...]m ouem quae etiam ex mul [...]na est non pertinere morum suoru [...]a fructibus [...]ncuntur. many woolues in sheeps clothing, lying in wait to make a spoile. Now we are to distinguish them that truly are in Christ, from them that are not so. Of them that truly are in Christ, & in present state of iustification, our speech here is, that they can neuer wholly be cut off: the rest we know are cut off from thatLuc. 8.18. which they seemed to haue, but indeed had not: which if they had had indeed as they seemed to haue,Mat. 13.12. they should haue had more giuen, that they might haue abundance, and not be cut off from that they had. It is therefore nothing against vs, which M. Bishop alledgeth, that fruitlesse branches, which indeed are not in Christ, though they will seeme to be, are cut off from seeming any longer to be that which in truth they neuer were. Euery one that truly is a branch in Christ, bringeth forth fruit in him, & euery branch that bringeth forth fruit, the Father purgeth that it may bring forth more fruit. Euery one therfore that is truly a branch in Christ, as euery true beleeuer is, shall continue a branch in him for euer, that it may be verified which the Prophet saith, [...] 92. [...]3. Such as be planted in the house of the Lord shall flourish in the courts of our God, They shal stil bring forth fruit euē in age, & shal be fat and flourishing. By this the answer is plaine to the other place; If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and shall wither [Page 311] and be cast into the fire. For hereby is imported what befalleth to them, who carying semblance to be in Christ, beare no fruit in him, who because they are not truly that which they seeme to be, therefore abide not in that which they seeme, and either by death or by other occasion becomeAugust. epist. 39 Separantur multi ab ecclesia, sed cùm moruntur, qui tamen [...]ùm viuunt per sacrame [...]torū commionem v [...]tans (que) Catholicae v [...]r ecclesia co [...]lati. corporally separated from the Church, to which they before (but onely) seemed to be coupled. It is true then, that if a man abide not in Christ, though for the time he seeme to be in Christ, he is cast forth and perisheth; but it followeth not therefore, that any man that faithfully beleeueth in Christ, and therefore truly is in Christ, doth not abide in him. Nay our Sauiour himselfe teacheth vs the contrary when he saith;Io n. 6.56. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud abideth in me and I in him. For what is it to eate the flesh of Christ and to drinke his bloud, butAugust. in Ioan. tract 25, 6 to beleeue in Christ; De doct C [...]rist. l b 3 cap. 16. Fig [...]ra est praecipi [...]s pa [...]liom Domini esse communicandum, & su [...]itur at (que) vitatèr recodendum in mem [...]ria quòd caro eius pro nobis crucifixa & vubierata sit. to be partakers of his passion, and with comfort and vse to lay vp in our minds that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs? Euery one then that truly beleeueth in Christ, eateth his flesh & drinketh his bloud, and therefore abideth in Christ and Christ in him. No man therefore that truly beleeueth in Christ, is euer cut off or cast forth to wither or to be throwne into the fire. Now to an indifferent Reader I might alledge, and it easily appeareth by the vse of that terme of abiding, that by abiding in Christ, is meant our very being in Christ, which is therefore so expressed, because no man is in Christ truly and indeed, but the same abideth in him for euer. So that the meaning of Christes words shall be, If any man be not truly ingrafted into me as the true vine, to grow vpon me, and to bring forth fruit by me, he is cast forth as a dead and vnprofitable braunch, & shall come to nought. But it booteth not to alledge this to a wrangler, who whatsoeuer appeare otherwhere, will not here vnderstand it otherwise then to serue his owne turne. Against him therefore the other solution is plaine, that whosoeuer beleeueth in Christ, the same abideth in him, and therefore shall neuer be cut off, so that yet he is farre enough from any demonstration, to proue any who are truly members of Christ, are: wholly and for euer cut off from him. Let vs see whether the rest will affoord him any better demonstration. Are we not by faith, saith he, made members of Christ by our aduersaries own confession? Yes, M. Bishop, but yet not by euery kind of faith; for S. Iames saith,Iam. 2.19. The deuils beleeue, and yet they are not thereby the members of Christ. We are made the members of Christ only [Page 312] by true and liuely faith, whereby Christ dwelleth in our hearts, of which it is that the Apostle saith,Gal. 3.26. Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Iesus. You wil not say M. Bishop, that by euery faith a man is spiritually made a mēber of Christ, because you say that there is faith without charity, and you dare not say that without charity a man may be a member of Christ. Which being so, how vainly doth he alledge, thatMat. 13.20. our Sauiour saith in the parable of the sower concerning them that receiue the word in stonie ground, that with ioy they receiue the word, but haue no root, and for a time beleeue, and in time of temptation reuolt? For though it be said that they beleeue, yet it followeth not that they beleeue with that faith whereby they should become the members of Christ. For Herod in that sort beleeued the word preached by Iohn Baptist, Mat. 6.20. whom he reuerenced as a lust and holy man, and heard him gladly, and did many things accordingly, and yet he was not therefore a member of Christ. By conuiction of conscience men oft times receiue the word, & cannot but beleeue and acknowledge the truth thereof, when yet they embrace it not with affection of loue, and therefore haue not thatGal. 5.6. faith which worketh by loue, which onely is true faith. And how can he perswade vs that true members of Christ are by Christ himselfe compared to the stony ground? We are perswaded that onely the good ground are the true members of Christ; as for the rest they areAugust. in Ioan. tract. 3. Infra. sect. 10. as bad humors in the body, as S. Austine saith, but members they are not. And how should there be true faith in them of whom Christ saith; They haue no root? Can true faith grow where there is no root for it to grow vpon? Nay S. Austine telleth vs, that faith it selfe isIdem. in Psal. 31. Laudo fructum boni operis sed in fide agnos. coradicem. the root whence all good fruit doth grow, and how then can they be said to haue true faith, of whom it is truly said, that they haue no root? To be short, these are said to beleeue (but) for a time, but of them that truly beleeue, it is said,Rom. 9.33. Whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall not be confounded, and therefore their faith shall neuer faile. The next place is lewdly falsified by him, alledging that some hauing faith and a good conscience, expelling good conscience haue made shipwrack of their faith, whereas S. Paul saith not, that they had faith and a good conscience, but instructeth Timothie for the fighting of a good fight, to 1. Tim. 1.19. haue faith and a good conscience, which (good conscience) some, saith he, reiecting haue made shipwrack concerning the faith, of whom are Hymeneus and Alexander. Where by faith as Oecumenius obserueth, he meaneth [Page 313] Oecumen. in 1. Tim. 1 Fidem dicit quae est circa dogmata; conscientiam vero quae circa conuersationem est. Quam inquit, conscientiam quae est de rectè viuendo repellentes non nulli. Ʋbi enim quis reprobè vixerit etiam circa fidem nan-fragium facit. Siquidem ne terrore futurorum crucientur, suo ammo persuadere nuuntur mendacia esse quaecun (que) apud nos de resurrectione ac iudicio dicuntur. a faith or beleefe concerning doctrine, and vnderstandeth conscience as touching conuersation; which conscience of good life, saith he, they reiecting, made shipwrack of faith. For when a man liueth wickedly, he maketh shipwrack concerning faith. For men, that they may not be troubled with the terrour of things to come, labour to perswade their owne minds, that those things are lies which with vs are spoken concerning the resurrection and iudgement to come. S. Pauls words then import that they had professed the faith, that is, the doctrine of faith, the doctrine which in Christianity we beleeue and professe, but they held not1. Tim. 3.9. the mysterie of faith in a pure conscience, they liued lewdly and wickedly in the profession of the faith; their consciences were fraught with the guilt of following their owne vngodly lusts; and therefore they renounced the faith, the doctrine of God, that they might not thereby find any crosse or check in their damnable and wicked courses. What is this to that true faith, whereby we beleeue in Christ to iustification and righteousnesse; whereby we repose the trust and confidence of our Saluation in him, and do truly call vpon the name of the Lord? That they had not this faith, it is plaine, because S. Paul saith plainly, that they reiected a good conscience; for a1. Tim. 4 1. good conscience is alwaies an inseparable companion of an vnfained faith. The greater is the impudency of this brabler, who saith as out of the Apostle, that they had a good conscience, whereas the words of the Apostle are directly contrary to that he saith. The other two places are of the same sort,1. Tim. 1.5. some in the last daies shall reuolt from the faith, andCap. 6.10. some for couetousnesse, haue erred from the faith, meaning by faith the doctrine of the Church, as where it is said,Act. 6.7. some of the Priests were obedient to the faith; and againe,Gal. 1.22. He preacheth the faith which before he destroied, and againe,Tit. 1.13. Rebuke them sharply that they may be found in the faith, and therefore in the former of those two places, he opposeth to faith1. Tim. 4.1. the doctrines of deuils, that so faith may be knowne to signifie the doctrine which is of God. That reuolt thē is frō the faith of publike preaching, which wicked men make shew to receiue only by hypocriticall & fained faith; not frō faith of priuate conscience, wherby only true beleeuers make vse of the faith of publike preaching, to their owne cōfort and Saluation, which is therefore calledTit. 1.2. the faith of Gods elect, because it is found in none but only the elect. Thus therefore his places serue not his purpose, let vs see now the examples which he alledgeth. [Page 314] First, he bringeth Saul, who he saith at his election was so good a mā, as that there was no better then he in Israel, and yet became a reprobate. But his translation is false; for by the very circumstance of the place it is manifest, that the holy Ghost there describeth the goodlinesse of Sauls person, not the goodnesse of his condition. Our translation readeth according to the truth of the text, that1. Sam. 9.2. he was a goodly young man and a faire, so that among the children of Israel there was none goodlier then he: from the shoulders vpward he was higher then any of the people. Which last words do plainly shew whereto the rest are to be referred. So Pagnine translateth it, and sheweth that the Hebrew writers do so take it, neither doth there appeare any thing whereby we may conceiue spiritually any goodnesse in him at all, being from the first crosse and thwart to the commandement of the Lord. The second example is of Solomon, of whom he saith, that it is probable that he also was a reprobate. But that is not probable; nay it is altogether vnprobable, that so notable a figure of Christ,2. Sam. 19.24. whom the Lord loued, & in token thereof gaue him a nameVer. 25. Iedidiah, that is, beloued of the Lord; of whom in figure of Christ he said,2. Chro 22.10. I will be his Father and he shall be my Sonne, whom it appeareth in the Canticles, he acquainted so inwardly with the riches and secrets of his grace, that he, I say, should after be vtterly reprobate and cast away. For although God suffered him very greeuously to fall, that by the distraction of that kingdome thereby occasioned, it might appeare that the kingdome promised was not accomplished in him, yet it is more thē probable by that that we read in his book of Ecclesiastes, or the Preacher, that he wrote that booke as a monument and token of his conuersion and repentance, wherein he tooke vpon him the person of aEccles. 1.12 Preacher, for redresse of that which he had offended in the person of a King. Further, he citeth to his purpose the examples of Iudas the traitour and Simon Magus, of whom Saint Luke saith, that he beleeued. Where we may wonder at his notable impudencie, or rather impietie, that he maketh Iudas and Simon Magus once members of Iesus Christ. Of Iudas our Sauiour Christ saith, when he was at the best, thatIohn. 6.70. he was a deuill, and S. Iohn out of the experience of his whole conuersation, thatCap. 12 6. he was a theefe, thereby shewing that it neuer was with any true heart that he followed Christ, but onely to make a commodity to himselfe. Of Simon Magus S Luke saith indeed thatAct. 8.13. he beleeued, but [Page 315] so as that Peter perceiueth amidst his beleeuing, thatVer. 21.23. his heart was not right in the sight of God, that he was in the gall of bitternesse, and in the bond of iniquitie, whereby it appeareth, that his beleeuing was no more butOccumen. in epist. Iacob. cap. 2. Et de simplici assensu fidem dicere solemus. a bare assenting, as Occumenius calleth it, to the doctrine of faith, and not that true and effectuall beleeuing whereof we speake. Such members of Christ doth he make, doing wrong to Iesus Christ, onely to hide his owne shame, that he might not be thought to maintaine a wrong. The like he affirmeth of all Archheretikes, the first they were of the faithfull, expresly contrary to that which S. Iohn saith,1. Iohn. 2.19. They went out from vs, but THEY VVERE NOT OF VS: for if they had bene OF VS, they would haue continued with vs. Which being so plainly affirmed by the Apostle, we may maruell that M. Bishop should say the contrary, but that he hath harnessed his face and his conscience, that it may be no blush nor scruple to him, to auouch one lie for the vpholding of another. What his exception is to that place of Iohn, we shal see in the next section but one, where he hath taken vpon him the answer of it.
9. W. BISHOP.
But what need we further proofe of this matter, seeing that this is cosengerman, if not the very same, with one of that infamous heretike Iouinians erronious articles, condemned and registred by S. Hierome,Heres. 82. lib. 2. cons. Iouin. and S. Augustine, who held, that iust men after Baptisme could not sinne, and if they did sinne, they were indeed washed with water, but neuer receiued the spirit of grace: his ground was, that he which had once receiued the spirit of grace, could not sinne after, which is iust M. Perkins proposition: so that to vphold an errour, he falleth into an old condemned heresie. And which is yet more absurd, in the next confirmation, he letteth slip at once a brace of other heresies, these be his words: And if by sinne one were wholy seuered from Christ for a time, in his recouery he is to be baptized the second time. Where you haue first rebaptizing, which is the principall errour of the Anabaptists, and withall the heresie of the Nouatians, who held, that if any in persecution denied Christ after baptisme, there was no remedie left in Gods Church for their recouerie, but must be left to God; so saith M. Perkins, for that of rebaptizing he seemes to bring in ex absurdo: so that the common saying is verified in him, (one absurditie being graunted, a thousand follow after.) [Page 316] But doth he know no other meanes then Baptisme to recouer one cut off from Christ? hath he forgotten that corrupted sentence of the Prophet, wherewith they begin their Common praier? What houre soeuer a sinner doth repent him of his sinne, &c. With them repentance, and with vs the Sacrament of Penance, serue a man at any time of his life to be reconciled to Christ.
R. ABBOT.
We may here take knowledge of the absurd folly of this prater, who hauing before chalenged M. Perkins for affirming that sinne is alwaies in the regenerate corrupting all his works, goeth about here to lay vpon him an imputation of maintaining, that the regenerate cannot sinne. Surely both these cannot stand together, and if M. Perkins hold the one, he must needs be a stranger to the other. But thus he bableth without feare or wit, neuer regarding how one part of his speech hath coherence with the other. As touching Iouinian, if he simply taught that which Hierome and Austine affirme, that the regenerate cannot sinne, he erred greatly therein, and we ioine with Austine and Hierome in the condemning of that opinion. But if they did misunderstand his opinion, and that he held onely this, as in likelihood he did, that the regenerate cannot finally and vtterly fall away by sinne, or sinne that sinne which is vnto death, 1 Iohn 3.9. and onely meant as S. Iohn doth, Whosoeuer is borne of God sinneth not, neither can he sinne, because he is borne of God, he erred no whit at all, nor affirmed any thing therein, but what Hierome and Austine haue affirmed as well as he: and M. Bishop knew well enough, that it is this onely that M. Perkins deliuered; not that the regenerate cannot, or do not sinne, whose fals we confesse to be very many, and to themselues very grieuous from day to day, but that the regenerate doth not so sinne, as vtterly to be cut off from Christ; that the faithfull man doth neuer finally or wholly fall away from the grace of God. To which purpose S. Bernard saith:Bernard. de implic. haerint. vincul. &c. No [...] Dominus qui sunt etus. & propositum Dei manet immobile. Et si horrendorum crimirum nos: Dauid muritur etsi Maria Magdalene sep [...] saemonijs cumulatur, ets. priaceps Apostolorum in profundum negationis submergitur, non est tamen qui de manis Dei possit cruere. The Lord knoweth who are his, and the purpose of God abideth vnmoueable. Although Dauid be branded with the brand of horrible sinnes, although Mary Magdalen be fraught with seuen deuils, although Peter the chiefe of the Apostles, be drowned in the depth of denying his maister Christ, yet there is none that can take them (or pluck [Page 317] them) out of the hands of God; not that it is incident to the faithfull, to walke in malicious and wilfull sinne, but when by occasion or temptation he falleth, the LordLuc. 22.61. looketh vpon him as he did vpon Peter, that he may repent; thePsal. 37.24. Lord putteth vnder his hand, and lifteth him vp againe. We see therefore how little trust is to be giuen to him, who sticketh not to deliuer so manifest and apparant vntruth. He is like the cariers horse, that brooketh not to go out of his accustomed way: we had had no booke of him, if he had bene tyed to speake nothing but what is true. Now M. Perkins for assertion of the perseuerance of the faithfull, addeth further, that if a man be a member of Christ, he cannot be wholly cut off, not so much as for a time, much lesse for euer. For if he could wholly be cut off for the time, then at his returne he ought to be baptized againe, which being absurd to affirme, it followeth that a man cannot wholly be cut off. In which confirmation M. Bishop saith, that he hath let slip a brace of other heresies. Where we may conceiue, that he was mightily a-dreamed of heresies the night before he wrote this, and they ranne so thicke in his head, that he imagined euery man that he met with, to be an heretike. Surely M. Bishop, if he haue let slip a brace of heresies, he hath let them slip out of your collars, and therefore you must take them to your selues; for his they are not. You say by and by after, that he bringeth in that of rebaptizing ex absurdo, and if he bring it in as an absurditie, then it is not likely that it should slip from him. Full wisely therefore do you say, that the common saying is verified in him, one absurditie graunted, a thousand follow after, when the absurditie graunted is yours and not his, that a man is wholly cut off from Christ, hauing bene a member of his body, whereupon he inferreth, that there should then be a necessitie of rebaptizing, as a consequence of your absurditie, not as an assertion of his owne. A man would scant thinke you well in your wits, to handle a matter so crossely and vntowardly as you do. As touching the matter, albeit literally it be true, that a man being wholly cut off frō Christ, must necessarily be baptized to enter him againe, yet in that sence, wherein we here speake of cutting off from Christ, namely concerning spirituall and inward grace, I confesse ingenuously that there is no necessity of that consequence which Maister Perkins inferreth thereupon. If a man be wholly cut off from Christ, he hath no interest in Christ, nor [Page 318] Christ in him; the bond of baptisme is dissolued, neither doth there stand any relation thereby betwixt Christ and him. For if there stand any triall or bond betwixt Christ and him, then is he not wholy cut off. Supposing then a man after baptisme to be wholy cut off, which cannot be till finall impenitencie haue for euer diuided him from the body of the Church, but this yet being supposed, there should be a necessitie of baptizing him againe, to giue him admission into the societie of Christes Church. For that this cannot be done by M. Bishops sacrament of penance, he himselfe must needs confesse, because their sacrament of penance is as they call it, secunda tabula post naufragium; and he that is so wholy cut off, wanteth the first, without which the second hath no place. Or if he do not want the first, if he do not want the title of baptisme, then he is not wholy cut off, which is the thing to be supposed. The Church of Rome holdeth, that baptisme leaueth in the soule indelebilem characterem: a character or print that can neuer be disprinted. But suppose the same to be defaced and disprinted, and then I suppose that Maister Bishop will graunt, that there is a necessitie to be baptized againe. It cannot be, saith he, and so say we, that it cannot be, that a man baptized should wholy be cut off from Christ, but that by outward calling Christ and his Church hath interest in him during life, so as that by true repentance without any further baptisme, he is restored againe; yet vpon supposall it followeth which we haue said. Now if Maister Perkins spake vpon this supposall, it should so follow indeed, but the drift of the matter in hand necessarily draweth vs to another vnderstanding. For when we say that the regenerate man is neuer wholy cut off from Christ, we meane it as touching inward and spirituall grace, that it neuer so defecteth, but that there is still1. Iohn. 3.9. a seed thereof remaining, that shall grow againe. Yet if we suppose it to be true, which the Papists say, that inward grace of regeneration may be vtterly extermined for the time, I do not conceiue that it should thereof follow, that another baptisme should be needfull for being restored againe. For by the mark of Christ first set vpon him, Christ shal still stand entitled to him, & it shal be his sin in the meane time, that he applieth not himselfe to him, whose by right he ceaseth not to be. And if a man in hypocrisie receiue baptisme, so as that he [Page 319] becommeth not thereby at all the member of Christ, yea and thenceforth for the time runne into Paganisme or heresie, we will not hold that if he be afterwards truly conuerted, he should need for the making of him a member of Christ, to be secondly baptized, but that baptisme before receiued, now commeth to vse and effect, and yeeldeth that spirituall fruit which it did import before. So therefore though it be supposed that the grace of Christ in any man be vtterly razed and defaced, yet shall it not follow, that he shall be baptized a second time, but baptisme before receiued, shall returne to the same vse that it had before, not by the counterfet Sacrament of pennance deuised by men, but by true and faithfull repentance directed by God, whereof not by a corrupted sentence as this cauiller obiecteth, but by a true expressing of the Prophets meaning, we say in the beginning of our Cōmon praier,Ezech. 18.21.22. At what time soeuer a sinner doth repent him of his sinne from the bottome of his heart, I will put all his wickednesse out of my remembrance, saith the Lord. As for the Sacrament of penance, it is a bastard salue of a false Surgeon: it closeth wounds, and healeth none, but leaueth them to fester and corrupt vnto euerlasting death. There is in it a speciall policie of Satan, to hold men in opinion of forgiuenesse of sinnes where it is not, that they may neglect to seeke it where indeed it is. To come to an end of this matter, whether way M. Perkins meant this cutting off from Christ wholy, I will not precisely say; but whether way soeuer he meant it, it auaileth M. Bishop nothing at all, if haply he did erre in inferring a necessitie on their part, to maintaine an heresie or heresies of others, by maintaining a peruerse opinion of their owne. From which heresies (of Anabaptists and Nouatians) he well knew that we are farre enough; onely he would name them, that we might vnderstand that he had heard somewhat thereof.
10. W. BISHOP.
But we must answer vnto that of S. Iohn: They went out from vs,1. Ioan. 2. but they were not of vs, for if they had bene of vs, they would haue continued with vs. I answer. If they went out from vs, they were before with vs, which confirmeth our assertion, that men may depart from their faith and Christes profession: but such men were not indeed of [Page 320] the number of the elect, of which Saint Iohn was, for then either they would haue continued with them in the Christian faith, or else by heartie repentance would haue returned vnto it back againe, which is Saint Augustines owne exposition. De bono perse. cap. 8. And these be the Arguments for the Catholikes, which M. Perkins through his confused order toucheth here and there. To which I will adde, one taken out of the words of S. Paul: Rom. 11.20. But thou by faith dost stand, be not too highly wise, but feare, if God hath not spared the naturall boughes, lest perhaps he will not spare thee neither.Phil. 2.12. And againe: Worke your Saluation, with feare and trembling. There be aboue an hundred such texts in holy writ, wherein the Holy Ghost exhorteth vs to stand in feare of our Saluation, out of which I thus frame my argument.
No man must stand in feare of that, of which he is by faith assured. But the faithfull must stand in feare of their Saluation. Ergo, they be not assured of it by faith.
The Minor or second proposition is plainly proued by these places cited before: the Maior is manifest: there is no feare in faith, he that feareth, whether the thing be assured or no, cannot giue a certaine assent thereunto: Dubius in fide infidelis est. Put the case in another article, to make it more euident: He that feareth, whether there be a God or no, do we esteeme that he beleeueth in God? So he that feareth whether Iesus Christ be God is he a Christian? hath he a true faith? You must needs answer, no. So he that feareth whether he shall be saued or no, can haue no faith of his Saluation.
R. ABBOT.
The place of S. Iohn doth fully ouerthrow that which M. Bishop laboureth to build, inuincibly prouing, that reuolters and renegates wholy falling away from Christ, were neuer of the faithfull, though for the time outwardly they held profession with them. For if they had bene of vs, saith he, they would haue continued with vs, therein implying this rule, that they that once are of the faithfull, do certainly continue with them, so as that they neuer wholie and finally depart from them. For as falling starres were neuer starres indeed, though they seemed to be starres, so apostataes and backsliders were neuer faithfull indeed, though they seemed so to [Page 321] be. But here Maister Bishop answereth, If they went out from vs, they were before with vs. Be it so, but yet as the glosse saith,Thom. Aquin. in Ioan. ca. 2. ex glossa. Erant de ecclesia, numero non merito; sacramentorum perceptione, non charitatis communione. by tale and account, not by woorth; by participation of sacraments, not by fellowship of loue. This place then proueth, that men may depart from the profession of the faith of Christ, but it confirmeth not his assertion, that the faith of any doth euer faile, that is truly faithfull in the profession of the faith of Christ. And therefore it is but one of his iuglers tricks, to make his Reader beleeue that the place confirmeth his assertion, when in truth it doth directly contradict it. If those reuolters had had true faith, Saint Iohn would not haue said, They were not of vs; for he is of the faithfull, whosoeuer is indued with true faith. But, saith he, S. Iohns meaning is, that such were not of the number of the elect, and this is S. Austines exposition. And we acknowledge S. Austines exposition to be true;August. de bono perseu [...] [...]a. 8. Non erant ex eis quia nō erant secundum propositum vocant non erant in Chr sto electi ante constitutionē [...]undi, non erant in eo sort in consecuti; non erant praedestinauit secundum propositū eius qui vniuersa operatur. They were not of them, because they were not called according to purpose, because they were not elect in Christ before the foundations of the world; because they had not obtained any lot (or portion) in him, because they were not praedestinate, according to the purpose of him who worketh all things. But because they were not such, therefore they were neuer truly faithfull. For if they were not called by purpose, then did they neuer truly beleeue, becauseJdem de praed. sanct. cap 16. Qua vocatione sit credens. by that calling it is that a man doth beleeue. NowJ [...] p. 17. Quos praedestinauit ipsos & vocauit, illa scilicet vocatione secundum propositum Non ergo alios sed quos praedestinauit, ipsos & vocauit; nec alios sed quos ita vocauit, ipsos & iustificauit, nec alios sed quos praedestinauit, vocauit, iustificauit, ipsos & giereficauit, &c. by this calling God calleth no other but whom he hath praedestinate; therefore onely the predestinate do beleeue. And no other doth God iustifie, but whom he hath called with that calling, therefore onely the elect are partakers of iustification; and if only the elect be iustified, then all that are iustified do certainly perseuer, because the elect do neuer fall away. Now if backsliding reprobates were neuer partakers of iustification, then were they neuer of the body of the faithfull, howsoeuer in outward appearance they seemed to be. And this the same S. Austine very notably confirmeth, when he saith of reprobates;Cont. Iulian. Pelag. lib. 5 cap. 3. Jstorum neminem adducit ad poenitentiam salubrem & spiritualem qua homo in Christo reconciliatur Deo, siue illis ampliorem patientiam (quàm electis) siue non imparem praebeat. None of these doth God bring to spirituall and healthfull repentance, whereby man in Christ is reconciled vnto God, whether he yeeld them patience for longer or shorter time. And as he excludeth them from true repentance, [Page 322] so doth he also from forgiuenesse of sinnes, saying, thatCont. aduersar. seg. & prophet, lib. 2 ca. 11. Qui nō omnium, sicut iste au, sedeorum quos ante praes [...] on & praedestinauit delicta dimittit. God forgiueth the sinnes, not of all, but of them whom before he foreknew and predestinated. Origen yet goeth further, and saith, thatOrigen. cont. Cels. lib. 7. Conceditur cognitio Dei duntaxat his qui ad hoc praedestinati sunt vt cognito Dei dignè viuant. the knowledge of God (meaning the true and effectuall knowledge of God) is graunted onely vnto them, who are hereto predestinate, that knowing God they may liue worthy of him. Now if reprobates neuer haue any true knowledge of God, if they be secluded from repentance, faith, iustification, & forgiuenesse of sinnes, then these things are proper onely to the elect, which do certainly perseuer, and our assertion is true, that where there is true repentance, faith, iustification, knowledge of God, there infallibly followeth perseuerance to the end. Saint Iohn therefore when he saith, They were not of vs, as he meaneth that they were not of the elect, so he meaneth that they neuer were of the number of true beleeuers, neuer true members of Christ, or of the spirituall body of the Church, which if they had bene, he concludeth for vs, that they should haue so continued, and not in that sort haue vtterly fallen away. Therefore doth Saint Austine expound the words of them,August. de corrept & grat. ca. 9. Filij Dei propter sus [...]eptā vel temporaliter gratiā dicuntur a nobis nec sunt tamen Deo. who for grace temporally receiued, are of vs called the children of God, but yet are not so to God, affirming plainly, that with God they are not children, though we call them so, because they seeme no other to our sight. And to the same purpose he addeth soone after:J [...]d. Cum filij Dei dicunt, Non erant x nobis, &c. quod aliud dicum, nisi non erant filij, etiam quaendo erant in professt. [...] & nomine siliorum. They were not of vs, what meaneth it, but they were not children of God, when they went vnder the profession and name of children? Now if they were neuer children of God, then were they neuer truly regenerate; for by being borne of God, they must needs haue bene the children of God. Neither euer had they true faith; forIohn. 1.12. to so many as beleeued in him, he gaue a dignitie (or prerogatiue) to be the sonnes of God. Therefore when he saith of such, that they were in goodnesse, they were in the faith, it must be vnderstood as touching outward profession, and to the iudgement of the Church, and by assent and approbation of iudgement and vnderstanding, but neuer by integritie & soundnesse of affection, or true regeneration of the heart. Which may appeare by the exposition that he maketh thereof vpon that epistle of S. Iohn, where speaking of those apostataes he saith;Aug [...] in. 1. [...] 3. Sic sunt in corpore Christs quomodo hunores mal; qu in lo [...] corpus. So are they in the body of Christ as euill humors in our body. No members then, no parts of the body, but as euill humors in the body, of which some are more kind & lesse offensiue, other altogether vnkind [Page 323] and hurtfull, euen as of these temporizers in the Church, some come neerer to the true faithfull, other some are wholy wicked and dissembling hypocrites, but of them all it is true,Ibid. Tentatio probat quia non sunt ex nobis. Quando illius tentatio venerit velut occasione venti volant foras quia grana non erant. Temptation proueth that they are not of vs. When temptation befalleth them, euen as it were by occasion of a wind, they flie out, because they were not corne. They might seeme to be corne, but indeed they were but chaffe; they had a semblance, but they had not the realitie of the state of children. M. Bishops exposition therfore auaileth nothing, but that it still standeth true which we affirme, that true faith as it assureth of present state, so doth assure also of future perseuerance, to the end that God may performe to euery beleeuer that which he hath promised, that he shall not perish but haue euerlasting life. But because he cannot preuaile by answering, he wil make further trial what he can do by arguing, taking for ground the words of S. Paul, first to the Romanes,Rom. 11.20. Thou standest by faith; be not high minded but feare: secondly to the Philippians,Phil. 2.12. Worke your Saluation with feare and trembling. And to make the better shew he saith, that there are aboue a hundred such texts in holy writ, wherin the holy Ghost exhorteth vs, to stand in feare of our Saluation. But if they be such texts as these which he hath here alledged, they are admonitions against carnall presumption, and no discouragements to true faith to stand assured of Saluation. The Scripture speaketh diuersly of feare, and he doth but dally vpon that equiuocation. There is a doubting and distracting feare, which God forbiddeth, as being the enemy of all spirituall comfort and assurance of faith; and there is an awfull and regarding feare, which God commendeth as the vndiuided companion of true faith. As we vnderstand feare to he opposit to faith, we heare God appointing his ministers to call his people from it.Esa. 35.4. Say vnto the fearefull, Be you strong, feare not; behold your God commeth with vengeance, he wil come & saue you. Cap. 41.10. Feare not, for I am with thee; be not afraid for I am thy God; I will strengthen thee and helpe thee, and sustaine thee with the right hand of my iustice. And againe,Cap. 43.1. Feare not, for I haue redeemed thee; I haue called thee by name, thou art mine. When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee, that they do not ouerflow thee: when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burnt, neither shall the flame kindle vpon thee. Cap. 54.4. Feare not; for thou shalt not be ashamed, neither shalt thou be confounded. Vers. 14. In righteousnesse shalt thou be established, and be farre from feare, for it [Page 324] shall not come neere thee. Vers. 17. This is the heritage of the Lords seruants, whose righteousnesse is of me, saith the Lord. These gracious and comfortable speeches the Lord vseth to the faithfull, that vnder him they may rest in full assurance of safetie, without all feare or doubt, because he promiseth to preuent all those occasions whence any feare or doubt should rise. Whereupon it is that Zacharie saith, thatLuk. 1.74. he hath deliuered vs out of the hands of our enemies to serue him without feare, and Christ is sayd to haue died,Heb. 2.15. that he might deliuer them who for feare of death were all their life time subiect to bondage, and the Apostle S. Paul accordingly saith,Rom. 8.15. that we haue not receiued the spirit of bondage to feare any more, but the 2. Tim. 1.7. spirit of adoption to cry Abba, Father; that God hath not giuen vs the spirit of feare, but of power, and of loue, and of a sound mind. There is no greater bondage then feare of death, which representeth to a man nothing but ghastlinesse and horrour, when he is vncertaine therein what shall become of him. Therefore Christ hath deliuered his from this bondage of feare, and that they may rest stablished in the assurance of Saluation, saith vnto them,Luk. 12.32. Feare not little flocke; for it is your Fathers pleasure to giue you the kingdome. The Church of Rome biddeth Christs flocke to stand in feare of their owne Saluation; but Christ the maister of the flocke saith, Feare not, little flocke; it is the Fathers pleasure to giue you the kingdome. Thus when he saith to his disciples,Mat. 8.26. Why are ye fearefull, O ye of little faith, and to Peter, Cap. 14.32. O thou of little faith, wherefore diddest thou doubt? he sheweth that fai [...]h importeth an assured beleefe of a mans owne safetie, and forbiddeth feare and doubt, as contrarie thereunto. Now therefore when the Scripture commendeth feare, it importeth not any such feare as should in the faithfull shake the assurance of Saluation; nay the faithfull man because he findeth in himselfe that feare, doth thereby gather the greater assurance to himselfe. It is with euerie faithfull man as it was with Iob, Iob. 31.23. the punishment of God is fearefull vnto him; he dreadeth the iudgements and threatnings which God hath denounced against pride and vnthankfulnesse, against rebellion and contempt of God, knowing assuredly that the same 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 [Page 325] 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 theirAct. 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 wouldMat. 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,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 [Page 326] 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 beEphes. 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; 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: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 sundrieDe 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 wordsProsper. apud Ambros. epist. 84. Vigilant tē tatoris iusidiae vt vbi proficit deuotio subrepat elatio & vt homo de bono opere in se potiùs quàm 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 [Page 327] 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 himEsa. 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, 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 fall and runne into enormous offence, thereby to be the better instructed how little safetie we haue in our owne defence, and therefore how necessarie it is for vs to depend wholy vpon his grace. Thus the Apostle Peter presuming too much of himselfe, and being left thereupon to himselfe, fell euen to the denying and abiuring of his maister Christ, that he in himselfe and we in him might learne, that1. Sam 2.9. by his owne might shall no man be strong, and that euill would our state be, if our safetie did not rest onely and altogether in the Lord. Thus therefore in both places cited by M. Bishop, and in many other we read of feare; to feare the iudgements and threatnings of God, which the faithfull alwayes doth, because faith beleeueth them; to feare to trust in our selues, which euerie faithfull man also doth, because faith it selfe importeth trust in God: but we no where reade any thing whereof to gather that which he affirmeth, that the faithfull ought to stand in feare of their owne Saluation. Now therefore his argument is easily answered, for the minor proposition which he saith is plainely proued by the places cited, is meerely false, and hath no proofe at all, either by those places of any other. And how absurdly doth he abuse his Reader, that whereas the proposition by him to be proued is not expressed in the places alledged, he notwithstanding skippeth ouer with meere quoting of them, without shewing how the matter to be proued is to be inferred thereof. But such pretie shifts do best become the cause that he hath in hand. About the maior proposition whereof there is lesse question, he bestoweth a little paines to little purpose: No man must stand in feare of that of which by faith [Page 328] he is assured. Which we grant, as it importeth a dutie, that no man ought to haue any feare of that which he is taught to beleeue, but we deny that which he saith for the prosecutiō or explication therof. For it is false, that there is no feare in faith, that is, that there is no faith where there is feare, or feare where there is faith. For whē our Sauior Christ vpbraideth his disciples withMat. 8.26. & 14.31. fearfulnes & doubting, and yet attributeth vnto them little faith, as before is alledged, he plainly sheweth, that little faith it subiect to feare and doubt, and yet ceaseth not thereupon to be faith. He saith that he that feareth cannot giue certaine assent. We answer him, that our assent is according to the measure of our faith; little faith yeeldeth but weake assent, but yet it is a true assent, whereby we embrace that whereto we assent. The truth of which faith and assent hereby appeareth euen in feare, because feare causeth it to fall to prayer, which what is it else, but as it were the casting forth of the armes of faith, to catch hold of him in whom it beleeueth, as expecting succour and helpe of him; forRom. 10.14. how shall they call vpon him in whom they haue not beleeued? Thus the faith of the disciples appeared in the places euen now cited, when their feare made them to go vnto Christ and say to him, Maister, saue vs, which they would not haue sayd, but that they beleeued to haue safetie and deliuerance by him. Whereas therefore M. Bishop alledgeth the old sayd saw, Dubius in fide infidelis est, he that is doubtfull in the faith, is an infidell or vnbeleeuer, we tell him that it is true in him that wholy and absolutely doubteth. But there is a difference to be made betwixt him that absolutely doubteth, and him that weakly assenteth, and in assent is only interrupted with some feare or doubt. For which interruption I trow M. Bishop will not say, that the disciples of Christ were faithlesse, when Christ himselfe expresly acknowledgeth their faith. And thus, by reason the seeds of all impietie lie still hidden in the corruption of our nature, it commeth to passe, that faith sometimes is assaulted with doubts, euen in the maine and principall articles of our beleefe, and out of our owne sinfull condition we question vpon occasion the godhead, the power, the wisedome, the prouidence, the iustice and mercie of almightie God, when yet our faith doth not wholy relinquish the assent thereof. Which though in generalitie it more seldome come to passe, yet in application of our generall faith to particular occasions, we many times goe [Page 329] halting and lame, and stagger somewhat at that whereof our faith should giue vs full assurance by the word of God. Thus didGen. 18.12. Sarah cast doubt of Gods promise as touching the hauing of a child, who yet is saidHeb. 11.11. through faith to haue receiued strength to conceiue when she was past age, because she iudged him faithfull that had promised. Thus didNumb. 11.21.22. Moses call in question the power of God, as touching prouiding flesh for the people of Israel when he promised so to do. SoPsal. 73.2.3 Dauid andHabac. 1.2.13 Habacuk staggered as touching the prouidence of God, and his care of iust and righteous men. So I shewed before how the disciples vpon the death of Christ were in a mammering concerning the godhead of Christ, and the hope of redemption by him, which before they had imbraced. Yet we do not thinke, that such doubts and mammerings did in these men wholy extinguish the light of true faith. In like sort therefore we also resolue, that the faith whereby we beleeue our owne Saluation, is not by and by ouerthrowne, because sometimes the assurance thereof is shaken and interrupted with casting of feares and doubts. And thus the argument which he added for supplie of those which M. Perkins brought, is found to be of as little, indeed lesse worth then all the rest, and it well appeareth that M. Perkins was better able to speake for M. Bishop, then M. Bishop is able to speake for himselfe.
11. W. BISHOP.
To these inuincible reasons grounded vpon Gods word, let vs ioyne some plaine testimonies, taken as well out of the holy Scripture, as out of the ancient Fathers. First, what can be more manifest to warrant vs, that the faithfull haue not assurance infallible of their Saluation, Eccles. 9. then these words of the holy Ghost: There be iust (and therfore faithfull) and wise men, and their workes be in the hand of God, and neuerthelesse a man doth not know whether he be worthy of hatred or loue, but all things are kept vncertaine for the time to come. Where is then the Protestants certaintie? And because one heretike cauilleth against the Latine translation, saying, that a word or two of it may be otherwise turned, heare how S. Ierome,Comment. in hunc locum. who was most cunning in the Hebrew text, doth vnderstand it. The sence is (saith he.) I haue found the workes of the iust men, to be in the hand of God, and yet themselues not to know, whether they be loued of God or no.
R. ABBOT.
To his former inuisible reasons, we shall haue now some further testimonies adioyned, that make as little for him as his reasons haue done. And first he alledgeth a place of Solomon, A man doth not know whether he be worthie of hatred or loue, but all things are kept vncertaine for the time to come. But he knew well that the translation of this place might iustly be excepted against, which indeed is very false. He saith that one heretike cauilleth against it, but neither is he one onely, nor an heretike, neither doth he cauill, but iustly reiecteth it by warrant of the originall text, so as that M. Bishops owne friends do translate the words farre otherwise then he alledgeth them. The Hebrew word for word according to the Septuagint translated by Hierome, is thus;Eccles. 9.1. Et quidem charitatem & quidem [...]lium no est cognoscens homo omnia in facie eorū. Hieron. Also loue, also hatred, a man knoweth not all in the face of them. The obscuritie of which words hath caused men very diuersly to conceiue of the true meaning thereof. One construction is made by Olympiodorus, thatOlimpiod. in Eccles. ca. 9. Qui adhuc sapit quae hominis sunt, ne (que) planè Deo se tradidit, nescit discreto rudicio quae dilectione sunt digna quae odio. he that yet sauoureth the things of men, and hath not sincerely giuen himselfe to God, knoweth not what things are worthie to be loued, and what to be hated. Another exposition he alledgeth taken from the translation of Symmachus; Ibid. Nescit homo si qu [...]m nunc maximè odit, mutatis vicibus amicum & beneficum sit experturus, contraque an timēdum sibi quandoque sit abeo quem nunc amore prosequitur. A man knoweth not whether vpon some change he shall find him louing or kind whom he now hateth, or shall haue cause to be afraid of him whom he now loueth. With least mutation or change we translate the words thus, A man knoweth not loue or hatred (that is, who is loued or hated) by all that is before them, and then the meaning is plaine; that by outward things, by the things that are before our face, a man knoweth not whether he be beloued or hated of God; whereof the reason followeth, because all things come alike to all, and there is the same condition (outwardly) to the iust and to the wicked, &c. And to this effect the translation of Symmachus tendeth, though Olympiodorus gathered otherwise thereof.Symmac. apud Hieron in Eccl. cap 9 Insuper neque amicitias neque immicitias scit homo, sed omnia corarae eis incerta, proptereà quod omnibus eueniunt similia iusto & iniusto. Moreouer a man knoweth not loue or hatred, but all things are vncertaine before them, because the like things befall to all, both to iust and vniust. Which translation as Hierome approueth, so he confirmeth also the meaning of it, saying,Hieron ibid. Quod autem ait, Euentus est vnus omnibus iusto & impio siue angustiarum siue mortis significat euē tum, & idcirco nec charitatem Dei eos in se nosse nec odium. Whereas he saith that there is the same condition to all, he meaneth it of affliction or of death, and that therefore men know not the loue of God or his hatred towards them. [Page 331] And thus indeed true it is as M. Bishop citeth out of Hierome, that a man cannot esteeme by any outward state whether he be loued or hated of God; for neither do the righteous only prosper, neither are the wicked only crossed and afflicted, but the wicked flourish many times more gloriously then the iust, and the hand of God often lieth heauier vpon the iust then vpon the wicked and vngodly, and both are subiect to death, both are laied in the graue without any appearance or shew of difference betwixt the one & the other. But this maketh nothing against vs; for although by the eye the beleeuer cannot discerne the loue of God towards himselfe, yet that hindereth not but that by faith he apprehendeth and embraceth the same. And thus S. Bernard excepteth against that place, being so translated as M. Bishop readeth it.Bernard. in dedic. eccles. ser. 5. Sed de possibilitate iam cert [...] de voluntate quid agimus? Quis scit si est dignus amore an edio? Quis nouit sensum Domini, aut quis consiliarius eius fuit? Hìc iam planè fidem nobis subuenire necesse est, hìc oportet succurrere veritatem vt quod de nobis latet in corde paetris nobis per ipsius spiritum reueletur & spiritus eius testificās persuadeat spiritut nostro quod filij Dei simus. Being sure of Gods ablenesse to saue vs, how do we to be assured of his will thereto? for who knoweth whether he be worthie of loue or hatred? who hath knowne the mind of the Lord, or hath bene his counsellor? But here faith must helpe vs; bere Gods truth must be our succour, that that which lieth hidden concerning vs in the heart of God our Father, may by his spirit be reuealed vnto vs, and his spirit by the testimonie thereof may perswade our spirit that we are the children of God, and that by calling and iustifying vs freely by faith. Thus though we take the place translated as M. Bishop alledgeth it, yet by S. Bernards iudgement it auaileth him nothing, because albeit otherwise we cannot know whether we be beloued or hated of God, yet by faith and by the spirit of God, that secret is reuealed vnto vs, that we are the children of God and beloued of him. Only that we take that worthinesse of the loue of God, to be meant of Gods acceptation and vouchsafing to thinke vs worthie, because otherwise the place so translated soundeth a manifest vntruth and contrarie to the Scripture. For if we speake simply of worthinesse, who doth not know himselfe worthie of hatred; what faithfull man doth not say as Daniel said,Dan. 9.7. To thee, O Lord, belongeth righteousnesse, but vnto vs (reckoning himselfe for one) belongeth confusion of face. Dauid saith,Psal. 143.2. Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant, O Lord, for in thy sight no man liuing shall be iustified. 130.3. If thou straitly marke what is done amisse, who shall be able to stand? It is false then to say that a man knoweth not whether he be worthie of loue or of hatred, for he knoweth or should know himselfe worthie to be hated, but yet by faith a man beleeueth himselfe in [Page 332] Christ to be beloued, though he know that in himselfe he worthily deserueth to be hated. And so S. Bernard againe saith of the faithfull,Bernard. epist. 107. Supra scit. 3 A vile worme worthie of euerlasting hatred, yet is confidently perswaded that he is beloued, because he feeleth himselfe to loue. Thus S. Bernard both wayes contrarieth M. Bishop, affirming that the faithfull man knoweth himselfe worthie to be hated, and yet by faith confidently presumeth that he is beloued of God. As yet therefore we haue no proofe that the faithfull man ought to stand in feare of his owne Saluation.
12. W. BISHOP.
Another plaine testimonie is taken out of S. Paul, where he sheweth that it is not in vs to iudge of our owne iustice, 1. Cor. 4. but we must leaue to God the iudgement of it, these be the words: I am not guiltie in conscience of any thing, but I am not iustified herein, but he that iudgeth me is our Lord, therefore iudge not before the time vntill our Lord do come, who also will lighten the hidden things of darknes, and will manifest the counsell of the heart, and then the praise shall be to euery man, of God. So that before Gods iudgement by S. Pauls testimonie, men may not assure themselues of their own iustice, much lesse of their Saluation, Serm. 5. in Psa. 118. De constitut. monas. cap 2. how innocent soeuer they find themselues in their own consciences. See vpon this place S. Ambrose, S. Basil, Theodoret on this place, who all agree, that men may haue secret faults, which God only seeth, and therefore they must liue in feare, and alwayes pray to be deliuered from them. For the rest let S. Augustines testimonie (whom our aduersaries acknowledge to be the most diligent and faithfull register of all antiquitie) be sufficient. This most iudicious, and holy Father thus defineth this matter: As long as we liue here, we our selues cannot iudge of our selues, I do not say what we shall be to morrow,De verb. Domini. serm 35. De ciuit. Dei lib. 11. cap. 12. but what we are to day. And yet more directly: Albeit holy men are certaine of the reward of their perseuerance, yet of their owne perseuerance, they are found vncertaine. For what man can know that he shall perseuer, and hold on in the action and increase of iustice vntil the end, vnles by some reuelation he be assured of it from him, who of his iust, but secret iudgement doth not informe all men of this matter, but deceiueth none: So no iust man is assured of his Saluation by his ordinarie faith: by extraordinarie reuelation, [Page 333] some man may be assured, the rest are not. Which is iust the Catholike sentence. And because S. Bernard is by our aduersaries cited for them in this point, Serm. 1. de Soptuag. take his testimonie in as precise tearmes as any Catholike at this time speaketh. Thus he writeth: Who can say, I am one of the elect, I am one of the predestinate to life, I am one of the number of the children? Who (I say) can thus say, the Scripture crying out against him: A man knoweth nor,Eccles. 9. whether he be worthie of loue or hatred? Therfore we haue no certaintie, but the confidence of hope doth comfort vs, that we be not vexed at all with the perplexitie of this doubt. The word of God (according to S. Bernard) crieth out against all them, that certainly assure themselues of their Saluation: whereon then do they build their faith that beleeue it?
R. ABBOT.
The summe of his argument in this place is, that we are vncertaine of our owne righteousnesse, and therefore can haue no certaintie of our owne Saluation. To proue the vncertaintie of our righteousnesse, he alledgeth the words of the Apostle,Cor. 4.4. Of this place see further the fourth Section of the next question, concerning Iustification. I am not guiltie to my selfe in any thing, yet am I not therein iustified. Where it is worth the noting, that whereas the Apostle saith by expresse negatiue, I am not iustified thereby, he maketh as if the Apostle had meant, I cannot tel whether I be iustified or not. It may be I am iust, it may be I am not iust. If I be, my iustice shall merit heauen: if I be not, I know not what may haply become of me. But the Apostle neuer made any such doubt; he well knew, that the cleerenesse of his conscience was not it that could yeeld him iustification before God. He knew it to be true which S. Austin saith, thatAugust. de peccat. mer. & remiss. lib 2. cap. 19 Quantum ad integerronam regulam veritatis eius pertinet, non iustifibabitur, &c. according to the most entire rule of Gods truth, no man liuing shall be found iust in the sight of God, and therefore professeth, thatPhil. 3.8. he accounteth all things but losse for the excellent knowledge of Christ Iesus our Lord, for whom, saith he, I haue counted all things losse, and do iudge them to be doung, that I might winne Christ, and might be found in him, not hauing mine owne righteousnesse which is by the law, but the righteousnesse which is by the faith of Christ, euen the righteousnesse which is of God by faith. Here is then a renouncing of his owne righteousnesse, and an acknowledgement of iustification and righteousnesse onely by faith in Christ. A notable fruit of which faith it was so to walke as [Page 334] that he could say, I am not guiltie to my selfe in any thing, in which sort he speaketh elsewhere,2. Cor. 1.12. This is our reioycing, euen the testimonie of our conscience, that in simplicitie and godly purenesse, not by carnall wisedome but by the grace of God, we haue had our conuersation in the world. Of which testimonie of conscience S. Iohn saith,1. Iohn. 3.19.21. If our heart condemne vs not (but that we are of the truth) then haue we boldnesse towards God, and shall before him assure our hearts. Whereby we are taught, that to walke with a good conscience in the faith of Christ, ministreth great boldnesse and assurance towards God, and therefore that the Apostle in the place cited protesting the innocency of his conscience, was farre from professing to stand in doubt of his owne Saluation, yea and were not M. Bishop a man of an iron face, he would not attribute to the Apostle any such doubt. For the true vnderstanding of the place we are to obserue, as appeareth by the processe of this epistle, that there were diuisions and part-takings amongst the Corinthians, some magnifying one of their teachers, and some another, and they willingly accepting the applause and praises of their followers, and each thinking highly of himselfe aboue the rest. Now the Apostle vnder his owne name, and the names of Apollo and Cephas, instructeth those teachers against this vain affectation of human applause: he wisheth them to be content to be reckoned each with other the ministers of Christ, and therein to haue a care to deale faithfully towards him whose stewards they are, endeuoring to their vttermost to please the Lord, not thinking the better of themselues for that men magnifie them aboue others, because men know thē not, nor can duly esteeme of them. Nay, how should other iudge of vs, when we cannot sufficiently iudge of our selues, who in our greatest innocencie as seemeth vs, yet cannot iustifie our selues to God, and when to our selues we are guiltie of nothing, yet with him are found guilty many waies; because he seeth in as that that we see not in our selues, and espieth iniquities and defaults where we by our sight can descry none, so that to his sight haply they are found superiours to vs, whom we thinke to be our inferiors; & they are approued for the better, whō mens iudgements take to be the worse, & therfore reiecting the vainglorious cōmendations of partially affected men, we are to refer our selues wholy to the iudgement of the Lord. And thus are those words expoūded by those very authors whō M. Bishop citeth, not that men may haue [Page 335] secret faults, which perhaps may hinder their being iust, but that the best haue secret faults at least, by reason whereof in themselues they are not iust. Thus Ambrose taketh it;Ambros. in Psal 118. ser. 5. Delicti conscius sibi non erat, sed quia homo erat, peccatorem se fatebatur, scieus vnum esse Iesum lumen verum qui peccatum, non fecit, &c. ipsum solii iustificari qui verè alienus esset à lapsu. The Apostle was not to himselfe guiltie of default, but because he was a man, he confessed himselfe a sinner knowing that Iesus onely is the true light who did no sinne, neither was there guile found in his mouth, and that he onely is found iust, who was indeed free from falling. The words of Theodoret are not so plaine, but Basil euidently maketh the Apostle to say;Basil. in Constit. monast. cap. 2. Hoc est, multa pecco quae non intelligo; vnde & propheta dixit, Delicta quis intelliget? &c. Licet multa peccamus, plura tamē dilectorum nostrorum ignoramus. I offend in many things which I know not, as it is writtē, who knoweth how oft he offendeth? For although we sinne many wayes, yet we do not know (or we are not ware) of many of our sinnes. The Apostles words then import not a doubt, but an absolute deniall of his being iust, euen by the testimonie of M. Bishops owne records. And this shall further appeare in the next question, vpon further examination of the same words. M. Bishop therefore must change his antecedent proposition, and not say, We are vncertaine of our owne iustice or righteousnesse, but rather, We are certaine and sure that in our selues we are not iust. And if hereof he will conclude, that we must therefore doubt of our owne Saluation, we must tell him that his argument holdeth not. Indeed if our Saluation were to stand vpon our owne righteousnesse, we were not onely to doubt, but wholy to despaire of our owne Saluation; because by inherent iustice, as shall be shewed, no man shall be iustified in Gods sight. Euen in our greatest perfection, when we looke vnto our selues and our owne righteousnesse, we are subiect to that amased distraction which the Apostle describeth, euen to say,Rom. 10.6. Who shall ascend into heauen? as if Christ were not ascended to make way for vs; and Who shall descend into the deepe? as if Christ had not died to deliuer vs from thence: we can neuer satisfie our selues how either to escape the one, or to attaine the other. Therefore we according to the promise of the Gospell rest the assurance of Saluation vpon faith in Christ, fully beleeuing that his merit is our righteousnesse, and that by the vertue thereof we are accepted vnto eternall life. Which sith M. Bishop knew well inough, it was but an idle vagarie of his, to alledge this so impertinently for an argument against vs. Now as touching the testimonies that he further alledgeth, the first of them is nothing to the matter in hand, to say nothing that he quoteth it from a place where it is not found, & where it is found [Page 336] is not Austins, though it be in an homily amongst his. The author of those words speaketh to the same purpose as the Apostle did, to disswade from taking delight in the praises and commendations of men, because they cannot know what commendation should be due vnto vs. Yea saith he,Aug. homil. 35. Quamdus viuimus hic. de nobisipsis nosipsi iudicare non possumus, non dico quod eras erimus sed quod hodie simus. Quantè minus delemus moueri iudicijs alienis quàm de conscientia nostra quae nobis perhibet testimonium? Nam gloria nostra debet esse conscientia nostra. So long as we liue here we our selues cannot iudge of our selues, I say not what we shall be to morrow, but what we are to day; how much lesse then should we be moued with other mens iudgements then with our owne conscience which giueth testimonie vnto vs: for our conscience should be our glorie? We are not then vpon other mens opinions of vs to swell in opinion of our selues; we do not for the present sufficiently conceiue our owne imperfections and defaults, which with God may detract from vs much of that which men attribute vnto vs; we know not whether God may suffer vs to fall, as he doth many times his dearest children, to staine that commendation and vaine glorie that we take too great pleasure in; but all this hindereth nothing but that faith is assured by the word of God that God will neuer suffer it so to faile, or vs so to fall, as to fall vtterly away from him. The other place of Austin speaketh indefinitely of all, whoAug de ciuit. Dei lib. 11. cap. 12. Quos videmus iustè ac prè cum spe futurae immortalitatis hanc vitā ducere, &c. Licet de suae perseuerantiae praemio certi sūt, de ipsa tamē perseuerantia sua reperiuntur incerti, &c. to our sight liue iustly and godlily with hope of future immortalitie, who though they be (all) sure that there is a reward of perseuerance, yet are not (all) sure to perseuere, because all are not indeed the same that to our sight they seeme to be. Onely they are assured thereof, as he saith,Quis sciat, &c nisi aliqua reuelatione ab illo fiat certus qui de hac re iusto latenti (que) iudicio nō omnes instruit sed neminem fallit. whom God assureth by reuelation from him; who doth reueale it by faith, through the spirit in our vocation and iustification, as we haue heard before out of S. Bernards words. The same S. Austin saith to his hearers;De ver. Apos. ser. 16. Fidei quae per dilectionem operatur si est in vobis, iam pertinetis ad praedestinatos, vocatos, iustificatos. If there be in you faith which worketh by loue, euen now ye belong to them that are predestinated, called, iustified. Now sith the faithful by S. Austins iudgement do belong to thē that are predestinated, called, iustified, it followeth by S. Austins iudgement, that they are to be assured that they belong to them that shall be glorified, and therfore shall certainly perseuer, becauseRom. 8.30. whom God hath predestinated, called, iustified, them he hath glorified, as the Apostle saith. And therefore doth S. Austin will the faithfull manAugust. in Psal. 148. Supra Sect. 3. to beleeue that he shall liue for euer, as before was shewed, and if he must beleeue to liue for euer, he must beleeue also to perseuer, not doubting thereof, because what Christ saith in the Gospell to one, belongeth to euery one,Mat. 9.29. According to thy faith so be it vnto thee. Such is then the certaintie and assurance that we teach, not as commonly [Page 337] we vnderstand certaintie and assurance by sence or by reason, by euidence and plaine appearance, whereby directly and immediatly we know the thing whereof we are assured (this certainty and assurance S. Austin denieth, and so do we) but an assurance of faith, whereby by signes & arguments we beleeue by the word and promise of God that so it shalbe, and rest assured that so it shall be, because we do beleeue. And this is ordinary faith, whereby God ordinarily in some measure reuealeth the secret of his election to the faithfull, neither is there any necessitie to restraine S. Austins words to extraordinarie reuelation, as M. Bishop doth. That former certaintie S. Bernard also denieth in the words alledged by M. Bishop, but we haue before seene how he auoucheth the certaintie of faith against the words cited in the place here alledged, A man knoweth not whether he be worthie of loue or of hatred. No man by any apprehension or light of flesh and bloud can say, I am one of the elect, I am one of the predestinate: no man by iudgement of reason or humane knowledge can conceiue it, but yet as he saith in the very place here cited,Bernard. in septuag. ser. 1. Data sunt signa quaedam & indicia manifesta salutis vt indubitabile sit eum esse de numero electorum in quo ea signa permanserint. there are certaine manifest signes and tokens of Saluation, such as that it is without all doubt that he is of the number of the elect in whom those tokens do remaine. Of which signes he speaketh thus in another place:Jdem id octaua. Paschae. ser. 2. Quomodò sine testimonio electos suos deserat Deus? aut certè quaenam eis esse poterat consolatio inter spem & metum solicitudine anxia fluctuantibus, si nullum omninò electionis suae testimonium habere mereretur? Nouit Dominus qui sunt eius, & solus ipse scit quos elegerit à principio. Quis verò scit hominū si est dignus amore vel odio? Quòd si vt certū est certitudo nobis omninò negatur, nunquid non tantò delectabiliora erunt siqua fortè electionis huius signa possimus inuenire? Quam enim requiem habere potest spiritus noster dum praedestinationis suae nullum adhuc testimoniū tenet, fidelis proinde sermo & omni acceptione dignus quo salutis testimonie commendantur. How should God leaue his elect without testimonie (of their election?) or what comfort might there be vnto them wauing carefully betwixt hope and feare, if they did not find the fauour to haue some testimonie thereof? The Lord knoweth who are his, he only knoweth whom he hath chosen from the beginning: but what man knoweth if he be worthie of loue or hatred? But if, as certaine it is, that certainty be denied vnto vs (in such sort as before was sayd) how much the more delightfull shall they be, if we can find any tokens of this election? For what rest can our soule haue, so long as it hath yet no testimonie of it owne predestination? Therefore it is a word to be beleeued, and worthie by all meanes to be receiued, whereby the witnesse and testimonie of our Saluation is commended vnto vs. Thus he denieth that absolute certaintie that before I mentioned, but denieth not that certaintie of faith which is gathered from such signes and tokens as by the word of God are deliuered vnto vs, which he giueth to vnderstand is such as whereby we are kept from that wauing and wauering betwixt hope and feare, which M. Bishop requireth to take place in euerie faithfull man. And this certaintie is [Page 338] such as that Bernard himselfe thus expresseth it in himselfe:Idem de Euāg. sept panum. ser. 3. Tria su n quae sic [...] & confirmant cer [...], vt nulla [...], meritorum, nulla const [...] propriae vilitatis, nulla [...] coelestis bratitudinis ib altitudine spes de scere possit in ea firmitèr radicatum, &c. Tria considero in quibus tota spes mea consistit, charitatem adoptionis, veritatem promissionis, potestatem redditionis. Murmur etiam quantum voluerit insipiens cogitatio mea, dicens, Quis enim es tu, aut quanta est illa gloria, quibu sue meritis hanc obtinere speras? Et ego fiducialitèr respondebo, scio cui credidi & certus sum quia in charitate nimia adoptauit me, quia verax in promissione, quia potent in exhibitione, &c. There are three things which do so strengthen and stablish my heart, as that no want of merits, no consideration of mine owne vilenesse, no estimation of the heauenly blesse, can cast me downe from the height of my hope, being fast rooted therein; I consider three things, I say, in which my hope wholy consisteth: the loue of God in adopting me, the truth of his promise, and his power to performe the same. Let my foolish thought now repine and murmure as much as it will, saying, Who art thou, and how great is that glorie, and by what merites doest thou hope to obtaine the same? and I will boldly answer, I know whom I haue beleeued, and I am certaine or sure, because he hath adopted me in great loue, because he is true in his promise, because he is of power to make good the same. Thus Saint Bernard expresly affirmeth a certaintie of faith, and speaketh so like a Protestant, as that if he were now aliue he should at Rome be condemned for an hereticke as well as we. He was not of the mind that M. Bishop saith, that the word of God crieth out against them that by faith take assurance of their Saluation, but only denieth that there is any assurāce of Saluation to be taken from our owne immediate and absolute knowledge and apprehension thereof, which we also confesse as well as he.
7. W. BISHOP.
If it may be permitted to ioyne moderne opinions with anncient, bad men with good, I could proue by the testimonie of euerie principall sect of this time, that all other sectaries were deceiued in this their perswasion of their Saluation. For both Lutherans, Caluinists, and Anabaptists (to omit the rest) do hold euery one of themselues assured of their Saluation, and yet each sect holdeth euerie one not of his owne band assured of damnation: so that by the sentence of the Lutherans, all Caluinists, and Anabaptists, are miserably deceiued when they assure themselues of their Saluation: In like manner if the Anabaptists be true censurers, both Lutherans, and Caluinists, and all other, not of their heresie, erre fouly, when they beare themselues in hand that they shall be saued. Certaine it is therefore by the consent of all the world, that very many who assure themselues of Saluation, are indeed assured of damnation.
R. ABBOT.
A fooles bolt is soone shot. Bad men, saith he, with good, but of all those bad men are there any so bad as he & his fellow Seculars haue described the Iesuites to be, and the Iesuites them? Let vs turne the argument then vpon themselues; The Secular Priests hope for Saluation, yet the Iesuites hold them for proud men, contentious, irregular, scandalous, and in a word for schismatikes, and therefore in case of damnation. So the Iesuites hope for Saluation; yet the Seculars, though being brought in case to leape at a crust, they now dissemble it, hold them for very villaines, the notable impostors and cosiners of the world, for very rakehels and deuils incarnate, for heretikes and what not? Thus M. Bishop hath bene conceited; thus hath Watson in his Quodlibets discouered them, and thereby to be assuredly in state of damnation also. Their grounds therefore on both sides are false, whereby they conceiue any hope of Saluation. Yea, and in the body of their vnity amongst their Popes, their Cardinals, their Bishops, and the rest, there are many who vpon false grounds do hope for Saluation. Is it an argument therefore that they haue no true grounds, whereupon to build the hope thereof? The Turks hope for Saluation by their superstitions, the Iewes hope for Saluation by their traditions, and both take the Papists to be damned; and will M. Bishop take this to be any impeachment of their hope? So therefore although Papists and Anabaptists, and such other absurd heretikes do thinke the faithfull to be in state of damnation, yet this nothing hindereth, but that the faithfull themselues vpon the grounds that God hath laied before them, should stand assured of Saluation. As for that which he saith of Lutherans and Caluinists, it is but the casting of his gall, the bitternesse whereof remaineth onely to himselfe. We ioy not in any such titles, nor loue to diuide our selues as Popish Moonks and Friars do, by the names of men. And in that difference of opinions that is betwixt them that are so called, there is none that is soberly minded, that doth preiudicate the others hope towards God, but rather by vnitie of faith in the maine, learneth of the Apostle to say,Phil. 3.15. If any be otherwise minded (then he ought) God will euen reueale the same vnto him. There may be difference of opinions betwixt good men, as it [Page 340] fell out of old betwixt Cyprian and Stephanus Bishop of Rome, betwixt Hierome and Austine, betwixt Chrysostome and Epiphanius, and sundry others, yea and the same may grow to some egernesse and anger whilest each maintaineth his owne conceit, but S. Austines rule ought to be remembred:August. in Psal. 33. Non possunt nisi existere rixae aliquae quomodo inter fratres & inter sanctos extiterunt, inter Barnabam & Paul [...] sed non quae occiderent concordiā, nō qua interimerent charitatem. There may be braules, as there haue bene sometimes betwixt brethren, betwixt Saints and holy men, as betwixt Barnabas and Paul, but not to breake concord of heart, not to destroy charity and loue. Which rule so long as we retaine, and doEphe 4.15. follow the truth in loue, as the Apostle exhorteth God doth pardon our errour, and will in his good time bring our darknesse into light, that in the endVer. 13. we may all meet together in the vnity of faith and knowledge of the sonne of God, to be1 Cor. 1.10. of one mind and of one iudgement, which we all ought to striue vnto. This mind Cyprian bare in his priuate opinion of rebaptizing, saying to them that were assembled in counsell with him,Cyprian in concil. Carthag. De hac ipsa re quid singuli sentiamus proferamus, neminem iudicantes nec a iure cō munionis aliquē si diuersum senserit ameuentes. Let vs euery man deliuer what we thinke of this matter, iudging no man, nor seuering any man from the right of our communion for being minded otherwise. With this mind Austine said to Hierome, August. epist. 15. Si fieri potest vt inter nos quaeramus & disseramus aliquid quo sine amaritudine discordiae corda nostra pascantur fiat. Si autem non possum dicere quid mihi emendandum videatur in scriptis tuis nec tu in meis sine suspicione inuidiae aut laesione amicitiae, quiescamus ab his, & nostrae vitae saluti (que) parcamus. Minus certè assequatur illa quae instat, dum non offendatur illa quae edificat. If it may be that we may search or reason betwixt vs any matter, whereby without bitternesse of discord our hearts may be fed, let vs so do. But if I cannot say what I thinke is to be amended in thy writings, or thou in mine, without suspition of enuie, and breach of friendship, let vs giue ouer these matters, and fauour our owne life and Saluation. Let knowledge which puffeth vp haue the lesse, that there may be no offence to loue which edifieth. They who in the profession of one true religion, do prosecute their differences with other mind, do bewray their owne corruption, and breake thatEphe. 4.3. vnitie of the spirit, that should be preserued by the bond of peace. Seeing therefore we beare this mind in some difference of opinions, it is nothing else but M. Bishops malice to inferre thereof, that we each to other denie the hope or assurance of Saluation. But his conclusion of all this babblement is a wise one, Certaine it is therefore that very many who assure themselues of Saluation, are indeed assured of damnation. For what is it to the question, if any by carnall securitie dreaming of Saluation, haue in the end failed of that, which rashly and without ground they haue presumed of? We doubt not but many presumptuous hypocrites and heretikes come to nought, who for the time by vaine opinion haue flattered themselues in the false hope of that which they neuer imbraced by true faith. But the [Page 341] fall of them in whom there neuer was any true faith, no whit impeacheth the assurance of them, who truly and vnfainedly do beleeue.
14. W. BISHOP.
With the testimonies of the auncient Doctors for vs, Pag. 55. I pray thee gentle Reader, conferre those which M. Perkins in his sixt reason alledgeth against vs. First, S. Augustine in these words: Of an euill seruant,De verb. Domini. serm. 28. thou art made a good child, therefore presume not of thine owne doing, but of the grace of Christ. It is no arrogancie, but faith to acknowledge, what thou hast receiued, it is not pride, but deuotion. What word is here of Certaintie of Saluation? but that it belongeth to a faithfull man, to confesse himselfe much bound to God, for calling of him to be his. Which euery Christian must do, hoping himselfe so to be, and being most certaine, that if he be not in state of grace, it is long of himselfe, and no want on Gods part. The second place hath not so much as any shew of words for him, thus he speaketh: Let no man aske another man,Tract. 5. in Epis. Ioan. but returne to his owne heart, and if he find Charity there, he hath securitie for his passage, from like to death. What need was there to seeke charity in his heart for securitie of his Saluation, if his faith assured him thereof, therefore this text maketh flat against him.
R. ABBOT.
The words of Austine, or rather of Ambrose (for he indeed is the author of them) are these,August. de verb. Dom. ser. 28. ex Ambros. de sacram. lib 5. cap. 4. O homo nō audebas oculos tuos ad coelum attollere: oculos tuos ad terram dirigebas & subitò accepisti gratiam Christi. Omnia tibi peccata dimissa sūt. Ex malo seruo factus es bonus filius. Ideo praesume non de operatione tua sed de Christi gratià. Gratia enim saluati estis, Apostolus ait. Non ergo hìc arrogantia est sed fides praedicare quod acceperis non est superbia sed deuotio. O man thou didst not dare to lift thine eies to heauen; thou didst cast them to the earth, and vpon the sodaine thou receiuedst the grace of Christ: all thy sinnes are forgiuen thee. Of an euill seruant thou art made a good sonne. Presume therefore not of thine owne working, but of the grace of Christ. For by grace ye are saued, saith the Apostle. Here therefore is no arrogancie, but faith; to speake of that which thou hast receiued, is not pride, but deuotion. To which words Maister Bishop answereth, What word is here of Certaintie of Saluation, when as expresly against his assertion it is affirmed, that the faithfull regenerate in Christ, doth presume, that his sinnes are forgiuen him, that he hath receiued the grace of Christ, that he is made the child of God, and that this is no arrogancie, no pride, no vnlawfull presumption, but a matter of faith, a matter of deuotion, and a good presumption, as he calleth it afterwards. Now all these [Page 342] things he comprehendeth vnder the name of Saluation, citing to that purpose the words of the Apostle, By grace ye are saued. For how doth the Apostle say, By grace ye are saued, as of a thing done already, but for that we are made partakers of the forgiuenesse of sinnes, haue receiued the grace of Christ, and are become the children of God? Therefore in presuming of these things, as Ambrose willeth the faithfull to do, we consequently presume, and stand assured of our owne Saluation, because in these things our Saluation is begun, as appeareth by the words of Christ concerning Zacheus; Luk. 19.9. This day Saluation is come to this house, because this man is become the sonne of Abraham. And whereas M. Bishop saith, we may not presume hereof, because we know not our owne works or righteousnesse, S. Ambrose telleth vs, that this is not to be presumed of our owne works, but of the grace of Christ, the true calling whereof is such, as maketh vs that whereunto we are called, because we are thereby called, not at the eare onely, but inwardly, and in the heart. Therefore them that are thus truly called, S. Ambrose willeth not coldly to hope, according to the manner of M. Bishops hope, where feare is as strong as hope, but faithfully and deuoutly to presume that they are in the state of grace; not with doubting to thinke, that if they be not so, it is long of themselues, but to resolue that without themselues they are so indeed, onely by the grace of God. We may well thinke that it was a frostie morning, that made M. Bishop to make so cold construction of so effectuall and plaine words. But in the next place cited out of Austine, he goeth beyond himselfe. Let vs take the whole words as he hath them, vpon these words of S. Iohn; 1. Iohn. 3.14. By this we know that we are translated from death to life, because we loue the brethren. Hereupon saith he,August. in Ioan. tract. 5. Quid nos scimus? Quia transiuimus de morte ad vitam. Vnde scimus? Quia diligimus fratres. Nemo interroget hominem: redeat vnus quis (que) ad cor suum. Si ibi inuenerit charitatem fraternam se uros sit, quia transcit de morte ad vitam. Iam in dextera est. Non attendat quia mo lo gloria eius occulia est: cum venerit Dominus tunc apparebit gloria eius. Viget enim sed adhuc in hyeme: viget radix, sed qu est aridi sunt raini. Intus est medulli quae vigis tintus sunt solit arborum, [...] fructus, sed aestatem expectant. Ergo nos [...], &c. What do we know? That we are translated from death to life. Whereby do we know it? Because we loue the brethren. Let no man aske of another man; let him returne to his owne heart: if he find there loue to the brethren, let him be without doubt that he is passed from death to life. He is now on the right hand. Let him not regard that his glory is now hid; when the Lord shall come, then his glory shall appeare. For he is aliue, but yet as in the winter; the root is aliue, but the branches are in a manner dry. Within is the pith that liueth, within are the leaues, within are the fruits, but they looke for a sommer. Therefore we know, that we are translated from death to life, because we loue the brethren. Where we see both by the [Page 343] text it selfe, and by the exposition of this auncient Father, that by loue towards them that are our brethren in the faith of Iesus Christ, we are to take knowledge and assurance of our being translated from death to life, that is, of our owne Saluation, and that so as to be without doubt thereof, and yet this wrangler doubteth not to say, This place hath not so much as any shew of words for him. The point in question is affirmed, not in ambiguous and doubtfull words, but euidently and apparantly, and yet he goeth away with, This place hath not so much as any shew of words for him, nay this text maketh flat against him. But why so, I pray you? What need was there, saith he, to seeke charitie in his heart for securitie of his Saluation, if his faith assured him thereof? But why doth he not answer to the point? Doth not S. Austine teach the faithfull an assurance of Saluation, be it by faith, be it by charitie, let not that here be the question? Is there to the faithfull by S. Austines iudgement, any assurance of Saluation? He could not tell how directly to denie it, and yet with a Romish and impudent face passeth it ouer, as if there were no such thing. The onely shift that he insinuateth, is this, that this assurance spoken of by S. Austine, is by charity, and not by faith. But what then, is there assurance by charitie? No such matter; for he hath told vs before, that charitie is seated in theSect. 6. darke corners of the will, and we cannot tell whether we haue it or not. And so whereas the Apostle, and by him S. Austine say, that we know that we are translated from death to life, because we loue the brethren, he contrariwise saith; We cannot know that we are translated from death to life, because we cannot know that we loue the brethren, in both points absolutely contradicting both the one and the other. But to his foolish question I answer him, that the affirming of the assurance of faith, is no deniall of the meanes and helps from which it gathereth and increaseth this assurance. Faith giueth assurance of Saluation by the word of God, not onely by apprehending the promises of life & Saluation, but also by obseruing such marks and tokens as the word of God setteth down, to describe thē to whom this Saluation doth appertaine, which whē a man findeth in himselfe, his faith thereby giueth him the cōfort of Saluation, because it beleeueth that which the word of God hath deliuered, concerning them in whom those signes & marks are found. Therfore it doth not only looke to that which Christ saith, thatIohn. 3.16. whosoeuer beleeueth shal haue euerlasting [Page 344] life, but because Christ also saith,Iohn. 8.47. He that is of God, heareth Gods word, therfore the faithfull man delighting in the word of God, beleeueth concerning himselfe, that he is of God. Because the Apostle saith,Rom. 10.13. Euery one that calleth vpon the name of the Lord shall be saued, therfore the faithfull man vnfainedly calling vpon the name of the Lord, beleeueth of himself that he shal be saued. And so whereas S. Iohn saith, that we know that we are translated frō death to life, because we loue the brethren, it is our faith whereby we take this knowledge, that we are translated from death to life, because we loue the brethren; for how should we know it, but that our faith beleeueth that which the word of God hath taught vs in that behalfe? How idlely then doth he argue, that we need not seeke for charity for assurance of Saluation, if we be assured thereof by faith, when charity it selfe is appointed for a helpe of that assurance which we haue by faith; when from charity it is in some part that faith by the word of God, conceiueth a reason of that assurance? But by his answers to these places, the Reader may esteeme of his wilfulnesse in all the rest. How miserable is the case of those men, who being so fast bound with the bonds of truth, as that they know not which way to stirre, yet haue no heart nor conscience, to giue assent to that which they are no way able to resist?
15. W. BISHOP.
Sup. 5. cap. Mat. The next Author he citeth is S. Hylarie, in these words: The Kingdome of heauen which our Lord professed to be in himselfe, his wil is that it be hoped for, without any doubtfulnesse of vncertaine will (at all, is an addition) otherwise there is no iustification by faith, if faith it selfe be made doubtfull. First, he faith, but as we say, that the Kingdome of heauen is to be hoped for, without any doubtfulnesse; for we professe Certaintie of hope, and denie onely Certaintie of faith, as M. Perkins confesseth before. And as for faith, we say with him also, it is not doubtfull, but very certaine. What maketh this to the purpose, that a man must beleeue his owne Saluation, when S. Hilary speaketh there of faith of the resurrection of the dead? His last Author is S. Bernard: Who is the iust man,Epist. 107. but he that being loued of God, loues him againe? which comes not to passe but by the spirit, reuealing by faith the eternall promise of God, of his Saluation to come, which [Page 345] reuelation is nothing else, but the infusion of spirituall grace, by which the deeds of the flesh are mortified, the man is prepared to the kingdome of heauen, together receiuing in one spirit, that whereby he may presume, that he is loued and loues againe. Note that he saith the reuelation of the spirit, to be nothing else but the infusion of spirituall graces, and comfort, whereby a man hath some feeling of Gods goodnesse towards him, by which (he saith) he may presume, but not beleeue certainly, that he is loued of God. But let S. Bernard in the same place interpret himselfe, there he speaketh thus, as I cited once before: It is giuen to men to tast before hand, somewhat of the blisse to come, &c. Of the which knowledge of our selues now in part perceiued, a man doth in the meane season glory in hope, but not yet in securitie. His opinion then is expresly, that for all the reuelations of the spirit made by faith vnto vs, we are not assured for Certaintie of our Saluation, but feele great ioy, through the hope we haue hereafter to receiue it.
R. ABBOT.
The words of Hilarie are very plaine, thatHilar. in Mat. cap. 5. Regnum coelorum vult Dominus sine aliquae incertae voluntatis ambiguitate sperari: alioqum iustificatio ex fide nulla est si fides ipsa sit ambigua. without doubting we are to hope for the kingdome of heauen, and that it is the will of Christ that we do so. Whereof he addeth a reason, Otherwise there is no iustification by faith, if faith it selfe become doubtfull, which if we will accommodate to that that goeth before, it must import thus much, that we cannot by our faith be iustified, to the obtaining of the kingdome of heauen, if we do not vndoubtedly beleeue to obtaine the same. M. Bishop answereth first, that Hilarie saith but as they say. No doth? Why, do they say that without doubting we must hope for the kingdome of heauen? He saith yea, but forgetting the prouerb, that a liar must beare a braine. For in the leafeSect. 10. before he hath set it downe for a principle, confirmed as he saith, by aboue an hundred texts of holy writ, that the faithfull must stand in feare of their owne Saluation. There cannot be certaine and vndoubted hope, where there is a necessitie of feare. If a man must stand in feare, then can he not hope without doubt. Thus he knoweth not what he saith, nor what to say; We must feare, and we must not feare; we must doubt, and we must not doubt: there is Certaintie, and there is no Certaintie. Whereas he saith that M. Perkins confesseth, that they [Page 346] professe certaintie of hope, he speaketh to that purpose somewhat, but so as that he confesseth that certaintie to be as they affirme it, onely probable and coniecturall, and not that which is here spoken of, which is without doubting. These words therefore are directly contrarie to that which they say, because here it is sayd that we must without doubt hope for the kingdome of heauen, whereas they say, we must neuer so hope for it but that we must feare and stand in doubt. Whereas he maketh a difference betwixt certaintie of hope, and certaintie of faith, it is nothing to this place. For when Hilarie for reason of that he saith, that we must hope without doubting, bringeth in, that faith if it be doubtfull doth not iustifie, he plainely sheweth that he confoundeth faith and hope, and taketh them here both for the same, and importeth that we are to beleeue to be made partakers of the kingdome of heauen, which is the same as to beleeue our owne Saluation. But saith M. Bishop, Hilarie there speaketh of the faith of the resurrection of the dead. Verie lewdly and vnhonestly: for there is not a word there spoken of the resurrection of the dead, but onely to shew how Christ confirmeth his to the vndoubtedConfirmare nos in spem honorum aeternorum (fiduciam futurorum) laborat. confidence and hope of those good things which are to come, and shall continue for euer. And that he may yet further vnderstand that Hilarie by hope meaneth otherwise then they doe, he saith in another place;In Psal. 2. in fine. Non trepidam spem neque ambiguam perfectio beatitudinis exigit. Confidentia ad id opus est firmae opinionis scilicet & indemutabili voluntate; quia plùs sit confidere quam sperare. Confidē dum ergo est ne nos à via iusta exardescens breui ira Dei deperdat. Fidelis enim est qui ait, Qui credit in me, &c. that the accomplishing of our blisse requireth a hope that is without feare or doubt. We haue thereto neede of the confidence of a firme and constant opinion, and an vnchangeable minde, because to be confident is more then to hope. We are therefore to be confident therein, least the wrath of God waxing hot, do suddenly destroy vs from the right way. For he is faithfull who saith, He that beleeueth in me, shall not be iudged, but shall passe from death to life. By which words it appeareth manifestly, that the true hope is not, as M. Bishop taketh it, a probable and likely conceit ioyned with vncertaintie and feare, but a confident hope, a setled and constant hope, beleeuing stedfastly without feare or doubt to receiue that life and blisse that Christ hath promised. At the next place of Bernard he againe verie wilfully shutteth his eyes, and refuseth to see that which he cannot chuse but see. What can be more directly spoken to the matter in hand, thenBernard. epist. 107. Reuelante spiritu per fidem homini aeternum Dei propesitum super salute sua futurae. that the spirit by faith reuealeth to a man the eternall purpose of God concerning his owne Saluation to come? Why doth he denie to [Page 347] a man to beleeue his owne Saluation, when the spirit by faith reuealeth to him the purpose of God, that he shall be saued? Here is no ambiguitie of words, here is an expresse affirming of the point in question, that the spirit by faith reuealeth to a man the euerlasting purpose of God concerning his owne Saluation. What haue we now for answer hereof? Note, saith he, that he saith the reuelation of the spirit, to be nothing else but the infusion of spirituall grace. But what is that to the purpose what this reuelation is? Why doth he not answer to the point, that the spirit of God by faith reuealeth vnto a man the purpose of God concerning his own Saluation? Let that reuelation be howsoeuer, it is sufficient for vs that God by his spirit reuealeth to a man that, whence he hath to beleeue his owne Saluation. Now Bernard indeed declareth thisQuae sanè reuelatio no est aliud quàm infusio gratiae spiritualis, per quā dum facta carnis mortificantur, homo ad regnum praeparatur quod caro & sanguis non possident, simul accipiens in vno spiritu & vnde se praesumat amatum, & vnde redamet ne gratis amatus sit. reuelation to be nothing else but the infusion of spirituall grace, by which whilest the deeds of the flesh are mortified, a man is prepared to the kingdome which flesh and bloud inherite not, receiuing together in one spirit, both whereby he may presume that he is loued, and doth also loue againe. But this impeacheth nothing that we say, nay it serueth wholy to strengthen our assertion. For how doth faith by the infusion of spirituall grace, apprehend the purpose of God concerning our Saluation, but in that it beleeueth by the word of God, that they to whom such and such graces are giuen, are the children of God, and shall be saued; that they who are called and iustified, shall also be glorified? And thus S. Bernard at large declareth in that epistle, thatSic adortū solis iustitiae sacramentum absconditum a seculis de praedestinatis & beatificandis emergere quodammodo incipit ex abysso aternitatis, dum quis (que) vocatus per timorem, iustificatus per amorem, praesumit se quo (que) esse de numero beatorum, s [...]iens nimirum quia quos iustificauit illos & magnificauit. at the rising of the sunne of righteousnesse (in our iustification) the secret that was hidden from the beginning, concerning them that are predestinate and shall be blessed, beginneth to appeare out of the depth of eternitie, whilest a man called by the feare of God, and made iust by loue, presumeth that he is one of the number of the blessed, knowing that whom he hath iustified, them he hath also glorified: thatHabes homo huius arcani indicem spiritum iustificantem, ec (que) ipso testificantem spiritui tuo quòd filius Dei & ipse sis. Agnosce censilium Dei in iustificatione tui. a man is to take for the declarer of that secret the spirit iustifying him, and thereby testifying to his spirit, that he is the child of God; thatId quis (que) accipit iniustificatione sui vt incipiat & ipse cognoscere sicut & cognitus est, cùm videlicet datur & ipsi praesentire aliquid de sua ipsius futura beatitudine, quemadmodum ab aeterno latuit in praedestinante, plenius appariturum in beatificante. in his iustification he is to take knowledge of the counsell of God, and that therein he beginneth to know euen as he is knowne, there being giuen to him to perceiue somewhat before hand of his future blisse, accordingly as hath lien hid from euerlasting [Page 348] in God by whom he was predestinate, and shall more fully appeare in the same God, when he shall make him blessed. This is the reuealing that Saint Bernard speaketh of by infusion of spirituall grace: this we approue and confirme, and hereof before I noted, that faith to strengthen it selfe in the assurance of Saluation, looketh to those fruits and effects of faith and of the grace of God, which are set downe as signes and marks of them to whom the promises of Saluation do belong. But now M. Bishop ouerturneth all that Bernard speaketh in this behalfe; for whereas he setteth downe the feare of God, repentance, charitie, praier, purpose of new life, as the things whereby that reuelation is performed vnto vs, he denieth that there can be any such reuelation, because repentance, the feare of God, charitie and such like are seated in the darke corners of the will, and a man knoweth not whether he haue the same or not. A man, he saith, may hope that he is in the state of grace, and must thinke that if he be not so, it is long of himselfe, but he cannot know that he is so. Thus S. Bernard teacheth, that God of his great goodnesse bringeth the heart of man into his wonderfull light; but M. Bishop keepeth him in horrible darknesse, where a man awake and in his right wits, can conceiue nothing but dread and feare. Therefore it is but for a shift that here he maketh Bernard to say, that by infusion of grace a man hath some feeling of Gods goodnesse towards him; for how can he haue any feeling of Gods goodnesse towards him by infusion of grace, when he cannot know that he hath any infused grace? Albeit Bernard doth not say onely, that a man hath some feeling of Gods goodnesse towards him, but that to the iustified man, it is giuen to haue a fore-feeling of his owne blisse. Therefore he so presumeth that he is beloued of God, as that he certainly beleeueth it. For a man is certainlie to beleeue what the spirit of God reuealeth. But the spirit reuealeth to the iustified man the purpose of God concerning his owne Saluation. He is therefore certainly to beleeue, that he is beloued of God, and shall be saued. And so S. Bernard saith, thatAgnoscit se meritò quidē non tam ira sed gratiae filium, quippe qui paternū erga se diuinae bonitatis experitur affectum, &c. se considet amari, praesentit amari, &c praesumit se esse de numero beaterum. he acknowledgeth himselfe to be the child of grace, that he hath the triall and proofe of the fatherly affection of Gods goodnesse towards him; that he perceiueth, & cōfidently resolueth that he is beloued of God, that he presumeth himself to be of the number of the blessed. And what is it to presume but to take for certaine, and certainly to beleeue that that is true whereof we do presume? But saith M. Bishop: Let S. Bernard [Page 349] interpret himselfe in the same place. Be it so; but I will translate for him, vnlesse he could translate more faithfully then he doth.Datur ipsi praesentire aliquid de sua ipsius futurae beatitudine. It is giuen to the iustified man, saith Bernard, to haue some fore-feeling of his own blisse to come. And what? wil M. Bishop deny him to beleeue that which S. Bernard saith he doth in part already feele? Yea, but it followeth:De qua tamen tam percepta suimet ex parte notitia, interim quidem glorietur in spe, nondum tamen in securitate. Of which knowledge of himselfe now already perceiued in part, he for the time reioiceth in hope, but not yet in securitie. And what of this? Marty, saith he, his opinion then is, that for all the reuelations of the spirit made by faith vnto vs, we are not assured for Certaintie of our Saluation, but feele great ioy through the hope we haue hereafter to receiue it. But he hath a very wrong opinion of Bernards opinion. What? because a man reioiceth not in securitie for the present, doth it follow that he hath no assured Certaintie of Saluation to come? And what? is there not assured Certaintie to be conceiued of that that is reuealed by the spirit of God? Surely1. Iohn. 5.6. the spirit is truth, and we are fully to assure our selues of that that is reuealed thereby, as before was said. And if there be no assurance, what glorying or reioycing can there be? He saith, that we feele great ioy through the hope we haue hereafter to receiue it. But what ioy can there be of that, of which as he saith we must continually stand in feare? If there be no assurance, there can be no ioying or glorying; if there be ioying and glorying, it must arise frō Certaintie & assurance. S. Bernard in that phrase of reioycing or glorying in hope, alludeth to the words of the Apostle,Rom. 5.2. We reioice or glory vnder the hope of the glory of God. Vpon which words Chrysostome obserueth, that by the word ofChrysost. in Rom. hom. 9. Gloriamur ait, vt intelligat quali animo praeditum eum esse oportet, qui fidem suam Deo obstrinxit. Ne (que) enim illi solum plenam persuasionem factam esse oportet de ijs quae data sunt, sed de futuris tam quam tam datis. Gloriatur enim quis super ijs quae tam in manu habet. Quontam igitur rerum futurarum spes sic firma est at (que) euidens vt & tam datarum, aequè inquit & super illis gloriamur. glorying, the Apostle declareth what mind he is to beare that hath tied his faith to God. For he must haue a full perswasion, saith he, not only of the things that are alreadie giuen, but also of the things to come, as if they were already giuen. For a mā glorieth or reioiceth of these things which he hath in hand. Because therefore the hope of the things to come, is as sure and certaine as the things alreadie giuen, the Apostle saith, we alike reioice thereof. So then Saint Bernard by the same phrase teacheth the iustified man as touching Certaintie of expectation to glorie in hope of the blisse to come, as if the same were alreadie giuen vnto him. Therefore he saith of him in the same epistle:Epist. 107. post med. Gloriari incipit praeter spem in spe gloriae filirium Dei quam tam nimirū e vicino reuelata facie exultans nonc in lumine speculatur & dicit, signatū est, &c. He glorieth in the hope of the glory of the sonnes of God, which now euen neere at hand with open face he beholdeth, leaping for ioy at this new light and saying, [Page 350] The light of thy countenance is sealed vpon vs, O Lord, thou hast put gladnesse in my heart. Now therefore whereas he saith he glorieth in hope, but not yet in securitie, we must not thinke that by denying securitie he ouerthroweth reioicing in hope, but signifieth that much conflict remaineth for the attainment of that, which notwithstanding certainly & vndoubtedly he hopeth for. He denieth him so to reioice, as if there were no further dangers to be feared, no further opposition to be expected, no further temptations to be endured, no further enemies to be resisted, and importeth that there is much fighting and wrastling, much care and sorow, many perplexities and troubles yet to be forecast and looked for. We may not then be secure, as if there were nothing any more to trouble vs, but we may be secure and without doubt of an happy issue and deliuerance from all troubles, and this is the hope that we reioice in. Therefore S. Austine saith, as before was cited:August. in Psal. 37. Spe securus est. Ioy that thou art redeemed, but yet not in reall effect: as touching hope be secure (be without feare.) So againe:Idem in epist. Ioan tract. 3. supra sect. 14. If a man haue in his heart loue towards the brethren, let him be secure (let him be without doubt) that he is passed from death to life. And thus doth Cyprian describe the condition of faithfull Christians,Cyprian cont. Demetr. Viget apud nos spes robur & firmitas fidei, & inter ipsa seculi libentis ruinas erecta mens, & immobilis virtus & nunquā nisi laesa patientia, & de Deo suo semper anima secura. There is with vs strength of hope, and stedfastnesse of faith, and amidst the ruines of the decaying world a couragious mind, and constant vertue, and patience, alwaies ioyfull, and a soule alwaies secure (or without doubt) of God to be our God. To be short, how farre Saint Bernard was from denying the securitie of particular faith and hope, appeareth by that that before hath bene said in the twelfth section, whereby it is plaine that it was not his purpose here to require that necessity that M. Bishop doth, of doubt & feare.
16. W. BISHOP.
This passage of testimonies being dispatched, let vs now come vnto the fiue other reasons, which M. Perkins produceth in defence of their opinion.
The first reason is, That in faith there are two things, the one is an infallible assurance of those things which we beleeue: This we graunt, and therehence proue (as you heard before) that there can be no faith of our particular Saluation, because we be not so fully assured of that, Apoc. 3. but that we must stand in feare of losing of it, according to that, Hold that which thou hast, lest perhaps another receiue thy crown. But the [Page 351] second point of faith, puts all out of question. For (saith M. Perkins) it doth assure vs of remission of our sinnes, and of life euerlasting in particular. Proue that Sir, and we need no more. It is proued out of S. Iohn: As many as receiued him,Iohn. 1. he gaue them power to be made the sonnes of God, namely, to them that beleeue in his name. This text commeth much too short: he gaue them power to be the sonnes, that is, gaue them such grace, that they were able, and might if they would, be sonnes of God, but did not assure them of that neither, much lesse that they should so continue vnto their liues end. I omit his vnsauorie discourse of eating, and beleeuing Christ, and applying vnto vs his benefits, (which he might be ashamed to make vnto vs, that admit no part of it to be true:) I confesse that therein faith hath his part, if it be ioyned with charitie, and frequentation of the Sacraments. This is it which S. Paul teacheth, That not by the works of Moses law,Gal. 3. but by faith in Christ Iesus we receiue the promises of the spirit, & shall haue hereafter the performance, if we obserue those things which Christ hath commanded vs. But what is this to Certaintie of Saluation? But (saith he) it is the property of faith, to apply Christ vnto vs, and proues it out of S. Augustine, Beleeue and thou hast eaten: Againe, Send vp thy faith,Tract. 25. in Ioh. and thou maist hold Christ in heauen: &c. To which, and such like authothorities, I answer, that we find Christ, we hold Christ, we see Christ, by faith, beleeuing him to be the sonne of God, and redeemer of the world, and Iudge of the quick and the dead: and we vnderstand, and disgest all the mysteries of this holy word. But where is it once said, in any of these sentences, that we are assured of our Saluation? we beleeue all these points and many more: but we shal be neuer the nearer our Saluation, vnlesse we obserue Gods commandements, The seruant which knowes his Maisters will, and doth it not, shall be beaten with many stripes.Luke. 12. Ioh. 15. Then you are my friends (saith our Sauiour) when you shall do the things which I command you: which we being vncertaine to performe, assure not our selues of his friendship but when to our knowledge we go as neare it as we can, and demand pardon of our wants, we liue in good hope of it.
R. ABBOT.
M. Perkins affirmeth, that the nature of true faith standeth not only in an vnfallible, but also in a particular assurance of remission of sins & life euerlasting. Vnfallible assurance M. Bishop acknowledgeth, [Page 352] but thence wil conclude against particular assurance of our owne Saluation, because, saith he, we be not so fully assured of that, but that we must stand in feare of loosing it. This he saith he hath proued before, but his proofe thereof is already disproued: onely here for supply he bringeth the words of Christ to the Church of Philadelphia; Reuel. 3 11. Hold that which thou hast, least another receiue thy crowne. Which supply of his is euen according to the manner or his former proofe; he nameth a place and so leaueth it; be it right or wrong what is that to him? If ye aske him how he inferreth that that he would proue thereby you must pardon him, he cannot tel. It is very doubtfull what may here be imported by the crowne: whether the Angel, that is, the Bishop of the Church of Philadelphia be particularly warned to take heed of forgoing or loosing any of them whom he should account, as S. Paul speaketh,Phil. 4.1. 1. Thess 2.19. his ioy and crowne of reioycing at the comming of Iesus Christ; or whether the same Church be generally admonished to take heed of loosing the crowne of the publike calling and grace of God. For so God to signifie the establishing of his kingdome of grace amongst the Iewes, amongst other words saith,Ezech. 16.12. I set a beautifull crowne vpon thy head. To which honour done vnto them, when they yeelded not correspondence of dutifull obedience and thankfulnesse to God, our Sauiour Christ foretold them, thatMat. 22.43. the kingdome of God (which was their crowne) should be taken from them, and giuen to a nation that should bring forth the fruit thereof. The like we take to be the importment of the crowne in this place, and that the Church of Philadelphia is admonished to take heed, least by relapsing from her goodnesse and vertue, she should loose the honour of the condition, and state of a Church which God had called her vnto: euen as the Church of Ephesus is before threatned;Reuel. 2.5. I will come against thee shortly, and will remoue thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent; the candlestick in the one place being meant of the same, which by the crowne is intended in the other. But if Maister Bishop will needs vnderstand the crowne to be meant of Saluation and life eternall, we answer him, that this crowne being proper to Gods elect, cannot be lost by them to whom it is assigned; yet so as that withall we say, that God in his wisedome hath appointed a meanes, whereby he will preserue them that they may not loose the crowne. To this end he vseth many exhortations and admonitions, many terrours [Page 353] and feares, many corrections and chastisements, whereby he hedgeth and compasseth them in, that whereas by relinquishing their faith and obedience, they should indeed runne into hauock and ruine of themselues, they may hereby be wrought to perseuer and continue therein, to the obtaining of the crowne. Thus his MaisterBellarm. de grat. & lib. arbit li. 2. ca. 13. Reuerà si non perseueraret, &c amitteret coronā suam, sed hac admonitione perterritus, &c. sine dubio fortissime tenebit quod habet, & eo modo tandē perueniet ad coronam quā non habet. Bellarmine confesseth, that this place hath his vse in respect of them who notwithstanding by Gods predestination are holden that they cannot lose the crowne. If then we do so vnderstand the crowne, yet the place auaileth M. Bishop nothing: but being so taken, how one man should haue the crowne, and by his losing it, another should receiue it in place of him, all his wit and learning is not able to resolue vs. This place therefore maketh nothing against the particular assurance of faith, but for proofe thereof M. Perkins hath brought that that is very pregnant and cleare. First, he alledgeth the words of Saint Iohn, Iohn. 1.12. As many as receiued him, to them he gaue power to be the sonnes of God, euen to them that beleeue in his name. Where he argueth, that to receiue Christ, and to beleeue in Christ, do both import the same thing, because the one of them is put for the exposition of the other. Now to receiue, is to take in particulars a mans selfe, to apply to himselfe, to apprehend or lay hold of, for conueying a thing to himselfe. Because therefore to beleeue in Christ is to receiue Christ, it followeth, that to beleeue in Christ is to take Christ, to apprehend him, and by hold of him with all his benefits, for conueying and applying of him particularly to a mans selfe; to beleeue particularly for himselfe, to make vse of Christ, according to that the Scripture describeth him, to himselfe. True faith therefore according to the measure of it, assureth infallibly, not in the general onely by principle, but in particular also by conclusion and application to it selfe. This being the collection that we make from this place, and plainly noted by M. Perkins, M. Bishop to it answereth nothing, either his eies dazeling that he could not see, or his wits failing that he knew not what to say. But to delude the Reader, he will say somewhat to the place, though he say nothing to the purpose; yet that which he doth say, he saith out of the schoole of Pelagius the heretike, and not out of the doctrine of Iesus Christ. He gaue them power; that is, saith he, he gaue them such grace that they were able, and might if they would be the sonnes of God. [Page 354] But what? did he giue them to be able onely, and did he not giue them to will also to be the sonnes of God? Did he leaue them to their own will, either to be or not to be the sonnes of God? Of them to whom he gaue this power, he saith, thatIohn. 1.13. they are borne, not of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God, who not of our will, butIam. 1.18. of his owne will begat vs by the word of truth, that we should be as the first fruites of his creatures, and will M. Bishop goe about to perswade vs, that it is at our owne will that we are begotten and borne againe? The power here spoken of, should rather be translated a prerogatiue then a power, and therefore Cyrill expresseth it by the terme ofCyril. in Ioan. lib. 1. cap. 13. Ascendemus ad supernaturalem dignitatem per Christum. a supernaturall dignitie, and affirmeth, that thereby is meantCap. 14. the adoption and grace of God, which is not such as Maister Bishop speaketh of, whereby it is onely giuen vnto vsAugust. de corrept. & grat. cap. 11. Est in nobis per hanc gratiam nō solū posse quod volumus, verumetiam velle quod possumus. to be able if we wil, but also to will, not only wherby we may be, but wherby we are the sonnes of God, as before hath bene declared in the question of Free will. And whereas he addeth: He did not assure them of that neither, much lesse that they should so continue vnto their liues end; he should vnderstand, that by1. Pet. 5.12. the true grace of God that comfort is ministred vnto the faithfull, to say as Saint Iohn directeth them;1. Iohn 3.1. Behold what loue the Father hath giuen vnto vs, Vt filij Dei nomin [...]mur & simus. Ʋulgat. that we are called, and are the sonnes of God: Euen new are we the sonnes of God, and we know that when he shall appeare, we shall be like vnto him, thereby teaching the effect of faith, both to giue assurance of present state, and of perseuerance also to future glory. But all this Maister Bishop hangeth vpon the will of man, hauing learned of his father Pelagius, to ascribe to GodAugust co [...]t. Pelag. & Celest. lib. 1. ca. 3. Possibilitatem (qua potest homo esse iustus) datam confitetur à creatore naturae: voluntatē & actionem nostra esse asserit. the power whereby we are able to be or may be, but to our selues the willing and acting of our adoption, whereby we are indeed the sonnes of God. But of this thus briefly, as being beside the matter here in hand, and the question of Free will being debated at large before. To shew somewhat further that point of particular assurance, Maister Perkins addeth, that Christ setteth forth himselfe, as the bread of life and water of life, and commendeth vnto vs the eating of his body, and the drinking of his bloud, and maketh this eating and drinking the same as to beleeue in him. Hence he inferreth a proportion betwixt eating and beleeuing, that as he that eateth receiueth and taketh to himselfe the meat that he eateth▪ and digesteth the same to the nourishment of euery part, euen so he that beleeueth doth by his faith [Page 355] as the hand, and mouth, and stomach of the soule, receiue and take vnto him Iesus Christ with all his benefits, to become particularly his strength, and comfort, and nourishment vnto euerlasting life. Now all this speech of eating, and beleeuing, and applying vnto vs the benefits of Christ, M. Bishop saith he omitteth as an vnsauorie discourse, but the reason is because pearles are vnsauorie to swine, and grosse Capernaites know no eating of Christ but by the mouth, nor receiuing of him but into the belly. But most ridiculous is that which he addeth, He might be ashamed to make (this discourse) vnto vs that admit no part of it to be true. For so might I briefly reiect his whole booke with the same words, that he might be ashamed to write the same to vs that admit no part of it to be true. He should vnderstand, that M. Perkins had in hand to write that that is the truth, and not that that they would admit to be true, who are sworne to Antichrist to maintaine his vntruthes. And seeing he hath so pregnantly shewed thereby the nature of true and liuely faith, not by any inuention of his owne, but out of the verie words of Christ, M. Bishop might himselfe be iustly ashamed to answer it so childishly and simply as he hath done. I confesse, sayth he, that faith hath his part therein. But Saint Austine attributeth to faith not onely a part therein, but to be the thing it selfe, euen the eating and drinking of the bodie and bloud of Christ.August. in Ioan. tract. 26. Credere in Christum hoc est mā ducare panem viuum. To beleeue in Christ, saith he, is to eate the bread of life: he that beleeueth, eateth. Why doth he refuse to speake as Saint Austine speaketh, but that like a carnall Anthropophagus he referreth it to the mouth and to the bellie to eate the flesh of Christ, and to drinke his bloud, not listening to that that M. Perkins had alledged vnto him out of the same Austine, Ibid. tract. 25. Why preparest thou thy teeth and thy belly? beleeue and thou hast eaten. But faith, he saith, hath his part therein, if it be ioyned with charitie and frequentation of the Sacraments. Which if of his is verie idle to vs, who hold no true faith but thatGal. 5.6. which worketh by charity, and seeketh after the Sacraments, as beingRom. 4.11. the seales of the righteousnesse of faith, the verie proper vse thereof is to giue particular assurance to the faithfull of the mercie of God towardes them in Iesus Christ. For as in humane contracts and gifts somewhat commonly is deliuered by earnest or seale for [Page 356] confirming and sure-making of the maine, so hath God thought good in his couenants and promises of grace, to appoint his Sacraments particularly to be vsed and applied to euerie man, that euerie beleeuer knowing Christ by the same Sacraments to be figured and offered vnto vs, may take knowledge by the deliuerie thereof, that Christ is his to eternall life by faith in his name; it being in effect sayd vnto him thereby; Thou bel [...]euest the promises of God in Christ concerning grace and forgiuenesse of sinnes vnto euerlasting life: take this for seale and assurance, that by thy faith in Christ the whole benefit thereof appertaineth vnto thee. Therefore Christ saith very effectually, Take, eate, this is my body, Drinke ye, this is my bloud, as by the Sacrament deliuering himselfe vnto vs, and in himselfe the whole fruit and benefit of that that he hath done for vs. Why doth he deliuer these seales of the righteousnesse of of faith particularly vnto me, but that he would haue me know, that the promises of righteousnesse are thereby through my faith sealed particularly vnto me? Thus therefore saith ioyned with frequentation of the Sacraments, doth so much the more effectually minister vnto vs this comfort of particular assurance towards God. All this is vnsauorie to M. Bishop, but let vs leaue him to his acornes and draffe, and let him leaue this feeding to them who therein haue learned to1. Pet. 2 3. tast how gracious the Lord is. Now to shew that the vse of faith is to receiue, M. Perkins alledgeth the words of S. Paul, thatGal. 3.14. through faith we receiue the promise of the spirit, importing thereby that faith is as it were the hand into which, being holden forth vnto God, he giueth the spirit which he hath promised: that faith apprehendeth and imbraceth the promise of God concerning this gift of his spirit, and that thereby we become partakers thereof. To this also M. Bishop answereth nothing, onely he will seeme to alledge the words, and wholy peruerteth them. For whereas the Apostle maketh the spirit the thing promised, he citeth the place, as if the spirit were named as the promiser. And whereas the Apostle speaketh as of a thingIbid. ver. 2. alreadie performed to them to whom he wrote, he citeth it as of a thing futurely to be performed, and that with a condition, if we obserue those things which Christ hath commanded, whereas the spirit is promised, not if we obserue, butEzech. 36.27. to cause vs to keepe his statutes and obserue his iudgemens and do them. Yet hereupon he demaundeth, What is this to [Page 357] the Certaintie of Saluation? I answer that it is so strong to proue the Certaintie of Saluation, as that against it he could find nothing more safe for himselfe then to say nothing to it. For if to beleeue in Christ be to receiue Christ, and so to receiue him, as that thereby we eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his bloud, the beleeuer hath this for a certaintie deliuered vnto him by Christ himselfe, that he hath eternall life, and that Christ will raise him vp at the last day. ForIohn 6.54. whosoever eateth my flesh, satih Christ, and drinketh my bloud, hath eternall life, and I will raise him vp at the last day. The beleeuer therefore by his faith conceiueth a particular certaintie and assurance of his owne Saluation, and is thereby1. Iohn. 5.13. to know that he hath eternall life. Now to shew the effect of faith, M. Perkins bringeth sundrie places of Austin, Ambrose, Chrysostome, Tertullian, Bernard, that by faith we touch Christ, we lay hold of him, we find him, we see him, we eate him, we digest him. Whereto M. Bishop answereth full wisely, we find Christ, we hold Christ, we see Christ by faith, beleeuing him to be the sonne of God, and redeemer of the world, and iudge of quicke and dead, thereby making this finding, and seeing, and holding, and digesting of Christ by faith, to be no other thing but what is incident to the diuell, because all these things the diuell beleeueth and knoweth as well as he. But to see the giddinesse of his head reeling and staggering he knoweth not whither, he saith we find Christ, we hold him, and see him, we eate him, we digest him by beleeuing thus and thus, when he hath plainely giuen vs before to vnderstand, that for all his beleeuing he cannot tell whether he haue any thing to doe with Christ, whether he haue receiued the grace of Christ, whether he haue anie true repentance, hope, charitie, and such like, without which Christ is neither holden nor had at all. But such darknesse is fit for them who leaue the wayes of God, and make choise to tread the Labyrinthes and maze-rounds of their owne brain-sicke imaginations. To his question where it is once sayd in any of these sentences that we are assured of our Saluation, I answer him, that it followeth of that for proofe whereof these sentences were alledged. For if the office of true faith be not onely generally to beleeue, but also particularly to apply that which it beleeueth, as hath bene shewed, and all those speeches alledged do import, then it followeth that according to the measure of it, it yeeldeth a particular assurance of Saluation [Page 358] to euerie one that doth beleeue. We beleeue, saith he, these points and many more, but yet we shall be neuer the nearer our Saluation vnlesse we obserue Gods commaundements. But if we beleeue as the Scripture teacheth vs to beleeue, we are thereby the nearer our Saluation, though we do not obserue Gods commandements in that sort and to that end as he intendeth. For therefore do we beleeue in Christ, therefore do we seeke him, take hold of him, eate him, drinke him, digest him, that in him we may find the comfort of Saluation, which otherwise we cannot find for want of the keeping of Gods commandements. Therefore saith the Apostle,Gal. 2.16. Euen we haue beleeued in Christ, that we might be iustified by the faith of Christ, and not by the workes of the law, (not by our keeping of Gods commandements) because that by the workes of the law no flesh shall be iustified. And in this respect we are not vncertaine of performing Gods commaundements, as M. Bishop speaketh, but verie certaine, that we neuer do or can performe them, hauing continually cause to demaund pardon of our wants, and therefore neuer finding any assured trust of Saluation, so long as we ground it hereupon. But although we denie any such keeping of Gods commandements, as may serue for the purchase of our iustification and Saluation, yet we acknowledge a keeping thereof as a fruit of our iustification, and a part of the worke of our Saluation, becauseEphes. 2.10. we are Gods workemanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good workes, which he hath prepared for vs to walke in. And this keeping of Gods commandements our Sauiour hath recommended vnto vs, as M. Bishop alledgeth, and of it S. Iohn saith,1. Iohn. 2.4. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandements, is a lyar, and the truth is not in him. But this keeping of Gods commaundements cannot be seuered from the finding, and receiuing, and holding, and eating, and digesting of Christ, because no man receiueth or eateth Christ by faith, but who liueth by him, and in whom he liueth, that he may say,Gal. 2.20. Not I now, but Christ liueth in me, and that I now liue in the flesh, I liue by the faith of the sonne of God, who hath loued me and giuen himselfe for me. Verie idlely therefore in this behalfe doth M. Bishop tell vs, that by the one we are neuer a whit the nearer without the other, when the one can no where be without the companie of the other. Now of this keeping of Gods commandements and perseuerance therein, true faith, as before hath bene shewed, resteth assured, [Page 359] because God hath so promised, and so farre are we from being doubtfull of Saluation by any doubt thereof, as that we rather gather hence greater strength of assurance, by that we perceiue the beginning of that good worke of God in vs, whereby he fitteth and prepareth his vnto euerlasting life.
17. W. BISHOP.
The second reason is, Whatsoeuer the holy Ghost testifieth vnto vs, that certainely by faith we must beleeue: but the holy Ghost doth particularly testifie vnto vs our Saluation: ergo. The first proposition is true. The second is proued thus, S. Paul saith,Rom. 8. the spirit of God beareth witnesse with our spirit, that we are the children of God. The Papists to elude this reason alledge, that it doth indeed witnesse our adoption, by some comfortable feeling of Gods fauour toward vs, which may often be mistaken, whereof the Apostle warneth vs when he saith, beleeue not euerie spirit, but trie the spirits, whether they be of God or no.1. Iohn. 4. But saith (M. Perkins) by their leaue, the testimonie of the spirit, is more then a bare feeling of Gods grace. For it is called the pledge and earnest of Gods spirit in our hearts. And therefore it takes away all doubting, as in a bargaine, the earnest giuen puts all out of question.1. Cor. 1. I answer first out of the place it selfe, that there followeth a condition on our parts to be performed, which M. Perkins thought wisedome to conceale. For S. Paul saith that the spirit witnesseth with our spirit, that we are the sonnes of God, and coheires of Christ, with this condition, If yet we suffer with him, that we may be glorified with him. So that the testimonie is not absolute, but conditionall, and then if we faile in performance of the condition, God stands free of his promise, and will take his earnest backe againe. And so to haue receiued the earnest of it, will nothing auaile vs, much lesse, assure vs of Saluation.
This is the direct answer to that place, although the other be verie good, that the testimonie of the spirit, is but an inward comfort and ioy, which breedeth great hope of Saluation, but bringeth not assurance thereof. This M. Perkins would refute, by the authority of S. Bernard; in the place before cited, see the place, and my answer there. Epist. 107.
R. ABBOT.
To shew that the holy Ghost doth particularly testifie our adoption and Saluation, and therefore that we are by faith to beleeue the same, M. Perkins alledgeth the words of the Apostle,Rom. 8.15.16. We haue receiued the spirit of adoption whereby we crie, Abba, Father. The same spirit beareth witnesse with our spirit that we are the sonnes of God. Which words so expresse and plaine, might be sufficient to stoppe the mouthes of these brabling sophisters, but that they measure the portion of Gods children by their owne carnall sence and conceipt, and being destitute of true faith and of the spirit of God, are no more fit to iudge hereof, then blind men are to iudge of colours. It is apparent that the faithfull haue a testimonie of the holy Ghost, bearing witnesse with their spirit that they are the sonnes of God. Let him wrest and wrie this testimonie while he will, it will not serue the turne, vnlesse he make it such as whereby the spirit beareth witnesse with our spirit that we are the sonnes of God. He saith that it is a good answer of theirs which M. Perkins mentioneth, that the testimonie of the spirit is but an inward comfort and ioy which breedeth great hope of Saluation, but bringeth not assurance thereof. But this is no good answer, because it is not answerable to the words of the Apostle, who speaketh of such a witnesse of the spirit, as whereby it is witnessed vnto vs that we are the sonnes of God. Let him remember what S. Austine saith:August. cont. Iulian. li 5. ca. 2. Vbi manifesta res est scriptura diuinae sensu [...] nositum sensum addere non dibemus: non enim hoc sit human [...] ignorantia sed praesumptione peruersa. where the matter is manifest we are not to adde our meaning to the sence of holy Scripture: For this comes not of humane ignorance but of froward and wilfull presumption. Here is a plaine assertion of a witnesse giuen to our faith, that we are the sonnes of God. Now his comfort and ioy is but a matter of perhaps, a matter of verie vncertaine and doubtfull hope, wherein he confesseth it may be he mistaketh, and indeed hath no cause but to thinke that he doth mistake; which notwithstanding it be had, he thinketh it a presumption for a man to perswade himselfe that he hath thereby any certaine witnesse that he is the child of God. But1. Iohn. 5.6. the spirit that beareth witnesse, as Saint Iohn saith, is truth, beingIohn. 14.17. the spirit of truth, and therefore being sent forVers. 16. a Comforter, surely in comforting he telleth or testifieth nothing but the truth. If then the [Page 361] spirit of God beare witnesse to vs that we are the sonnes of God, we know that it is true, and we are sure that indeede we are the sonnes of God. Now this vvitnesse of the spirit, albeit by some it be taken to consist in the fruites of sanctification, as by Ambrose Ambros. in Rom. cap. 8. Dignam vitam huic veci exhibemus, & hoc est testimonium filiorū, si in eu per spiritum videtur signum paternum. in leading a life fitting to the name of the sonnes of God, whereby through the spirit the fathers marke is seene in vs: and by Origen inOrigen. ibid. Confirmat spiritum nostrū quòd sumus filij Dei cùm tam nihil inest timoris, id est, nih l propter amorem patris poenam gerimus sed propter cuncta perficimus. doing all things (towards God) not for feare, but for loue of him as a father, and by Bernard, Bernard. epist. 107. Sic reuera sic vnici filij spiritus testimoniū perhibet spiritus no [...]tro quod filij Dei sumus, & nos cùm suscitās ex operibus mortuis largitur opera vitae, &c. vocatus per timorem, &c. supra sect. 15. in that God raising vs from dead vvorkes doth giue vs the vvorkes of life; in that he calleth vs by feare, and frameth vs to righteousnesse by loue, yet most properly is declared by the Apostle himselfe to stand in the true spirituall inuocation and calling vpon the name of God, whereby vpon all occasions as children to a father, we make our recourse vnto him.Gal. 4.6. Because yee are sonnes, God hath sent foorth the spirit of his sonne into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. When therefore God doth send forth his spirit into our hearts, crying, and making vs to crie, Abba, Father, the same is a witnesse to our spirit that we are the sonnes of God, because for no other reason doth God send forth this spirit into our hearts, but because vve are sonnes. When God giueth vnto vs this light and feeling that he is our father, there followeth necessarily a certificate that we are his children, because these as relatiues mutually depend one vpon another. And this is a certificate and testimonie that cannot be counterfeited, and wherein there is no errour. For neither the spirit of man himselfe nor any other spirit can giue him that spirituall eye of the inner man whereby to looke vpon God as a father; that sincere, and single, and pure affection, and inuocation wherewith the faithfull soule tendereth it selfe vnto God, but onely the spirit of God himselfe. It is no way incident vnto vs to haue in heart and conscience that familiar and louely accesse vnto the throne of grace,Hieron. in Gal. ca. 4 Nunquam auderemus dicere Pater noster, &c. nisi de conscientia spiritus habitanus in nobis. but vpon conscience of the spirit dwelling in vs, as Saint Hierome speaketh. We know there is otherwise a formall course of praying, and we doubt not but M. Bishop daily mumbleth a taske and ordinarie thereof, as Iewes and heretikes are wont to do, but that is rather saying of prayers then praying indeed: true and faithfull prayer, and the crying of the heart vnto God, Abba, Father is a further matter, and a thing peculiar onely to the sonnes [Page 362] of God, and thisZechar. 12.10. Tremel. spirit and prayer a true witnesse vnto them, that they are the sonnes of God. But M. Bishop to take away the force of this proofe, answereth further out of the place it selfe, that there followeth a condition on our part to be performed, If yet we suffer with him, that we may be glorified with him. Which words the Apostle indeed vseth in the next verse, but vpon other occasion, and to other end, then as to impeach or question that testimonie of the spirit, which by an entire and absolute assertion he hath here expressed. For hauing affirmed that the spirit testifieth with our spirit that we are the sonnes of God, he inferreth, If we be sonnes, then are we also heires, euen heires of God, and ioynt-heires or fellow heires with Christ. Now how this fellowship with Christ is performed, he declareth by adding those words; if yet we suffer with him, that we also may be glorified with him. Thus are we ioynt-heires with Christ, saith he, if we attaine to our inheritance the same way that he did, being first partakers with him in sufferings, as we shall afterwards be in glorie. M. Bishop therefore doth amisse to tie those words as a condition to the former words, which naturally serue for explication of the latter. But admitting the speech to be conditionall, it doth nothing preiudicate the assurance of the faithfull, because thereby God instructeth them which way he himselfe will bring them to himselfe, not what he will leaue them at vncertaintie to doe for their comming vnto him. He expresseth a condition, the performance whereof faith expecteth from himselfe, becausePhil. 1.29. of him it is giuen vnto vs for Christs sake, not onely to beleeue in him, but also to suffer for his sake, Col. 1.11. being strengthened with all might through his glorious power, to all patience and long suffering with ioyfulnesse. To this end, as2. Cor. 1.5. the sufferings of Christ abound in them, so he causeth their consolations to abound through Christ, and theirVers. 7. hope is stedfast in this behalfe, because they know, that as they are partakers of the sufferings, so they shall be also of the consolation, that the grieuance of the one may be the more easily borne by meanes of the ioy and sweetnesse of the other. In a word, faith resteth vpon that that is written,Heb. 13.5. He hath sayd, I will not faile thee, nor forsake thee: therefore we may boldly say, The Lord is on my side, I will not feare what man can do vnto me. Rom. 8.29. He hath predestinated vs to be made like vnto the image of his sonne, and thereforeBernard. epist. 107. Habes spiritum huius arcans indicem. hauing [Page 363] receiued the spirit to reueale vnto vs, as Saint Bernard saith, this secret of his predestination, we stand assured that accordingly he will accomplish in vs the image of his Sonne, that together with him we may beare the crosse, and together with him also we may weare the crowne, and therefore will so order all things, as that there shall beRom. 8.3 [...]. nothing to come that shall separate vs from the loue of God vvhich is in Christ Iesus our Lord. Now the spirit as he is the reuealer of the secret, so is he the earnest of the effect of Gods predestination, by the gift whereof God giueth vnto vs the certaine assurance of all the rest that remaineth to be giuen.Tertul. de Titius. Hic est pignus promissae hae [...]d tatis & quasi [...]haregraph [...]nt quc [...]dam aeternae salutis, qui nos Dei faciciat temp [...]t [...]m & nos eius efficiat domum [...]inh [...]bitator corperibus nostris d [...]tu [...] & sanctitatis effector, qui id agens in nobis ad aeternitatem & ad resurrectionem immortalitatis corpora nostra pro iucat dum illa i [...]se ass [...]. efacit [...]m [...]oelesti v [...]ri [...]te n [...] [...]eri, & c [...]u spiritus sanc [...] [...]taeto [...]tate [...]ri. It is the pledge of the inheritance promised, and as a hand-writing (or bond for assurance) of euerlasting Saluation, not vpon vncertaintie, if we do thus or thus, but framing vs to bee and to doe whatsoeuer belongeth to the attainment thereof, making vs the temple and house of God; being the vvorker of holinesse in vs, that he may bring our bodies to eternitie, and to the immortalitie of the resurrection, vvhilest in himselfe he accustometh them to be tempered vvith heauenly vertue, and to be accompanied vvith the diuine eternitie of the holy Ghost. Therefore God doth neuer take this earnest backe againe, because it is so [...]. the earnest of our inheritance vntill the redemption of possession, as that it is an earnest also that in the meane time God 2 Cor. 1.21.22 stablisheth vs in Christ, and that [...]r 5 5. he hath created vs euen for this thing, namely to cloth vs with immortalitie and eternall life. To be short, God in giuing earnest for assurance of the end, doth thereby vndertake against all lets and impediments that should hinder the atchieuing of that that is earnested thereby, and therefore as Chrysostome saith, [...]. the things present vvhich thou hast attained alreadie, do assure vnto thee those things that are yet to come. As for the words alledged out of Saint Iohn, that [...]chn. 4.1. vve beleeue not euerie spirit, but trie the spirits vvhether they be of God or not, as if we were willed to bee distrus [...]tfull of the reuelation and testimonie of the spirite that we are the sonnes of God, least by anie false spirite we bee abused and deluded, they are verie adsurdly wrested and forced to that purpose, beeing verie apparently a caueat against false prophets speaking out of their owne spirite, and yet pretending the spirit of Christ, as is verie plaine by the reason added in the next [Page 364] wordes, For manie false Prophets are gone abroad into the vvorld. And yet if we admit them as meant of this testimonie of the spirite, they are so farre from seruing their turne, as that they make altogether against them. For if in that behalfe we be willing to trie the spirites vvhether they bee of God or not, then it followeth that there is a way whereby to trie the same. And if there bee a meanes whereby to trie whether the spirite that testifieth vnto vs that we are the sonnes of God, bee of God or not, then there is a meanes for vs to bee assured that wee are the sonnes of God. For if by triall wee finde that the spirite that so testifieth is of God, then because the same spirite is truth, wee cannot make question but that wee are indeede the sonnes of God. So therefore wee resolue of that testimonie whereof the Apostle speaketh, whereby the spirite beareth vvitnesse vvith our spirite that vve are the sonnes of God. Be it that some men by false opinions and imaginations of carnall securitie doe herein deceiue themselues, yet as it is no reason for a King to doubt whether he bee a King, for that franticke and melancholicke persons are falsly so perswaded of themselues, and as a gold-smith doth not therefore doubt whether gold bee gold, for that some vnskilfull man taketh copper in steede of gold, so no reason is it that they who haue receiued the vndoubted testimonie of the spirite, shining vnto them out of the true light of the word of God, should therefore call in question the truth thereof, because manie men are mocked with false presumptions, which they themselues haue builded out of their owne braines. The testimonie of the spirite is certainly knowne and felt wheresoeuer it is found, neither can anie spirite worke in anie mans heart anie liuely counterfeit thereof, as before was sayed. Therefore it standeth firme and sure against all M. Bishops exceptions, that there is a testimonie of the spirit, whereby according to the measure of our faith we stand assured that we are the sonnes of God.
18. W. BISHOP.
The third reason is, That which we must pray for by Gods commaundement, that we must beleeue: but euery man must pray for Saluation, therefore we must beleeue that we shall haue Saluation. The proposition he confirmeth thus: In euerie petition must be two things, one a desire of the thing vve aske, another a particular faith to obtaine it, vvhich is proued by Christs vvords: Mar. 1 [...]. Whatsoeuer you shall request when you pray, beleeue that you shall haue it, and it shall be done.
This Argument is so proper for their purpose, that we returne it vpon their owne heads: We must pray for Saluation, therefore we are not yet assured of it: For who in his wits, prayeth God to giue him that, whereof he is assured alreadie? And a godly act of faith it is, in that prayer to beleeue that God will giue that, which he is assured of before hand: such foolish petitions cannot please God, and therefore after their doctrine it is to be denied, that any faithfull man may pray for his Saluation, but rather thanke the Lord for it. But to answer directly, he who prayeth, must beleeue he shall obtaine that which he prayeth for, if he obserue all the due circumstances of prayer, which be many, but to this purpose, two are required necessarily: the one that be who prayeth be the true seruant of God, which first excludeth all those that erre in faith, touched in these words, What you of the faithfull shall desire when you pray, shall be giuen you: The other is, when we request matters of such moment, that we perseuer in prayer, and continue our sute day by day, of these sutes of eternall Saluation, we must take these words of our Sauiour to be spoken: We must alwayes pray,Luk. 1 [...] and neuer be wearie: and then no doubt, but we shall in the end receiue it. But because we are in doubt, whether we shall obserue those necessarie circumstances of prayer or no, therefore we cannot bee so well assured to obtaine our sute, although we be on Gods part most assured, that he is most bountifull, and readier to giue, then we are to aske.
But saith M. Perkins, S. Iohn noteth out this particular faith, 1. Iohn. 5. calling it, Our assurance, that God will giue vnto vs, whatsoeuer we aske according to his will. But where find we that it is Gods will, to assure euery man at the first entrance into his seruice, of eternall [Page 366] Saluation? is it not sufficient to make him an assured promise of it, vpon his faithfull seruice and good behauior towards him?
R. ABBOT.
The argument is very pregnant and cleere. Christ hath taught vs toMat. 11.24. beleeue that we shall haue that that we pray for. We are to pray for forgiuenesse of sinnes and eternall life. We are therefore to beleeue that we shall haue forgiuenes of sinnes and euerlasting life. Nay saith M. Bishop, we must pray for our Saluation, therefore we are m [...] assured of it. He forbare to answer strictly by the very termes of the argument, because therein his notable impudencie and w [...]ll contradiction to the word, of Christ had verie notably appeared. For then he must haue answered thus, We must pray for our Saluation; therefore we must not beleeue that we shall haue Saluation, directly against the words of Christ instructing vs to beleeue that we shall haue that that we pray for. But to take that which he doth say, I answer him againe, that our praying for Saluation is an argument that we are not yet assured of it by possession, but it hindereth not but that wee are assured thereof in hope. We are not assured of it as a thing in present, but yet we are assured of it as a thing to come. As for his conceipt, that we are not to pray for anie thing that we haue assurance to obtaine, the follie and blinde ignorance therein bewrayed, is sufficiently discouered before in the fifth Section. We beleeue the promise of God as touching our Saluation, not doubting but that he will make vs partakers thereof, according to his promise to those that doe beleeue in him, but as yet we enioy not this Saluation. He leadeth vs on in the hope and desire of it, and by our prayer we vtter our desire, still resoluing that he will effect it, but yet still begging and crauing till hee doe effect it. So then we thanke God that he hath called vs to this hope, and we reioyce therein, but still we begge the accomplishment of that that hee hath taught vs to hope for. But to leaue this as handled before, he will further giue vs, as hee saith, a direct answer, and that is, that hee that prayeth must beleeue hee shall obtaine that vvhich he prayeth for, if he obserue all the due circumstances of prayer. But we answer him, that it is not for the perfection [Page 367] of our prayers that God accepteth vs but for the true affection of our hearts. We manie times faile in the due circumstances of prayer, and much faintnesse and weaknesse we shew therein, when yet we beleeue that God mercifully respecteth vs therein by the intercession of Iesus Christ. Now of these circumstances he setteth downe two as necessarily required, the one that he that prayeth be the true seruant of God: the other that he perseuere in prayer. And what of these? Marrie saith he, because we are in doubt whether we shall obserue those necessarie circumstances of prayer or no, therefore we cannot be so well assured to obtaine our suite. Behold he is in doubt whether he be the true seruant of God or not, and we may therein see the blindnesse wherein Poperie holdeth men, not discerning the miserie of their owne estate. He knoweth no faith but what is incident to diuels and damned men; he cannot tell whether he haue any true hope towards God, any loue, any true repentance, whether he be the true seruant of God, whether God heare or regard his prayer, but walketh altogether in the darke, and knoweth not whither he goeth. But true faith yeeldeth a man whereof to say,Psal. 116.16. Behold, O Lord, for I am thy seruant: 119. vers. 125. I am thy seruant, O giue me vnderstanding, that I may I keepe thy commandements. 143. ver 2. Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant, &c. As for perseuerance in prayer, saith expecteth it also of him thatPsal. 10.17. prepareth the heart, andZach. 12.10. powreth vpon vs the spirit of grace and of prayer, Rom. 8.26. which maketh request for vs (that is, August. epist. 105. Quia interpellare nos facit, & nobis interpellandi & g [...]nendi inss. rat affectum. maketh vs to make request for our selues, and inspireth into vs the affection of prayer) with sighes and grones that cannot be expressed. If the faithfull man in these things depended vpon himselfe, he should haue iust cause to feare and doubt his owne perseuerance, but he saith with the Apostle,2. Tim. 1.12. I know whom I haue beleeued, and I am sure that he is able to keepe that which I haue committed vnto him against that day, euen my selfe, my faith, my hope, my prayer, my soule, my life, knowing my selfe to be a verie vnsafe keeper of my selfe. Yea he prayeth also for perseuerance, and because he is willed to beleeue that he shall haue that that he prayeth for, therefore he beleeueth that he shall perseuere, and the word of Christ assureth him that he shall so doe, because he saith;Mar. 11.24. Beleeue that ye shall haue it, and it shall be done vnto you. To which purpose Saint Bernard well saith;Bernard. in Cant. ser. 32. In bonis Domini quatenus fiduciae pedem porrexeris, eatenus possidebis. In the benefits of God looke how farre thou treadest the foote of thy faith, so [Page 368] farre thou shalt possesse. For as Cyprian saith,Cypr. lib. 2. ep. 6. Dat credentibus tantū quantum se credit capere qui sumit. God giueth to them that beleeue, so much as he that receiueth beleeueth himselfe to receiue. He doth therefore vndoubtedly perseuere in faith and prayer, who praying for perseuerance beleeueth that he shall receiue the same. And this is further confirmed by the words of Saint Iohn: 1. Ioh. 5.14.15. This is the assurance that we haue in him, that if we aske anie thing according to his will he heareth vs, and if we know that he heareth vs, whatsoeuer we aske, we know that we haue the petitions that we haue desired of him. To which M. Bishop answereth; But where doe we find that it is Gods will, to assure euerie man at the first entrance into his seruice of eternall Saluation? Where the limitation that he vseth at the first entrance into his seruice before also deliuered, is but an idle tricke of his vagating wit. For the question is not of assurance at the first entrance into Gods seruice, but whether first or last there be any assurance at all. For he denieth whether in the entrance or in the continuance that God by faith doth giue any man assurance of his owne Saluation. Or if that be not his meaning, but that though not at the first entrance, yet afterwards God doth by faith giue that assurance, let him tell vs, and we shall be glad that he hath so farre foorth forsaken the doctrine of his Romish mistresse. But because that is his meaning, he must acknowledge his absurd folly, in makings a shew of exception in words where he intended none. As for vs, we say indeed, that God euen at the verie first entrance into his seruice offereth vs this assurance. For euen at the very first entrance he saith, as he did to the iaylor,Act. 16.31. Beleeue in the Lord Iesus Christ and thou shalt be saued, and from the beginning our faith as it is greater or lesse, so either strongly or weakely apprehendeth and embraceth this assurance. And in this assurance we labour and endeuour to grow, and to go onRom 1.17. from faith to faith, from Psal. 84.7. strength to strength, till we learne to stand as it were vpon the battlements of heauen, and to set the world at defiance, saying,Rom. 8.33. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect? Who shall separate vs from the loue of Christ, &c. But that answer of his is otherwise also a ridiculous and vaine shift. Where do we find that it is Gods will to assure euerie man of eternall Saluation? Marrie speaking of them that beleeue, euen in the verie place alledged, M. Bishop, if you dissemble it not. By other places we are taught to pray for forgiuenesse of sinnes, for Saluation, for eternall life, and [Page 369] you denie not but that we are thus to pray according to the will of God. By this place we haue assurance and are taught to knovv that we haue the petitions that vve desire of him, and therefore that according to our prayer we haue forgiuenesse of sinnes; we haue Saluation and euerlasting life. Speake strictly to the point, M. Bishop: let vs haue no shifting of words. We haue assurance to knovv that vve haue vvhat vve aske of him according to his vvill. It is according to his will that we aske of him forgiuenesse of sinnes and eternall life. We haue therefore assurance, and are to know, that we haue forgiuenesse of sinnes and life eternall. M. Bishop is dumbe, and to this hath nothing more to say; but goeth forward to aske the question, Is it not sufficient to make him an assured promise of it vpon his faithfull seruice and good behauiour towards him? I answere him, No, it is not sufficient; For God made that promise by the former couenant,Gal. 3.12. He that doth these things shall liue in them, and it auailed not;Heb. 8.9. for they continued not in my couenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. Therefore God made another couenant and promise, not like the former, not conditionall vpon faithfull seruice and good behauior, but absolute and without exception, the performance whereof should depend wholy and onely vpon his mercie, so that he would not expect as of vs, but did vndertake to giue vs & to worke in vs whatsoeuer faithfull seruice and good behauiour should be necessarie thereunto. Therefore he saith,Vers. 10. I vvill put my lawes in their minds, and in their hearts vvill I vvrite them, and I vvill be their God and they shall be my people; they shall all know me; for I will be mercifull vnto their vnrighteousnesse, and I will remember their sinnes and their iniquities no more. So that although comparing the one part of the worke of our Saluation with another, the latter is vsually tied to a condition of the former, and God accordingly proceed in the execution thereof, yet if we entirely consider the whole, it issueth absolutely out of the purpose and promise of God, who intending the end, disposeth and worketh himselfe whatsoeuer belongeth to the accomplishment and attainment of the end. Inasmuch therefore as true faith expecteth all of God, and on Gods part M. Bishop confesseth we are most assured, it must follow that by true faith we stand assured of Saluation, because God is neuer wanting to do that that appertaineth vnto him.
19. W. BISHOP.
The fourth reason is, Whatsoeuer God commaundeth, that a man must and can performe. But God commandeth vs to beleeue our Saluation: ergo, we must beleeue it.
The proposition is true, yet commonly denied by all Protestants, for God commands vs to keepe his commaundements, and they hold that to be impossible: but to the assumption: That God commaunds vs to beleeue our Saluation, is proued (saith M. Perkins) by these words: Repent and beleeue the Gospell: Spectatum admissi, risum teneatis amici: Where is it written in that Gospell, beleeue your owne particular Saluation? shew vs once but one cleare text for it, and we will beleeue it. I do beleeue in Christ, and hope to be saued, through his mercie and merits, but know well, that vnlesse I keepe his words, I am by him likened to a foole,Math. 7. that built his house vpon the sands. He commaunds me to watch and pray, Math. 26. least I fall into temptation: and elsewhere, Math. 25. warneth me to prepare oyle to keepe my lampe burning against his comming, or else I am most certaine to be shut out with the foolish Virgins. An hundred such admonitions find we in holy Scriptures, to shake vs out of this securitie of our Saluation, and to make vs vigilant to preuent all temptations of the enemie, and diligent to traine our selues in godly exercises of all vertue.
R. ABBOT.
The proposition, saith he, is true, and yet as he propoundeth and vnderstandeth it, it is not true, nor was euer intended by M. Perkins to be true, and iustly is it denied by all Protestants, that we can performe whatsoeuer God commandeth, as in the next question God willing shall appeare in the handling of that point. But the proposition as M. Perkins expresseth it is, Whatsoeuer we are commaunded in the Gospell, that we must and can performe. The reason whereof he taketh from a distinction of the commaundements of the law and the Gospell, because the Gospell is the ministerie of spirit and life, giuing vs to do whatsoeuer it doth cōmand, which the law doth not. Now M. Bishop confoundeth Law and Gospell, and maketh the proposition generall and without exception, [Page 371] being stil desirous to shew himselfe like himselfe. But that God in the Gospell commandeth vs to beleeue the remission of our sinnes and life euerlasting, Maister Perkins sheweth by the words of Christ, Repent and beleeue the Gospell, being the briefe summe of the ministerie and preaching of Christ, and the same in effect, as if he had said, Repent you of your sinnes, and beleeue the tidings that God hath sent vnto you, of the forgiuenesse thereof by Iesus Christ, through faith in his name. For the declaring of which point, he sheweth, that to beleeue the Gospell, is not onely generally to beleeue, that Christ is a Sauiour, and that the promises made in him are true, for then the diuels may be said to beleeue the Gospell, and we suppose that Maister Bishop hath more wit and grace, then to say that Christ in saying, Beleeue the Gospell, did commend nothing to vs, but what the diuels may do, and therefore that the repentant is hereby willed particularly to beleeue for himselfe, to haue the forgiuenesse of his sinnes by the bloud of Iesus Christ. Which declaration being very effectuall to the point, this Hickscorner because he knew not what to answer to it, passeth ouer with Spectatum admissi? &c. and Where is it written in that Gospell, beleeue your owne particular Saluation? shew vs once, faith he, but one cleare text for it, and we will beleeue it; euen as the Iewes said of Christ,Mat. 27.42. Let him come downe from the crosse, and we will beleeue in him. Though he had come downe from the crosse, yet would they not haue beleeued in him, because they had seene him do greater works then that, and yet they did not beleeue, and euen so Maister Bishop, whatsoeuer is shewed him, remaineth stillPsal. 58.4. like the deafe adder, that stoppeth his eares, refusing to heare the voice of the charmer charme he neuer so wisely. But tell vs Maister Bishop in what sence it is, that the repentant man is willed to beleeue the Gospell? Do not make the beleeuing of the Gospell a thing incident to the diuell, because we shall then hold you a partaker with the diuell. This you would haue told vs, and not onely haue recited the place, but spoken to that that was inferred vpon it, had you not resolued to play the part of a lewd sycophant, and sought to carie the matter with bare words. The Gospell is Luk. 2.10 1 [...] the glad tidings of great ioy, that vnto vs a Sauiour is borne; Esa. 9 6. vnto vs a child is borne, vnto vs a sonne is giuen, Ambrosi. de [...] de. lib 3 cap [...] Prop [...]cia [...], [...]is, ho [...]ce [...] cre [...] [...] increa [...]. that is, vnto vs that do beleeue. To beleeue the Gospell, is to beleeue this, and how do I beleeue, vnto vs, if I beleeue [Page 372] not vnto me? Therefore by beleeuing the Gospell, I beleeue that Christ is borne and giuen a Sauiour vnto me, Mat. 1.21. to saue me being one of his people1. Thess. 1.10. from my sinnes, and from the wrath to come. The Gospell is, thatAct. 10.43. through the name of Christ euery one that beleeueth in him, shall haue forgiuenesse of sinnes; Iohn. 3.15. euery one that beleeueth in him shall not perish, but haue euerlasting life. If I beleeue the Gospell, I beleeue this, and therefore because I beleeue in Christ, I beleeue that I shall haue forgiuenesse of sinnes, that I shall not perish but haue euerlasting life. If I beleeue in Christ, and yet beleeue not this, that I haue euerlasting life, I beleeue not the Gospell, because the Gospell saith,Ibid. ver. 36. He that beleeueth in him hath euerlasting life. 2. Iohn. 5.10. He that beleeueth not God, saith S. Iohn, hath made him a liar, because he beleeueth not the record that God witnessed of his Sonne, and this is the record, that God hath giuen vnto vs eternall life, and this life is in his Sonne. Ʋnto vs, saith he, namely vnto vs that beleeue in the name of the Sonne of God, as afterwards he expoundeth. If then I beleeue in the name of the Sonne of God, and do not beleeue that God hath giuen vnto me eternall life, I make God a liar, in not beleeuing the record that God hath witnessed of his Sonne. Therfore he addeth,Ver. 13. These things haue I written vnto you that beleeue in the name of the Sonne of God, that ye may know that ye haue eternall life. Where is now this pelting Sophister, that asketh vs where it is written in the Gospell, to beleeue our owne particular Saluation? It is written there, where it is written to them that beleeue, to know that they haue eternall life. But saith he, I beleeue in Christ, and hope to be saued through his mercy and merits. But take heed you lie not, M. Bishop; take heed you lie not vnto God. You haue told vs before, thatSect. 3. to beleeue in God, is to loue God with all your heart, and that you are not assured of your loue towards him. How then can you dare to to say, that you beleeue in God? You haue told vs thatSect. 6. hope and charitie are seated in the darke corners of the will, and that you haue but a coniecture and probable opinion therof in your selfe, & why then do you here tell vs an vncertaine tale of you know not what, that you hope to be saued through the mercie and merites of Christ. Againe, whereas you say that you hope to be saued through the mercie and merits of Christ, you therein againe dissemble with Christ, because notwithstanding the mercie and merits of Christ, you hang your Saluation vpon that that you are to merit, and do [Page 373] for your selfe, and make your owne Free will the finisher and perfecter of that that by Christ is onely but begun. You will haue the mercie and merits of Christ to serue to make you able to saue your selfe, and it you do so, you will thanke your selfe, but you will haue nothing further to thanke Christ for. And so whereas you would auoid to be like vnto the foole, you shew your selfe a foole outright, building so, as that you know not whether you build or not; you know not whether you haue any foundation to build vpon, or any matter to build with; you know not if you haue builded any thing, whether the same be likely to stand or fall, and what is this else but to be a foole? As for vs, we know that we must keepe his words, that he commandeth vs to watch and pray, to prepare oile to keepe our lamps burning, and such like, but these admonitions serue not to shake our faith, but rather instruct and sharpen it. They do not propound conditions for vs to performe to make vp the worke of God in vs, but aduertisements and instructions what those lawes are, whereof God hath said,Ierem. 31.33. I will put my lawes in their hearts, Ezech 36.27. and cause them to keepe my statutes, faith being hereby moued to begge of God,August. de spir. & lit. ca. 13. Lege operā dicit Deus, fac quod iubeo: lege fidei dicitur Deo, Da quod iubes. Ideo enim iubet lex vt admoneat quid faciat fides. to giue what he commandeth, and assured that he will to the end performe what he hath promised, and seeing in his visitations and corrections, his fatherly prouidence and care to effect the same, whilest thereby he awaketh vs out of our security, and causeth vs to make vse of the admonitions of holy Scripture, to fight against the diuell and sinne, and to exercise our selues in all godlinesse and vertue.
20. W. BISHOP.
The fift and last reason is this, The Papists teach assurance of hope,Rom. 5. euen hence it followeth, that he may be infallibly assured, for the property of a true and liuely hope, is neuer to make a man ashamed. Answer. Hope indeed of heauen, makes a man most couragiously beare out all stormes of persecution, and not to be ashamed of Christes Crosse, but to professe his faith most boldly before the bloudy tyrants of the world, our hearts being by charitie fortified and made inuincible. And this is that which the Apostle teacheth in that place: and saith [Page 374] before, Ver. 2. that the faithfull glory in the hope of the sonnes of God, and do not vaunt themselues of the Certaintie of their Saluation. This Certaintie of hope, is great in those that haue long liued vertuously, specially when they haue also endured manifold losses, much disgrace, great wrongs and iniuries for Christes sake, for he that cannot faile of his word, hath promised to requite all such with an hundred fold: But what is this to the Certaintie of faith, which the Protestants will haue euerie man to be endued with at his first entrance into the seruice of God; when as Saint Paul insinuateth, Heb 6. that godly men partakers of the holie Ghost, yea after they haue tasted the good word of God, and the power of the world to come, that is, haue receiued besides faith, great fauours of Gods spirit, and felt as it were the ioyes of heauen, haue after all this so fallen from God, that there was small hope of their recouerie?
R. ABBOT.
This last reason taken from the doctrine of the Papists concerning hope, I do not hold to haue bene fitly applied against them. For with them as there is not that faith, so neither is there that hope which the Scripture teacheth, neither can they be said to teach assurance of hope, who professedly deliuer, that a man must alwaies stand in feare and doubt of that that he should hope for, and that he hath no more but onely a probable opinion of any thing in himselfe whereof to conceiue hope. Therefore the Councell of Trent saith, thatConcil. Trident. Sess. 6. cap. 9. Sicut nemo pius de Dei miserecordia &c. dubitare debet, sic quilibet dum seipsum suam (que) propriam infirmitatem & indispositionera respicit, de sua gratiae formidare ac timere potest. as no man may doubt of the mercie of God, and of the merit of Christ, so euery man whilest he considereth his owne infirmitie and vndisposednesse, hath to stand in feare of his owne being in grace. So Andradius affirmeth, that theirAndrad. Orthod. explicat. lib 6. sub finem. Ita certa est spes vt semper cum metu & dubitatione coniuncta sit & copulata. hope is alwaies ioined and coupled with feare and doubt, not onely meaning that it is so, but also that it ought so to be, accordingly as Maister Bishop hath before deliuered, though vntruly,Sect. 10. that there are aboue an hundred texts in holy writ, whereby to proue, that the faithfull must stand in feare of their owne Saluation. The Certaintie of hope therefore that Maister Bishop nameth, by occasion that it was named to him, is nothing else indeed but meere vncertaintie, it being a thing sencelesse to reckon a Certaintie, where a man is bound to stand in feare. So that their hope is but a conceit of selfe-seeming probability, whereby [Page 375] they imagine that haply [...] may be [...] them, but yet doubt least it be otherwise; in [...] [...]en vulgarly men talke of hope, where they hau [...] [...] for that they hope. But the hope which the Sc [...] [...] of is another matter, importing a patient and [...] of that that we beleeue we shall receiue [...] the promises of God concerning forgiuenesse [...] [...]erning our blisse and happinesse to come. It [...] God vndoubtedly will make good whatsoeuer he [...] [...]sed, but as yet we see not the effect, and performa [...] [...]ereof. Hope therefore expecteth and waiteth, looking [...] the Lord to reueale his righteousnesse, and to make the truth [...] his word and promise fully to appeare, and in this expectation is content with patience to beare the crosse, and to endure the afflictions and troubles that are incident to the faith and profession of the name of Christ. Thus saith Chrysostome, thatChrysost hom. de fide, spe & charit. Qui [...]quid fides credendo acquirit, hoc spes sustinendo praesumit. what faith getteth in beleeuing, that hope presumeth of in enduring and suffering. This hope therefore is not vncertaine and doubtfull, but by the direction of faith, fully resolueth of the accomplishment of that that it hopeth for. It is not as Hilarie well noteth,Hilar. in Psa. 64. Spem oporiet non ex mani esse praes [...]mptam, ne mag [...] s [...]t incerr [...]rū praesumptio quam expectatio cognitorum. a presuming of things vncertaine, but an expectation of things knowne vnto vs. For that cause is it that Saint Paul saith, thatRom. 5.5. hope maketh not ashamed. Which Maister Bishop not vnderstanding, expoundeth as if the Apostle had said, that it maketh a man not to be ashamed of the crosse of Christ; but Saint Paul respected a further matter, to signifie the infallible assurance and Certaintie of hope, that it neuer putteth a man to shame, it neuer giueth him occasion to be ashamed, as hauing hoped for that whereof in the end he is deceiued.August. in Psal 36. conc. 2. Confunditur quē fallit spes: qui dicit. quod sperabant non inueni. He is ashamed, saith Austine, that faileth of his hope. Who is put to shame but he that saith, I haue not found that that I hoped for? Theodo. in Rom cap. 5. They that hope, saith Theodoret, and are deceiued of their hope, doe blush and are ashamed thereof. Therefore, saith Saint Austine, August. in Psal 37. Certi samus de spe: non est enim inceria spes nostra, vt de illa dubit [...]mus. We are certaine of our hope: for our hope is not vncertaine, that we should doubt thereof. Yea, so are we certaine thereof, as that Saint Paul saith,Rom. 5.2. We reioyce vnder the hope of the glory of God, as being no lesse assured thereof, then if we were alreadie in possession of it, asSect. 15. ex Chrys [...]st. in Rom, hom 9. before I shewed, that Chrysostome expoundeth that place farre otherwise then here Maister [Page 376] Bishop doth. WhichHeb. 3.6. confidence and reioycing of hope, groweth from that which the holy Ghost termethCap. 10.22. [...], full assurance of faith, whereby setting aside the respect of our owne impeachments of our selues, we beleeue with Abraham Rom. 4.18. vnder hope euen against hope, resting vpon his promise who hath taken vpon him to be1. Pet. 2.25. the shepheard and Bishop of our soules, andEphe. 3.20. is able to do exceeding abundantly aboue all that we aske or thinke, according to the power that worketh in vs. Whereby as he hath alreadie wrought in vs the like great worke asCap. 1.20. he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, in that he hathCap. 2.5. raised vs vp, being dead in trespasses and sinnes, vnto the life of God, so we restPhil. 1.6. perswaded, that hauing begun this good worke in vs, he will performe it good vntill the day of Iesus Christ. Bernard. in Cant. ser. 68. Nō est quòd iam quaeras quibus meritis speremus bona, praeserti [...] cùm audias apud prophetam: Non propter vos. &c. Neither is it for any man to aske, saith Bernard, vpon what merits we hope for this good, seeing we heare by the Prophet, Ezech. 36.22. Not for your sakes, but for mine owne sake will I do it, saith the Lord. Now Maister Bishop admitting after his fashion, an vncertaine Certaintie of hope, demandeth, What is this to the Certaintie of faith, which the Protestants will haue euery man to be endued with, at his first entrance into the seruice of God? Where againe we see how pretily Maister Bishop can busie himselfe with a fether: These termes of first entrance into the seruice of God, are but the playing of his braine; he would faine seeme to say something thereby, when indeed he saith nothing. For not onely at first entrance, but in the whole continuance of the seruice of God, he leaueth a man as a ship in a storme, and hanging betwixt heauen and hell, howsoeuer not doubting, but that God for his part holdeth him fast to draw him to heauen, yet still affrighted least himselfe should loose his hold and fall into hell, nay not knowing whether he haue any hold of God or God of him, because he cannot certainly know whether he haue any hope, or charitie, or repentance, or praier, which being seated in the darke corners of the will, cannot otherwise then probably be discerned. But as touching his question, what is Certaintie of hope to Certaintie of faith? I answer him, that being truly vnderstood, it maketh much to the prouing of it. For hope goeth not beyond faith, because as I haue said, hope is but the patient waiting for that, which faith beleeueth we shall haue. What faith doth not assure vs we shall haue, [Page 377] we cannot by hope expect and looke for. There can therefore be no Certaintie of hope, but it must presuppose a Certaintie of faith, assuring vs of obtaining what we must hope for. But, saith Maister Bishop, Saint Paul insinuateth, that godly men partakers of the holie Ghost, and hauing tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, yet after all this haue fallen aw [...]y from God. But I answer him, that he saith more of them then Saint Paul did, for he calleth them not godly men, though haply for the time they seemed to be so. Men may be partakers of the temporarie gifts of the holie Ghost, and may tast of the good word of God, and of the powers of the world to come, as Iudas did while he was yet an Apostle, of whom notwithstanding in the middest of these gifts our Sauiour said, thatIohn. 6.70. he was a diuell. The like is to be said of them who shall say at that day,Math. 7.22. Lord haue not we prophesied in thy name, and in thy name cast out diuels, and done many miracles? who yet in the meane while, as our Sauiour signifieth, haue bene workers of iniquitie. And what lesse can we say of Balaam, who in the spirit saw so much concerning the state and hope of the people of God, as made him enamoured thereon, and to cry out,Numb. 23.10. Let my soule die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like vnto his; Ver. 21. he seeth no iniquitie in Iacob, neither doth he see any transgression in Israel; Cap. 24.5. how goodly are thy tents, O Iacob, and thy habitations, O Israel; who notwithstanding bewraied himselfe to haue a wicked heart, bewitched with couetousnesse, willing for mony to haue cursed the people whom the Lord directed him to blesse. Men may haue great gifts, and much reuelation and knowledge of the way of truth, and be touched farre with the conceipt of that they know, who yet are void of true faith and regeneration of the heart, and therefore in the end becauseMat. 13.21. they haue no roote, doe certainly fall and slide away. Whose fall because they neuer truly stood, though they seemed so to doe, is not to impeach or weaken the assurance of them to whom God hath giuen by true faith to stand indeede. As for that which Maister Bishop saith of such, that they haue receiued faith, and great fauours of the spirit, &c. it is but his owne commentarie, and we accordingly regard it. He affirmeth of their faith, that which the Apostle affirmeth not, and though they receiued some fauours of the spirit, yet they neuer found the fauour [Page 378] to receiue him asEphes. 1.14. an earnest vnto them of the heauenly inheritance, or by him to be Cap. 4 30. sealed vnto the day of redemption, which if they had, they should neuer being once sealed haue bene vnsealed againe, because in this respectRom. 11.29. the gifts and calling of God are without repentance, and neuer subiect to any change.
CHAPTER. 4. OF IVSTIFICATION.
1. W. BISHOP.
BEcause M. Perkins sets not downe well the Catholikes opinion, I will helpe him out, both with the preparation and Iustification it selfe, and that taken out of the Councell of Trent. Where the very words concerning preparation are these: Sess. 6. c. 6. Men are prepared and disposed to this iustice, when being stirred vp, & helped by Gods grace, they conceiuing faith by hearing, are freely moued towards God, beleeuing those things to be true, which God doth reueale and promise, namely, that he of his grace doth iustifie a sinner through the redemption that is in Christ Iesus. And when knowledging themselues to be sinners, through the feare of Gods iudgements, they turne themselues to consider the mercie of God, are lifted vp into hope, trusting that God wil be mercifull vnto them for Christs sake: and beginning to loue him as the fountaine of all iustice, are thereby moued with hatred and detestation of all sins. Finally, they determine to receiue baptisme, to begin a new life, and to keepe all Christs commandements.
After this disposition, or preparation, followeth Iustification, and for that euery thing is best knowne by the causes of it, all the causes of Iustification are deliuered by the Councell in the next Chapter, which briefly are these. The finall cause of the Iustification of a sinner, is the glory of God, the glory of Christ, and mans owne Iustification: the efficient is God: the meritorious, Christ Iesus Passions: the instrumental, is the Sacrament of Baptisme: the onely formall cause, is inherent iustice, that is, Faith, Hope, and Charity, with the other gifts of the Holy Ghost, powred into a mans soule at that instant of Iustification. Of the Iustification by faith, and the second Iustification shall be spoken in their places.
So that we agree in this point, that Iustification commeth of the free grace of God, through his infinite mercies, and the merits of our Sauiours Passion, and that all sinnes, when a man is iustified, be pardoned him.
The point of difference is this: that the Protestants hold, that Christs Passion and obedience imputed vnto vs, becommeth our righteousnesse: [Page 380] (for the words of iustice and iustification, they seldome vse,) and not any righteousnesse, which is in our selues. The Catholikes affirme, that those vertues powred into our soules (speaking of the formal cause of Iustification) is our iustice, & that through that, a man is iustified in Gods sight, & accepted to life euerlasting. Although as you haue seene before, we hold that God of his meere mercy through the merits of Christ Iesus our Sauiour, hath freely bestowed that iustice on vs. Note that M. Perkins comes too short in his second rule, when he attributeth the merits of Christs sufferings to obedience; whereas obedience if it had bene without charity, would haue merited nothing at Gods hands.
R. ABBOT.
The doctrine of the Councell of Trent concerning preparation to Iustification, is the very heresie of the Pelagians, as may appeare by that that before hath bene said thereof in the question ofSect. 5. Free will. Out of the free will of man only stirred vp and helped by grace,Coster. Enchirid. cap 5. Haec gratia impulsus tantum & motio spiritus s. adhuc foris degentis: liberum arbitrium auxilio Dei necdum inhabitantis sed m [...]u [...]nus & adiunantis se praeparat ad iustificationem. not any intrinsecall or infused, but only outwardly assisting grace, which is no more but what Pelagius himselfe acknowledged, they deriue faith, hope, loue, repentance, the feare of God, the hatred of sinne, and purpose of new life, whereby he prepareth and disposeth himselfe to receiue in his Iustification another faith, hope, charity, and other gifts of the holy Ghost, then to be powred into his soule. Whereby though they will not seeme so to do, yet indeed they runne into the affirming of that, which if Pelagius had not denied & condemned, he had bene condemned himselfe,August. epist. 206 gratiam Dei secundum merita nostra dari, that the grace of God is bestowed vpon vs according to our merits. In which sort Bellarmine saith, thatBellarm. de Iustificat. lib. 1. cap. 1 [...]. Fides [...]ustificat per modū dispositio [...]is & merin: meretur remissionem peccaterū suo quodam modo. faith iustifieth by way of merit, that faith in it manner doth merit forgiuenesse of sinnes, applying thereto some spe [...]ches of Austine, which to that purpose were neuer meant. In se [...]ing downe the causes of Iustification out of the Councell, he committeth an absurd errour, in saying that the finall cause of the iustification of a sinner is mans owne Iustification, as if it selfe could be the final cause of [...]e [...]fe, whereas the Councel nameth in steed thereof eternall life, Where [...] he saith, that they agree with vs in this point, that Iustification [...] of the free grace of God, through his in [...] [...] our Sauiours Passion, he doth but sop [...] [...]. For if Iustification be [Page 381] of the free grace of God, then it is not of works, according to that of the Apostle,Rom. 11.6. If it be of grace, it is not of works, otherwise grace is no grace. But he afterwards professedly disputeth, that his works of preparation are the very cause of Iustification. It were odious to refuse the name of the free grace of God, and therefore formally he nameth it, but by the processe of this discourse it will appeare, that he meaneth nothing lesse then to make it free. That our Iustification and righteousnesse before God, standeth not in any inward vertues and graces powred into our soules, but in the imputation of Christes obedience and righteousnesse made ours by faith, shall be proued vnto him, God willing, by better arguments then he shall be able to disprooue. But that we are not to expect much of him for disproouing, he himselfe here sheweth vs by a silly note, in which he telleth vs, that M. Perkins comes too short in his second rule, when he attributeth the merits of Christes sufferings to obedience; whereas obedience, saith he, if it had bene without charity, would haue merited nothing at Gods hand. Wherein what doth he but giue check to the Apostle, in that he saith;Rom. 5.19. By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. For to him he might likewise say, that he comes too short in attributing to Christes obedience, that many by it are made righteous; whereas by his obedience, if it had bene without charity, many could not haue bene made righteous. But the mans simple ignorance appeareth in this diuiding of obedience from charitie, whereas charity is the very mother of obedience, neither is there any true obedience, but what issueth therefrom. And therefore M. Perkins well noted, though Maister Bishops narrow eyes beheld it not, that Christ in his obedience shewed his exceeding loue both to his Father & vs. But we must be content to beare with many such idle and bootelesse notes.
2. W. BISHOP.
And whereas M. Perkins doth say, that therein we raze the foundation, that is, as he interpreteth it in his preface, we make Christ a Pseudochrist, we auerre, that herein we do much more magnifie Christ, then they doe, for they take Christs merits to be so meane, that they doe but euen serue the turne to deface sinne, and make men worthie of the ioyes of heauen. Nay it doth not serue the turne, but onely that God doth not [Page 382] impute sinne vnto vs. We contrariwise, do so highly esteeme of our Sauiours inestimable merits, that we hold them well able to purchase at Gods hands, a farre inferiour iustice, and such merits as mortall men are capable of, and to them do giue such force and value, that they make a man iust before God, and worthy of the Kingdome of heauen, as shall be proued. Againe, they do great iniurie to Gods goodnesse, wisedome, and iustice in their Iustification, for they teach, that inward iustice, or sanctification, is not necessary to Iustification; Yea, their Ring-leader Luther saith, That the iustified can by no sinnes whatsoeuer, (except he refuse to beleeue) lose their saluation. Wherein, first they make their righteous man, like (as our Sauiour speaketh) to sepulchers whited on the out side with an imputed iustice, but within, full of iniquity and disorder. Then the wisedome of God must either not discouer this masse of iniquity, or his goodnesse abide it, or his iustice either wipe it away, or punish it: But (say they) he seeth it well enough, but couereth it with the mantle of Christs righteousnesse. Why, can any thing be hid from his fight? it is madnesse to think it. And why doth he not for Christes sake deface it, and wipe it cleane away, and adorne with his grace that soule, whom he for his Sonnes sake loueth, and make it worthy of his loue and kingdome? What, is it because Christ hath not deserued it? So to say, were to derogate from the infinite value of his merits. Or is it, for that God cannot make such iustice in a pure man, as may be worthy of his loue and his kingdome? And this were to deny Gods power in a matter that can be done, as we confesse that such vertue was in our first father Adam, in state of innocencie. Pag 77. And M. Perkins seemes to graunt, That man in this life at his last gaspe may haue such righteousnesse. If then we had no other reason for vs, but that our Iustification doth more exalt the power, and goodnesse of God, more magnifie the value of Christs merits, and bringeth greater dignity vnto men: our doctrine were much better to be liked then our aduersaries, who cannot alledge one expresse sentence, either out of holy Scriptures, or ancient Fathers, teaching the imputation of Christs righteousnesse vnto vs, to be our iustification as shall be seene in the reasons following, and do much abase both Christs merits, and Gods power, wisedome, and goodnesse. Now to their reasons.
R. ABBOT.
It is truly said by Maister Perkins, that the Church of Rome in teaching Iustification by works, doth raze the very foundation [Page 383] of Christian faith, and maketh Christ but a counterfeit and false Christ, because as saith the Apostle,Gal. 2.21. If righteousnesse be by the law, then Christ died in vaine. Therefore peremptorily he denounceth,Cap. 5.4. Ye are abolished from Christ; ye are fallen from grace whosoeuer are iustified by the law. Yet M. Bishop telleth vs, that they do therein much more magnifie Christ then we do. But I answer him, that they do truly magnifie Christ, who yeeld him that honour to say or teach nothing of him but what he hath reuealed and taught of himselfe. They do not magnifie Christ, who measure and describe him by the foolish presumptions of their owne shallow and short wits. As for vs, we do not make the effect of Christs merits to serue onely that sinne is not imputed vnto vs, as this sycophant cauilleth, but affirme the same to be such, as that for his sake, andEphes. 1.8. in him God blesseth vs with all manner of spirituall blessings in heauenly things, and that1. Cor. 1.30. he is made vnto vs of God wisedome, righteousnesse, sanctification and redemption, that is, all in all, that he that reioyceth may reioyce (onely) in the Lord. But of his magnifying Christs merits, we may rightly say as Saint Austin vpon occasion said to the Donatists,August. cont. lit. Petil lib. 2. ca. 84. Verba sunt hominum extollentium glorians homini. sub nomine Christi, vt gloria minuatu [...] ipsius Christi. They are the words of men, extolling the glorie of man vnder the name of Christ, to the abasing of the glorie of Christ himselfe. Christ forsooth hath purchased for them iustice and merits of such force and value, as that they make them iust before God, and worthy of the kingdome of heauen. These are gallants, that thinke scorne to receiue the reward of heauen as a poore man doth an almes, but will needs haue whereof to say, I am iust, I haue iustly and worthily deserued heauen. Foolish hypocrite, that affirmeth that of the merits of Christ, which neither he nor any of his can shew to be performed in himselfe, nay which his owne conscience controleth by experience of himselfe. The word of God teacheth vs no such iustice or merit: they themselues find it not in themselues; their Iesuites and Priests, to say nothing of the rest, which are the teachers hereof, are men in the eyes of the world notorious for trecherie, for villanie, for cosinage, for vncleane and filthy life, and so one by another discouered to be; yea and of their followers a great number that prate of their merits, are knowne for extortioners, whoremongers, drunkards, swearers, prophane and vile persons, and yet must we needs beleeue that they are [Page 384] endued with such iustice and merits? Nay, we rather beleeue that the iust iudgement of God is vpon them, to deliuer them vp to sinne, who thus wilfully yeeld themselues to such palpable illusions of the man of sinne. But by this meanes Christ with them after baptisme is no otherwise a Sauiour, but because he giueth such iustice as whereby it is in their power by free will to saue themselues, and by their merits to purchase and deserue heauen. This is it Maister Bishop, for which we iustly detest you, as wicked peruerters of the Gospell of Christ, and subuerters of true faith. Thus in seeming to set vp Christes merits, you pull them downe, and set vp your selues in steede of Christ. But the Gospell teacheth vs to acknowledge Christ immediatly and wholy our righteousnesse and saluation,2. Cor. 5.21. in whom and not in our selues, we are made the righteousnesse of God, that is, iust in the sight of God, in that his obedience and righteousnesse performed and wrought in our name, and for our behoofe, is imputed vnto vsRom. 3.25. by faith in his bloud. But so, as that this saluation to which he entitleth vs by faith in him, consisteth not onely in the remission of sinnes, or in the not imputing thereof, but also inCap. 6.6. destroying the body of sinne, and restoring in vs the image of God,Ephe. 4.24. in righteousnesse and holinesse of truth, he hauing giuen himselfeTit. 2.14. to purge vs to be a peculiar people vnto himselfe, andEphe. 5.27. to make vnto himselfe a glorious Church, not hauing spot or wrinkle or any such thing. And all this Christ will effect vnto vs, but he will do it according to his owne will, not according to Popish fancie. All this is now in fieri, non in facto esse, it is begun and in doing, but it is not yet finished and done: it shall be fully perfected at the resurrection of the dead. In the meane time he bringeth vs not to perfect righteousnesse in our selues, nor giueth vnto vs a full immunitie from sinne, that he may take away from vs all occasion of reioycing in our selues, that as Saint Austine notethAugust. de peccat. merit. & remiss. lib. 3. cap. 13. Vt dum non iustificatur in cō spectu er [...]s viuens, actionem gratiarum semper in dulgenti [...]e ipsius debeamus, & si [...] ab illa prim [...] ca [...]sa omniū v [...]ticrum, id est, ae tumore superb [...]e sancta humilitate scruemur. whilest no man liuing is found iust in the sight of God, we may alwaies owe thankesgiuing vnto his mercie, and by humilitie may be healed from swelling pride, andBernard in Cant. ser. 50. Ʋt sc [...]amus in die illa quia non ex operibus iustitiae quae fecimus nos sed pro misiricerdiae sua saluos nos fecit. that we may know, as Saint Bernard saith, at that day, that not for the works of righteousnesse which we haue done, but of his owne mercie he hath saued vs. Now therefore we doe no wrong to Gods goodnesse, wisedome, iustice, in our iustification, as Maister Bishop fondly chargeth vs, because we teach [Page 385] iustification in the same sort as God himselfe hath taught it vs, inferring sanctification as an immediate and necessarie effect, but not conteining it as an essentiall part. We hold sanctification to be necessarie to iustification in this sence, that the one cannot be without the other, and that no man is iustified by the righteousnesse of Christ, who is not also sanctified by the spirit of Christ; but we denie sanctification to be necessarie to iustification in Maister Bishops meaning, as to be any cause or matter of it. As for the place of Luther wretchedly falsified by him, the true purpose of it onely is to shew the worke of Gods grace to be irreuocable in them vpon whom he hath set the marke of his election, and hath iustified them by faith in Christ, to whom as Saint Austine saith,August. Soli. loq. cap. 28. Quibus omnia cooperantur in bonū, etiam peccata ipsa. euen their very sinnes doe worke for good, and thereof is made as it were a triacle and preseruatiue against sinne; so that, as Bernard saith,Bernard. de triplici cohaer. clauor. vincul. & glutin. Of Certaintie of Saluation. Sect. 9. though Dauid be branded with the blot of horrible sinnes, and Peter be drowned in a depth of denying his Maister, yet there is none that can take them out of the hand of God, who because he will preserue them, therefore preserueth their faith, and continueth in them his spirit of sanctification, and though by occasion they fall, yet they neuer so fall, but that1. Iohn 3.9. his seede remaineth in them, andPsal. 37.24. his hand is vnder to lift them vp againe. Now because we affirme the inward sanctifying of the heart to be alwaies an infallible consequent of iustification, there is no place for that obiection of his, that we make the righteous man like to sepulchers whited without with an imputed Iustice, but within full of iniquitie and disorder. The imputation of righteousnesse both outwardly and inwardly is our iustification before God, and by sanctification the iustified man both outwardly and inwardly becommeth other in quality then he was before, so that although sinne in part be still remaining to lust and rebell, yet it is brought into subiection that it raigneth not, and being checked and resisted that it may not bring forth fruit, a man is not by it reputed full of iniquitie and disorder. But of this sufficient hath bene saidSect. 17. before, by occasion of the same cauill in his epistle to the Ring. Here as he giueth further occasion, we tell him, that that remainder of sinne in the regenerate, is couered with the mantle of the righteousnesse of Christ, and so S. Austine as we haue seene before, calleth itAugust. de nupt. & concup. lib. 2. ca. 34. peccatum tectum, [Page 386] sinne couered or hidden. But saith he, it is madnesse to thinke that any thing can be hid from the sight of God. We answer him, that God seeth it well enough with the eye of his knowledge, but by reason of that couertureAugust. in Ps. [...]1. Noluit aduertire Tecta quare? vt non vide [...]tur. Quid erat Dei videre peccata a [...]si pu [...]ire peccata? will not see it with the eye of his iudgement: he seeth it with a discerning, but seeth it not with a reuenging eye, euen as it is said,Numb. 23.21. He seeth no iniquitie in Iacob, nor beholdeth transgression in Israel. But he demaundeth, Why doth he not deface it and wipe it away, and adorne the soule with grace? &c. He hath his answer before: I will here quit him onely with Saint Austins words,Augus. [...]nat. C [...]grat. cap. 27. riot agit Deus vt [...]a [...]ct on [...] [...]a, sed agit tu [...]licio suo, nec ordinem sana [...]di accipit ab aegreto. God is in hand to heale all, but he doth it at his owne discretion, and receiueth not of the sicke man an order for his cure. Againe he asketh, Hath not Christ deserued it? We tell him, ye; Christ hath deserued it, and for his merits sake it shall be done, but we must expect the time that God hath appointed for the doing of it. Christ hath deserued for vs to be wholly freed from mortalitie, corruption and death, as before was sayd, but mortalitie, corruption and death yet continue still. When mortalitie, corruption and death shall be abolished, then shall sinne also wholly and for euer be taken away. Last of all he demaundeth, Is it because God cannot make such iustice in a pure man? I answer him out of Tertullian, Tertul. aduers. Praxe [...]in Si tam abruptè in praesumptionibus nostris hac sentētia vtamu [...], quiduis de Deo confingere poterimus, quasi fecerit quia facere potuerit. Potuit Deus pennis hominem ad volandū instrux [...]sse; non tamen quia potuit statim & fecit, &c. Probare apertè debebis ex Scriptur [...]s. If we will so abruptly in our presumptions conceiue opinion, we may faine what we list of God, as if he had done it, because he could do it. He could haue made man with wings to flie, but yet he hath not done it. You should proue plainly out of the Scriptures that he would so do. As for worthinesse, it is but a matter of conceit and fancie. No creature can contend vpon worth with the Creator. If Adams worth were such as he speaketh of, hee had beene worthy to be preserued, and he may as sawcily dispute with God, that he did him wrong in suffering him to fall. As for that which he alledgeth as out of Master Perkins, that man in this life at his last gaspe may haue such righteousnesse, it is a deuice of his owne, neither doth Master Perkins say any thing that should yeeld him anie such construction. For conclusion, he telleth vs, that their doctrine is better to be liked then ours, if for no other reason, yet for that it doth more exalt the power and goodnesse of God, more magnifie the value of Christes merits, and bringeth greater dignitie vnto men. Where the vaine man seeth not, that by the one part of his speech he crosseth the other. The thing whereto [Page 387] the true doctrine of the Gospell tendeth, is entirely the honour and glorie of God, but their doctrine forsooth serueth to bring dignitie vnto men. But in that it bringeth dignitie vnto men, it detracteth from the glorie of God, whose light is most cleerely seene in our darknesse,2. Cor, 12.9. his power in our weaknesse, his goodnesse in shewing mercy to vs that are euill; hisDan. 9.7. righteousnesse in the confession of our shame; the worth of Christs merits in the true acknowledgement of our vnworthinesse and want of merits. God hath appointed vs to beEphes. 1.6. for the praise of the glorie of his grace, and therefore so disposeth1. Cor. 1.29. that no flesh shall reioyce in his presence, andEsa. 2.11. that he onely may be exalted at that day. ThereforeAug. epist 29. Cùm rex iustus sederit in throno quis gloriabitur se castum habere cor? &c. when the iust king shall sit vpon his throne, who shall glorie that he hath a cleane heart, or reioyce that he is free from sinne? Our plea then must not be Merit and worth, but only2. Tim. 1.18. to find mercie with the Lord. But the thing that they seeke for, as M. Bishop telleth vs, is the dignitie of man, as indeed it is. They labour to set vp their owne righteousnesse against the righteousnesse of God. They extoll their owne Merit, their owne worth. The Merit of Christ onely yeeldeth matter of grace to their Free vvill to worke vpon, and thereby they worke for themselues, they Merit for themselues, they saue themselues; but in seeking this glorie to themselues, they purchase their owne shame. What we can alledge for imputation of Christs righteousnesse vnto vs to be our Iustification, will appeare in that that followeth.
3. W. BISHOP.
M. Perkins first reason is this, That which must be our Righteousnesse before God, must satisfic the iustice of the law which saith, Do these things and thou shalt liue,Gal. 5. but there is nothing that can satisfie that iustice of the law, but the Righteousnesse and obedience of Christ. Ergo.
This reason is not worth a rush, for when he requireth that our iustice must satisfie the iustice of the law, I demaund what law he meaneth? If Moses law: of which those words, Gal. 5. Gal. 5. Do this and thou shalt liue, are spoken. Then I answer with the Apostle, That you are euacuated, or abolished from Christ, that are iustified in the law: that is, he is a Iew and no Christian, that would haue Christian Iustice answerable to Moses law.
If M. Perkins would onely that men iustified, must be able to fulfill Christs law, I then graunt, that they so be, by the helpe of Gods grace, which will neuer faile them, before they faile of their duties. But saith M. Perkins: That iustice of man is vnperfect, and cannot satisfie the iustice which God requires in his law,Isay 6.4. and proues it out of Esay, who saith, All our righteousnesse is as a menstruous, or defiled cloth. I answer, that the holy Prophet speaketh those words in the person of the wicked, and therefore are madly applied vnto the righteous. That he speaketh of the vvicked of that nation and of that time, appeareth plainely by the text it selfe. For he saith before, But lo thou hast bene angrie, for we haue offended, and haue beene euer in sinne, and after; There is no man that calleth vpon thy name, and standeth vp to take hold by thee. And although the vvords be generall, and seemes to the vnskilfull to comprehend himselfe also, yet that is but the manner of preachers, and specially of such as become Intercessors for others, vvho vse to speake in the persons of them, for vvhom they sue: for if he had reckoned himselfe in that number, he had lied, vvhen he sayd: There is none that call vpon thy name, vvhen as he immediatly calleth vpon him in most vehement sort for mercie, Luther and Caluin on this place. all which the best learned among them marking, confesse that this sentence cannot be alledged against the vertue of good vvorkes. Hence gather, how dexterously M. Perkins handleth holy Scripture. That vvhich the Prophet spake of some euill men, of one place, and at one time: that he applieth vnto all good men, for all times, and all places.
R. ABBOT.
This reason saith M. Bishop, is not worth a rush, but I am sure that his answer is not worth a rush, as wherein we may see the absurd blindnesse of these men who take vpon them to be the only maisters of the world. That, saith M. Perkins, vvhich must be our Righteousnesse before God, must satisfie the iustice of the lavv vvhich saith, Do these things and thou shalt liue, inferring hereof, that because no Righteousnesse of ours doth answer the iustice or Righteousnesse commaunded in the law, therefore no Righteousnesse of ours but onely the imputed Righteousnesse of Christ is our Iustification before God, For answer to this M. Bishop demandeth [Page 389] what law he meaneth, whether Moses law or Christs law? But we make to him a counter-demand, What he meaneth by Moses law, and what by Christs law? He should more plainly haue declared his distinction if he would haue made an answer of it, but that that we conceiue of it is, that by Moses law he meaneth the ceremonies of the law, by Christs law the morall law of the commandements commonly so called. But had he so little vnderstanding of the law, as to thinke that of the ceremoniall law it was sayd, Do this and thou shalt liue? Surely the ceremonies of the law were butCol. 2.14. a handwriting against vs, because they were an acknowledgement of vncleannesse, and sinne, and trespasse against that law that faith, Do this and thou shalt liue; and because an acknowledgement of sinne, therefore a conuiction of guilt of death incurred thereby, and yet could yeeld no remedie against death, being afterwardsHeb. 7.18. disanulled because of the weaknesse and vnprofitablenesse thereof; so farre should we be from thinking that of the ceremoniall law it should be sayd, Do this and thou shalt liue. The yong man demandeth of Christ,Mat. 19.16. What good thing shall I do that I may haue eternall life? Now looke of what law our Sauior answereth him, as M. Bishop hath cited before,Vers. 17. If thou wilt enter into life, keepe the commandements, of the selfe same law doth he answer another to the same question, vpon recitall of a briefe of the commandements,Luc. 10.28. This do and thou shalt liue, namely of the morall law, to which it hath referenceLeuit. 18.5. where it is first spoken, as appeareth by that that followeth for declaration of it. Of which also it is rehearsed byEzech. 18.11.13. &c. Ezechiel the Prophet, and is by the Apostle Saint Paul further alledged to shew the difference betwixtRom. 10.5. the Righteousnesse of the law and the Righteousnesse of faith. Moses, saith he, this describeth the Righteousnesse of the lavv, that the man vvhich doth these things shall liue thereby. Gal. 3.12. The lavv is not of faith; but he that doth these things, shall liue in them. Of which law he saith;Rom. 3.20. By the lavv commeth the knowledge of sinne: that it saith,Cap. 7. ver. 7.16.22. Thou shalt not lust; that he consenteth to it that it is good, that he delighteth in it as touching the inner man; that theCap. 13. v. 9. Gal. 5.14. summe thereof is; Thou shalt loue thy neighbour as thy selfe, all which doe vndeniably point out vnto vs the morall law, as bothAugust. de spir. & lit. ca. 14. Saint Austine andHieron. epist. ad Ctesiphont. Saint Hierome out of the same and such like places haue expresly affirmed. [Page 390] Of the same law therefore he saith,Gal. 3.10. So manie as are of the workes of the law are vnder the curse, for it is written, Cursed is euerie one that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law to do them. And because no man continueth in all, he concludeth hereof,Ver. 11. & cap. 2.16. that by the law no man is iustified in the sight of God; that by the workes of the law no flesh shall be iustified. Now of the selfe same law doth he say that which M. Bishop hath cited for the cutting of his owne throat,Cap. 5.4. Ye are abolished from Christ whosoeuer are iustified by the law, thereby teaching vs to resolue, that Iustification by Christ, and Iustification by the worke, of the law, cannot possibly concurre in one. Now whereas the Apostle for auouching Iustification onely by faith in Christ, taketh it for a ground, that no man fulfilleth the Righteousnesse of the law, M. Bishop that he may be wholy thwart and crosse vnto him, affirmeth, that by the helpe of Gods grace men are made able to fulfill the law to be iustified thereby. Against which assertion, to proue that the Righteousnesse of the regenerate and faithfull is not such as that it can answer the iustice and Righteousnesse required in the law, M. Perkins alledgeth the common confession of all endited by the Prophet Esay: Esa. 64.6. All our Righteousnesse is as a menstruous or defiled cloth. For if the Righteousnesse commaunded by the law be most exact and perfect, and no righteousnesse is performed by vs but what by our weaknesse and corruption is blemished and stained, then can no righteousnesse of ours satisfie the commandement of the law. But M. Bishop answereth, that the Prophet speaketh these words in the person of the wicked of that nation and that time, and therefore that they are madly applied vnto the righteous. Where a man would wonder that he should be so mad as to imagine that prayer to be vttered in the person of wicked men, or that wicked men should make mention or any their Righteousnesse vnto God. And as for the time, it fitteth not the age wherein the Prophet himselfe liued, but was prophetically written in respect of a time long after succeeding. He foresaw in the spirit the desolation of Ierusalem, and the temple, and that whole land, and thereupon putteth himselfe into the person of the faithfull, and maketh himselfe as one of them that should liue at that time. This is verie apparent by the Prophets wordsVers. 10. Thine holy cities lye wast, Sion is a wildernesse, and Ierusalem a desert; The house of our sanctuarie and of our glorie, where [Page 391] our fathers praised thee, is burnt vp with fire, and all our pleasant things are vvasted. This prayer then was to serue for a direction to the faithfull that then should be, to make their mone vnto God, and to intreat mercie at his hands. And very answerable to this propheticall prayer is the prayer of the Prophet Daniel made presently at that time. For whereas M. Bishop to proue that the Prophet speaketh in the person of the wicked, alledgeth those words,Esa. 64 5. Lo thou hast bene angrie, for we haue offended, and haue euer bene in sinne, the Prophet Daniel likewise saith,Dan 9.5. We haue sinned, and haue committed iniquitie and done wickedly, Vers. 7. O Lord Righteousnesse belongeth vnto thee, and vnto vs open shame: Vers. 10. We haue not obeyed the voyce of the Lord our God, to walke in his wayes &c. And whereas he alledgeth the other words,Esa. 64.7 There is no man that calleth vpon thy name and standeth vp to take hold of thee, the Prophet Daniel in like sort saith:Dan. 9.13. We haue not made our prayer before the Lord our God. Both of them say, We haue offended, We haue sinned, We haue not prayed, as shewing plainely that they so spake of other men as that they implied themselues also. Nay saith M. Bishop, that is but the manner of Preachers, and specially of such as become Intercessours for others, who vse to speake in the persons of them for whom they sue. Where he maketh the holy Prophets and seruants of God as verie hypocrites to God as he himselfe is, as if they tooke vpon them to accuse themselues to God when they intended nothing lesse. But to driue him out of this hole, the Prophet Daniel saith of himselfe, that in that prayerDan. 9.20. he confessed his owne sinnes, and the sinnes of his people, and why should Daniel the Prophet be sayd to confesse his owne sinnes, and not the Prophet Esay, or those iust and faithfull in whose person Esay spake? Nay both the one and the other spake out of the true affection of the faithfull at all times, who alwayes find in themselues defects and defaults, whereby they find iust cause in confession of sinnes to ioyne themselues with other men, euen as the Prophet Esay elsewhere doth,Esa. 6.5. Wo is me: I am a man of polluted lippes, and I dwell in the middest of a people of polluted lippes. But saith M. Bishop, if he had reckoned himselfe in that number, he had lied in saying, There is none that calleth vpon thy name, because he immediatly calleth vpon him in most vehement sort. As if they in whose name the Prophet [Page 392] speaketh, might not without a lie by wordes of the present time deplore the vniuersall neglect of calling vpon God, which had beene amongst them, as Daniel acknowledgeth, and for the most part continued still, though God had stirred vp some of their hearts now to make supplication vnto him: or as if they that did pray might not finde in themselues that faintnesse and want of heart and spirit, as might cause them in this behalfe to accuse themselues vnto God. We cannot doubt but that there were manie faithfull and godly amongst the Iewes in that time of their desolation, yet in those faithfull and godly there was that default to be found, as that God sayd of them,Esa. 51.18. There is none to guide her among all the sonnes that shee hath brought foorth; there is none that taketh her by the hand of all the sonnes that shee hath brought vp. In a word, the Prophet in saying, There is no man that calleth vpon thee, might note a publicke contempt of calling vpon God, without exception against himselfe, as where he saith,Esa. 59.4. No man calleth for iustice, no man contendeth for truth, and such like, and yet could not say, We haue sinned, vve haue all beene as an vncleane thing, without intendment of himselfe. Last of all, he alledgeth that the best learned among vs (quoting Luther and Caluin on this place) doe confesse that this sentence cannot be alledged against the vertue of good vvorkes. What Luther saith vpon the place, I know not, not hauing the booke at hand, butAssert. artic. 31 otherwhere he doth alledge it against the vertue of good workes. Caluin giueth his opinion, that it doth not so properly serue to that purpose, but his reason is of lesse waight then that it should take from vs a proofe in the verie words so cleere and pregnant as this is. But if Luther and Caluin on our side doe denie it, let him takePigh. controu. de fide & iustificat. Pighius andFerus in Mat. cap. 20. Ferus of his owne side confessing and acknowledging that this place doth make against the vertue of good workes, both of them alledging it for an argument against the perfection thereof. Or if they beare no sway with him, let him heare them whose authoritie hee may not well disclaime; Origen saying thus,Orig. in Rom. cap. 3. Quis vel super iustitia sua gloriabitur cùm audiat Deum per Prophetam dicentem, quia omnis iustitia vestra sicut pannus mulieris mē struatae. Who vvill glorie concerning his Righteousnesse, seeing he heareth God saying by the Prophet, All your Righteousnesse is as a cloth of a menstruous vvoman: Hierome thus,Hieron. in Esa. cap 64. Quicquid videmur habere iustitiae, panno menstrua [...]e mulieris comparatur. By thy mercie vve shall bee saued, [Page 393] vvho by our selues are vncleane, and vvhatsoeuer Righteousnesse vve seeme to haue, it is compared vnto a menstruous cloth. Saint Austine alluding to the same place sayeth:August. soliloq. cap. 28. Nos omnes quasi pannus menstruatae de massa corrupta & immunda venientes maculam immunditiae nostrae in frontibus portamus, &c. Whatsoeuer hee toucheth that is vncleane, by the lavv it shall be vncleane. But vve all as the cloth of a menstruous vvoman, being come of an vncleane and corrupt masse, do carrie in our foreheads the blot of our vncleannesse, vvhich from God that seeth all things vve cannot hide, thereby acknowledging that blot remaining in vs which must needes staine whatsoeuer proceedeth from vs. But Saint Bernard is most frequent both in affirming this staine of all our Righteousnesse, and in applying this place to the proofe thereof.Bernard. in Fest. omn. sanct. serm. 1. Quid potest esse omnis iustitia nostra coram Deo? Nonne iuxta Prophetam velut pannus menstruatae reputabitur, & si destrictè iudicetur iniusta inuenietur omnis iustitia nostra & minus habens. What can all our Righteousnesse be, saith he, in the sight of God? shall it not as the Prophet sayth be reputed as a menstruous (or defiled) cloth, and shall not our iustice, if it be strictly iudged, be found vniust and scant? And in another place:Idem de verb. Esa. serm. 5. Nostra (siqua est) humilis iustitia recta forsitan sed non pura; nisi fortè meliores nos esse credimus quàm patres nostros, qui non minùs veracitèr quam humiliter atebant. Omnes iustitiae, &c. Our base Righteousnesse, if it bee any, is right perhaps, but not pure, vnlesse haply vve thinke our selues better then our fathers, vvho no lesse truly then humbly sayd, All our Righteousnesse is as a defiled cloth. Againe in another place he sayeth likewise:Jdem in dedicat. eccles. ser. 5. Ipsae iustitiae nostrae omnes ad lumen veritatis inspectae velut pannus menstruatae inueniuntur. All our verie Righteousnesses beeing looked vpon by the light of truth, are found as a menstruous cloth. Againe,Idem de verb. Apost. Qui gloriatur, &c. Perfecta & secura gloriatio est cùm veremur omnia opera nostra, &c. Et cum Es [...]ia Propheta omnes iustitias nostras non aliud qu [...]m pannum menstruatae reputandas esse cognoscimus. Our perfect and secure reioycing is vvhen vvee are afraide of all our vvorkes, as holy Iob vvitnesseth of himselfe, and vvith the Prophet Esay doe knovv that all our Righteousnesse is to be no otherwise reputed but as a defiled cloth. Hereby then let M. Bishop now vnderstand, that M. Perkins dealt no otherwise but dexterously in the handling of this place, and that that which the Prophet Esay spake, did so concerne the faithfull of that time and place whereof he spake, as that they haue true application to the faithfull of all times and in all places, because no reason can bee giuen why the faithfull of one time should so speake, but by the same it is enforced vpon the faithfull of all times.
4. W. BISHOP.
1. Cor. 4. But he will amend it in the next, where he proues out of Saint Paul, that a cleare conscience (which is a great part of inherent iustice,) can nothing helpe to our Iustification: I am priuie to nothing in my selfe, and yet I am not iustified thereby. Here is a verie pretie peece of cosinage. What, doth the Apostle say that he vvas not iustified by his cleere conscience? nothing lesse: but that albeit, he savv nothing in himselfe to hinder his Iustification, yet God vvho hath sharper eye-fight, might espie some iniquitie in him, and therefore durst not the Apostle affirme himselfe to be iustified, as if he should say, if there be no other fault in me in Gods sight, then I can find by mine owne insight, I am iustified, because I am guiltie of nothing, and so the place proueth rather the vncertaine knowledge of our Iustification, as I haue before shewed.
But M. Perkins addeth, that vve must remember, that vve shall come to iudgement, vvhere rigour of iustice shall be shewed. We knovv it vvell, but vvhen there is no condemnation to those that by Baptisme be purged from Originall sinne, Pag. 28. as he confesseth himselfe the Apostle to teach in our consents, about Originall sinne, vvhat then needeth any iustified man greatly feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge? And Saint Paul saith himselfe in the person of the iust: That he had runne a good race, &c. and therefore, there was a crowne of iustice layd vp for him, by that iust iudge, and not onely to him, but all them that loue Christs comming. And concerning both, Inherent iustice, and the abilitie of it, to fulfill the law, and what law, heare this one sentence of S. Augustine.Serm. 18. de verb. Apost.
He that beleeueth in him, he hath not that iustice which is of the law, albeit the law be good, but he shall fulfill the law, not by iustice which he hath of himselfe, but which is giuen of God, for charitie is the fulfilling of the law, and from him is this charitie powred into our hearts, not certainly by our selues, but by the holy Ghost which is giuen vs.
R. ABBOT.
There is none so readie to call harlot as is the harlot, none so [Page 395] readie to obiect cosinage to another as he that is the cosiner himselfe. I pray thee, gentle Reader, whether wilt thou rather thinke to be the cosiner, him that saith that the Apostle, saying, I am not thereby iustified, doth meane as he saith, I am not thereby iustified, or him that will make thee beleeue that the Apostle thereby meaneth, I cannot tell whether I be iustified or no. Indeede cosiners commonly vse colours, and labour for craftie and cleanly conueyance, but M. Bishop is none of those that make daintie of the matter; he sticketh not in euerie mans sight to cut the purse: that which in euerie mans eyes is expresly denied, he maketh no bones at all to turne into a matter of question and doubt. The place hath bene sufficiently handled in the former questionSect. 12. Of the Certaintie of Saluation; here I will onely set downe what Gregorie Bishop of Rome conceiued of this place.Greg. Moral. lib. 5. cap. 8 Sape ipsa iustitia nostra ad examen diuinae iustitiae deducta iniustitia est, & sordet in districtiene iudicis quod in aestimatione fulge [...] operantis. Oft times, saith he, our verie Righteousnesse being brought to the examination of the Righteousnesse of God is vnrighteousnesse, and it is loathsome in the seueritie of the iudge, vvhich in the opinion of the vvorker shineth bright. Whereupon Saint Paul when he sayd, I am guiltie to my selfe in nothing, by and by added, but I am not iustified thereby. Who forthwith insinuating the cause vvhy he vvas not iustified saith, But he that iudgeth me is the Lord. Acsi dicat: Idcirco in eo quòd nihil mihi conscius sum iustificatum me abnego, quia ab eo quime iudicat examinari me subtiliùs s [...]to. As if he should say, Therefore doe I denie my selfe to be iustified by my being guiltie of nothing, because I know my selfe to be more neerely sifted by him that iudgeth me, &c. Quia & ipsa nostra perfectis culpa non caret, nisi hanc seue [...]us iudex in subtil [...] lance examin [...] misericorditèr penset. Because euen our perfection is not vvithout fault, vnlesse the seuere iudge do vvith mercie vvaigh it in the strict ballance of his examination. Againe he saith of the same place:Ibid. cap. 23. Districtionem diuinae iustitiae contemplantes etiam de ipsis operib. iure pertimescimus quaenos fortia egisse putabamus. Ducta nam (que) ad internam regulā nostra rectitudo si districtum in dicium inuenit, multis tortitudinum suarum sinibus in intimam rectitudinem impingit. Beholding the strictnesse of Gods iustice, vve are iustly afraide of those very vvorkes, which we thought we did with strength. For our Righteousnesse being brought to the internall rule, if it find seuere iudgement, by many creekes of wryings and turnings offendeth against the most inward (or perfect) Righteousnesse. Whence the Apostle Paul seeing himselfe to haue the bones (that is, euen the strength) of vertues, and yet these bones of his did tremble at strict examination, saith, I am guiltie to my selfe in nothing, yet am I not thereby iustified. Acsi diceret, Recta egisse me recolo, attamen demeritis non praesumo; quia ad eius examen vita nostra ducitur sub quo nostrae fortitudinis & ossa turbantur. As if he should say, I remember I haue done the things that be right, but yet I presume not of any merit, because our life is brought to the censure of him before vvhom the verie bones of our strength are troubled. Thus by the iudgement [Page 396] of him whose iudgement M. Bishop by no meanes may refuse, S. Paul plainely denieth himselfe to be iustified, because though he knew nothing by himselfe, yet he had to do with him who in his very best workes, much more in many secret sinnes, could find sufficient to condemne him. And this is the true meaning of those words, that howsoeuer a man, if it be so, know nothing by himselfe, yet the Lord hath matter enough against euery man, that he may be iustified in that which he hath sayd,Psal. 143.2. that no man liuing shall be iustified in his sight. But yet the same Apostle who here saith of himselfe, I know nothing by my selfe, namely as touching any vnfaithfulnesse in the stewardship that God had committed vnto him, which was the matter spoken of, yet in other respect found cause to say of himselfe,Rom. 7.14. I am carnall; sold vnder sinne; Vers. 19. I do not the good which I would, but the euill which I would not that do I. Vers. 23. I see another law in my members, rebelling against the law of my mind, and leading me captiue to the law of sinne that is in my members. O wretched man that I am, who shall deliuer me from the body of this death. So that here is a further fault committed by M. Bishop, in that he vrgeth the words of the Apostle as simply and generally true, which were meant onely respectiuely, as if he had absolutely sayd that he knew nothing at all against himselfe, when he meant it as touching any default in his seruice and charge that Christ had imposed vpon him. Now M. Perkins to take away the opinion of our owne Righteousnesse, and to shew that we haue no other but the Righteousnesse of Christ to rest safely vpon, alledgeth, as Gregorie doth, the rigour and seueritie of Gods iudgement, which admitteth of nothing but what is exact and perfect, according to the rule of iustice prescribed vnto vs. Where M. Bishop sheweth himselfe a verie stupide and senslesse man, not moued with the2. Cor. 5.11. terrours of the Lord, and the dread of that iudgement which the very Angels tremble at. We know it well, saith he. Yea do? but what is then your refuge and defence? Marrie, seeing there is no condemnation to them that by Baptisme be purged from Originall sinne, as saith he, M. Perkins himselfe confesseth the Apostle to teach, what then needeth any iustified man greatly feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge? Wherein he notably abuseth M. Perkins for the hiding of his owne shame. For neither the Apostle, nor M. Perkins do teach, that by Baptisme we are purged from Originall sinne, [Page 397] but onely that in baptisme it is remitted and pardoned, so that though it continue still in vs, yet the faithfull are not thereby holden guiltie before God. So then by forgiuenesse of sinnes through the imputation of Christs merits and obedience, it is that there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ, it is not for that there is nothing in them for which otherwise they might iustly be condemned. Surely they that rightly know themselues, do know that in themselues there is that still being, for which God might iustly cast them away, if he should iudge them in themselues, but their comfort & hope is that for Christs sake it is not imputed vnto them, that they shall stand before Gods iudgement seate in the veile of his innocencie and most perfect Righteousnesse, and in him shall haue eternall life adiudged vnto them. But with M. Bishop the case is farre otherwise. There is no condemnation, because there is nothing worthie of condemnation, all iustice, all innocencie, no impuritie or vncleannesse, no more sinne then was in Adam in the state of innocencie, as he hathSect. 10 before spoken in the question of Originall sinne. May we not maruell that an hypocrite should thus securely flatter himselfe, being occasioned to bethinke himselfe of that dreadfull and fearefull day? We are purged from Originall sinne, saith he: vvhat needes then any iustified man greatly to feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge? But farre otherwise thought Saint Austine when he sayd, as we heard before,August. epist. 29. Cum rex iustus sederit in throne, quis gloriabitur se castū habere cor, aut quis gloriab [...]tur se esse immunem à peccato? Quae igitur spes est nisi superexultet miserecordia iudicium? When the iust king shall sit vpon his throne, vvho shall glorie that he hath a cleane heart, or that he is free from sinne? What hope then is there, saith he, vnlesse mercie be exalted aboue iudgement? And what? in the rest of his life hath the iustified man no cause greatly to feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge? no sinne, no trespasse for the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge to take any hold of? We haue seene before, that our best workes will not endure seueritie of iudgement, how shall we then quaile by reason of our sinnes? S. Austin saith very well,Aug. in Psal. 42. Qui [...]unque hic vi [...]it. quantum libet iuste viua [...] vae illi sicum illo in iudicium intrauerit Deus. Who so liueth here, howsoeuer iustly he liue, wo vnto him if God enter into iudgement with him. And fully answerable hereunto is that which Gregorie saith,Greg. Moral. li 8. c. 21 Quantalibet iustitia polleant, nequaquam sibi ad iust [...]tiam vel electi sufficiēt si districtè in iudicio requirantur. Not the very elect howsoeuer they excell in iustice, shalbe able to approue themselues innocent if they be narowly sifted in iudgement. But most effectuall to the purpose is that of Hierome, Hieron. in Esa. l. 6. c. 13. Quum dies iudicij vel dormitionis aduenerit, dissoluē tur omnes manus, quia n [...]llum opus dignum Dei iustitia reperietur, &c. Omne quoque cor [...]siue anima hominis tabescet & pauebit conscientia peccati sui. When the day of iudgment or of death shall come, all hands shalbe dissolued, because there shal no worke be found [Page 398] vvorthie of the iustice of God, neither shall anie man liuing be iustified in his sight. Whereupon the Prophet saith, O Lord, if thou markest iniquities, who shall endure it; euerie heart and soule of man shall faint and feare by reason of the conscience of his owne sinne. And will M. Bishop notwithstanding say, what needeth any iustified man greatly feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge? The best is, that he leaueth no man to make vse of that which he sayeth, because he will giue no man leaue to assure himselfe that he is iustified. Yet to make his matter good, he alledgeth that Sainr Paul saith, that he had runne a good race, &c. and therefore there vvas a crowne of iustice layed vp for him by that iust iudge, &c. Of which place we would gladly haue knowne how he maketh application to his purpose. The Apostle maketh mention of a crowne of iustice layed vp for him, and to be rendered vnto him by a iust iudge, but he doth not say that he needeth not to feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge. God is a iust iudge as well when he iudgeth by lawes of mercie, as when he iudgeth by lawes of extremitie; as well in theRom. 3.27. law of faith, as in the law of workes; but the rigorous sentence of this iust iudge is onely when he iudgeth by the law of workes. By the law of faith God forgiueth and pardoneth, he considereth with fauour, and2. Cor. 8.12. if there be a vvilling mind it is accepted according to that a man hath, not according to that that he hath not, and all this he doth as a iust iudge, because by law he doth whatsoeuer he doth. But in the rigor of the law which is the law of workes, he remitteth nothing but requireth all toMat. 5.26. the vttermost farthing; nothing pleaseth but what is exact, and perfect, and fully answerable to the rule. S. Paul then expected that God as a iust iudge would yeeld vnto him the crowne, not by the law of workes, but by the law of faith, wherein GodPsal. 103 4. crowneth in mercy and louing kindnesse, because this crowne is a crowne of iustice, Bernard de grat. & lib. arbit. sub finem. Corona iustitiae sed iustitiae Dei non suae. Justū est quippe vt reddat quod debet: debet▪ autem quod pollicitus est. Et haec est iustitia de quae praesumit Apostolus, promissio Dei. not of Pauls owne iustice, saith S. Bernard, but of the iustice of God. For it is iust with God to pay that he oweth, and he oweth that which he hath promised. And this is the iustice, saith he, vpon which the Apostle presumeth, euen the promise of God. Now verie much doth M. Bishop mistake, to thinke that God rendereth by the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge, that which as a iust iudge he rendereth by promise according to the law of faith. In a word it toucheth the Apostle Paul, which Saint Austine sayeth vnto God:August. in Psal. 129. Si nobiscum seuerus iudex agere volueris, non miserecors pater, quis stabit ante ocul [...]s tuos? If thou vvilt deale as a rigorous iudge, and not as a [Page 399] mercifull father, who shall stand in thy presence? The place of Austin by him cited maketh nothing at all against vs, nor helpeth him at all. He would thereby proue Inherent iustice, and we denie it not; onely we say, that in this life we are farre from the perfection of it. In this life we areAugust. de verb. Apost. ser. 15. Vtatores, non habitatores, non possessores. trauellers to it, not dwellers in it, not possessors of it, as Saint Austin speaketh in the same Sermon, misquoted by M. Bishop, the eighteenth for the fifteenth.Ibid. ser. 16. Puto hoc esse dicere, Iustus sum, quod est, peccator non sum. I thinke it is all one for a man to say, I am iust, saith he, as to say, I am no sinner, and who is there liuing that can so say? Therefore aduisedly he saith, implebit legem, he shall fulfill the law, not he doth fulfill. He now fulfilleth it in part, but shall perfectly fulfill it when charitie shall be perfect, which isRom 1.3.10. the fulfilling of the law, whichAugust. epist. 29. Plenissima charitas quamdiu hic homo viuit est in nemine. shall be in no man so long as he liueth here. Therefore in another place he bringeth in the Apostle himselfe, saying,Idem de verb. Apost. ser. 5. Non implet legem infirmitas mea, sed laudat legem voluntas meae. My weaknesse fulfilleth not the law, but yet my will commendeth the law, referring it to the commaundement, Thou shalt not lust. This is the state of our Righteousnesse here, rather a desire to fulfill the law, then any perfect attainment of our desire. And thus M. Bishops answer to the first argument is indeed not worth a rush.
5. W. BISHOP.
Now to the second argument. He which knew no sinne,2. Cor. 5. was made sinne for vs, that we might be made the Righteousnesse of God, which is in him: Hence M. Perkins reasoneth thus. As Christ was made sinne for vs, so we are made the Righteousnesse of God in him: but Christ was made sinne by imputation of our sinnes, he being most holy: Therefore a sinner is made righteous, in that Christs Righteousnesse is imputed vnto him. I denie both propositions; the former, because it hath a comparison in the manner of our Iustification, with the sinne which Christ was made for vs: for in the text of the Apostle there is no signification of a similitude that Christ was so made sinne, as we are made iust. That is then M. Perkins vaine glosse, without any likelihood in the text. The other proposition is also false, for Christ was not made sinne by imputation, for sinne in that place is taken figuratiuely, and signifieth according to the exposition of ancient Fathers, An host or Sacrifice for sinne: Which Christ was truly made: his bodie being sacrificed on the Crosse for the discharge [Page 400] of sinne, and not by imputation.
How these words of the Apostle, Iustice of God, are to be vnderstood, see S. Augustine.Tract. 26. in Ioh. Jtem Epist. 120. ad Honorat. cap. 30. Item in Psa. 30. Conc. 1. De spirit. & lit. c. 9. One place I will cite for all: The iustice of God (saith he) through the faith of Christ Iesus, that is by faith wherewith we beleeue in Christ: for as that faith is called Christs, not by which Christ beleeues, so that Iustice is called Gods, not whereby God is iust, both of them, faith and iustice be ours, but therefore they are tearmed Gods, and Christs, because through their liberalitie they are giuen to vs. Which interpretation may be confirmed out of that place of S. Chrysostome, which M. Perkins citeth, saying: It is called Gods Iustice, because it is not of workes, but of his free gift. So that it is not that which is in God himselfe, but such as he bestoweth vpon vs, and that iustice of it selfe is pure, and wanteth no vertue to worke that for which it is giuen, to wit, to make a man righteous. S. Anselme a right vertuous and learned Catholike Arch-bishop of ours shall be answered, when the place is quoted.
R. ABBOT.
The words of the Apostle are plaine; yet M. Bishop denieth that there is any signification of a similitude that Christ vvas so made sinne as vve are made iust. M. Perkins, to approue that there is a similitude, alledged the exposition of Anselmus: Anselm. in 2. Cor. cap. 5. Ille peccatum vt nos iustitia, non nostra, sed Dei, non in nobis sed in illo, sicut ille peccatum, non suū, sed nostrum, nec in se, sed in nobis. He vvas made sinne that we might be made Righteousnesse, not our owne but Gods, not in our selues but in him, as he was made sinne not his owne, but ours, not in himselfe but in vs. M. Bishop answereth, that Anselme shall be answered when the place is quoted. He was loth of his labor to search for it, being left vnquoted by M. Perkins, because he saw that all his wit could not deuise what to say against it. But when he will answer, he must not answer Anselme only, but Austin also from whom Anselme borrowed that exposition, as he vsed to doe verie much.August. Enchirid. cap. 41. Ipse ergò peccatum vt nos iustitia, nec nostra sed Dei simus, nec in nobis sed in ipso, sicut ipse peccatum non suum sed nostrum nec in se sed in nobis constitutum similitudine cat [...]is peccati in qua crucifixus erat demonstrauit. He then was made sinne, saith Austin, that we might be made Righteousnesse, not our owne but Gods, nor in our selues but in him, euen as he by the similitude of sinfull flesh vvherein he vvas crucified, did shew foorth sinne, not his owne sinne but ours, not being in him, but in vs. In which words we see it plainely affirmed, which M. Bishop denieth, that the Apostle in those words did intend a comparison betwixt Christs being made sinne, and our being made Righteousnesse, that as Christ not being a sinner, yet was reputed as a [Page 401] sinner for our sakes, and for the sinne that is in vs, so we not being in our selues iust and righteous, yet are reputed iust and righteous for his sake, and for the Righteousnesse that is in him. To this purpose the exposition of Hierome was also brought in, and the place quoted. He omitted to answer to Anselme, because the place was not quoted; but why did he ouerpasse the other place cited directly to the point, but because he intendeth nothing but treacherie and falshood, and wilfully shutteth his eyes against apparent truth? The words of Hierome are as cleare as the sunne:Hieron. in 2. Cor. cap. 5. Christus pro peccatis nostris oblatus peccati nomen accepit, vt nos efficerem [...]r iustitia Dei in ipso, non nostra, nec in nobis. Christ being offered for our sinnes, tooke the name of sinne, that vve might be made the Righteousnesse of God in him, not ours, nor in vs. Where it is euident, that the Righteousnesse whereby we are iustified before God, is not any Righteousnesse that is in vs, but it is the Righteousnesse of Christ imputed vnto vs, euen as our sinne was imputed vnto him. Now then it should seeme that it was not M. Perkins his vaine glosse to make this comparison, but it was some likelihood thereof in the text, that made all these to conceiue thereof as M. Perkins did. As touching the other proposition, But Christ was made sinne by imputation of our sinnes, he saith that it also is false, and denieth that Christ vvas made sinne by imputation. But how then, if not by imputation? Forsooth by being made a sacrifice for sinne. But how was he made a sacrifice for sinne, if not by hauing sinne imputed vnto him. The ancient writers well obserued in the description of the sacrifices of Moses law, that the sacrifice for sinne was sometimes called by the name of sinne. As where Moses saith,Leuit. 4.29, He shall lay his hand vpon the head of the sinne, that is, of the sinne offering; and he shall slay the sinne, that is, the sacrifice for sinne. Now because they found the name of sinne to be thus giuen to the sacrifice for sinne, therefore where it is sayd of Christ that he was made sinne for vs, they tooke the meaning to be this, that he was made a sacrifice for sinne. Which being admitted helpeth M. Bishop nothing, because there is yet question to be made, why the sacrifice for sinne should it selfe be called by the name of sinne? Surely it could be for no other cause, but because the sinne of the man for whom it was offered, was imputed to the dumbe beast in figure of Christ, and it was to die as if it had committed the sinne. Therfore the man that had sinned was appointedLeuit. 1.4. to lay his hand vpon the head of his offering, as it were there to [Page 402] lay his sinne. So saith Theodoret, Theod in Leuit quaest. 1. Qui victimam offerebat, imponebat super caput eius manus tanquam suas ipsius operationes pro quibus hostiam offerebat. He that brought the sacrifice layed his hands vpon the head thereof, as to lay vpon it his owne workes for which he offered the sacrifice. Thus doth God himselfe expresse the meaning of that ceremonie:Leui [...]. 16.21. Aaron shall put his hands vpon the head of the Goate, and confesse ouer him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their trespasses in all their sinnes, putting them vpon the head of the goate: so the goate shall beare vpon him all their iniquities. Sith Christ then was made a sacrifice for sinne, it followeth that the sinne of them for whom he was sacrificed, was layed vpon him, and imputed to him. Therefore Origen to apply that figure saith, thatOrigen. in Leuit. lib 1 Peccata generis humans imposuit super corpus suū. Christ layed the sinnes of mankind vpon his owne bodie. And thus the Scripture teacheth vs:Esa. 53.6 All we like sheepe haue gone astray, &c. and the Lord hath layed vpon him the iniquities of vs all. 1. Pet. 2.24. He hath borne our sinnes in his bodie vpon the tree. Thus Hierome bringeth in our Sauiour Christ, saying,Hieron. in Psal. 87. Ir [...]m & protellam furoru tui qu [...] in gentibus eff [...]surus eras super me induxisti qui peccata corum suscepi Thou hast brought vpon me that wrath and storme of thy furie, which thou wast to power forth vpon the nations, because I haue taken vpon me their sinnes. How are our sinnes layed vpon Christ, how did he beare them, how hath he taken them vpon him, but by hauing the same imputed vnto him? Therefore Saint Austin saith:August. in Psal. 22. Delicta nostra sua delicta fecit, vt iustitiam suam nost [...]an [...] iustitiam faceret. He made our sinnes his sinnes, that he might make his Righteousnesse our Righteousnesse. God made him sinne, that is saith Elias Cretensis, Elias Cretens. in Gregor. Nazianzen. Orat. 5. He suffered him to die as a sinner because of our sinne. But Chrysostome goeth yet further, not onelyChrysost. in 2. Cor. hom. 11. he made him sinne, that is, he suffered him to be condemned as a sinner, but alsoIbid. Iustum fecit peccatorem vt peccatores faceret iustos. he made the iust a sinner, saith he, that he might make sinners iust. All which speeches can no otherwise be made good, but by graunting the imputation of our sinnes to be layed vpon Iesus Christ, especially the last, which seemeth verie hardly spoken, but yet the Fathers doubt not thus to speake to signifie this imputation, as shall appeare further hereafter in the eleuenth Section. Now as touching that which he citeth out of Saint Austine to declare what Saint Paul meaneth by the iustice or Righteousnesse of God, there is nothing in that exposition that maketh against vs. For we also say, that the iustice of God is meant, not that whereby God himselfe is iust, but whereby he iustifieth vs. For Christ needed not for himselfe to be made vnder the lavv, so to performe the Righteousnesse thereof for his owne Iustification before God, being otherwise [Page 403] simply and absolutely iust; but what he did, he did it for our sakes, that we thereby through faith in him should be iustified in Gods sight. And this iustice or righteousnesse we acknowledge to be giuen vnto vs by Gods free liberality and bounty, euen as Christ himselfe is giuen vnto vs, and therefore are we said therein,Rom. 5.17. to receiue the abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousnesse. Which cannot be vnderstood of inherent iustice, because we do not yet receiue the abundance of that gift, but onlyCap. 8.23. the first fruits, it being such, as that S. Austine saith thereof so long as we liue here, thatAugust. de ciuit. Dei, li. 19. ca. 27. Jpsa iustitia nostra tanta est in hac vita, vt potius remissione peccatorum constet quàm perfectione virtutum. it rather consisteth in forgiuenesse of sinnes then in perfection of vertues. Which being so, albeit his exposition conteine nothing materiall against vs, yet we hold the same not so properly applied to the thing which he there expoundeth. For we doe not thinke that the iustice or righteousnesse of God is so called onely for that it is the gift of God, but because thereby we are iustified, thereby we are iust and righteous in the sight of God. Which because we are not by inherent iustice, as S. Austine euery where confesseth, it followeth that the righteousnesse of God must be vnderstood of another kind of righteousnesse, which is that whereof the Apostle instructeth vs, wherebyRom. 4.6. the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without works, according to the words of Dauid: Psal. 32.1. Blessed is the man whose vnrighteosnesse is forgiuen, and whose sinne is couered. Blessed is he to whom the Lord imputeth no sinne. Therefore the Greeke Scholiast expounding the righteousnesse of God to be that that is giuen of God, further sheweth what that gift is,Oecumen in Rom cap. 3. Iustitia Dei est iustificatio & absolutio seu liberatio à peccatis à quibus non potu [...] lex li [...]erare The iustice or righteousnesse of God is iustification and release, or deliuerance from sinnes, from which the law could not deliuer vs. And so Chrysostome, though he say as M. Bishop citeth, that iustification is of grace, that is, of Gods free gift, yet withall saith, thatChrysost in 2. Cor. hom. 11. De [...] est ista iustitia quando non ex operibus, quando necessarium est etiam nullam maculam inuen [...]. the righteousnesse of God is so called, because it is not of works, inasmuch as it is necessarie that there be no spot sound. Where he presupposeth that there cannot be found any righteousnesse of works, but such as is spotted and defiled, and therefore importeth that the righteousnesse of God which must be without spot, can by no meanes be vnderstood of the righteousnesse of works. Neither doth it helpe M. Bishop any whit, that inherent righteousnesse is pure of it selfe as it is the gift of God, because though it be pure of it selfe and in the worke of God, yet it is soiled in the puddles of our corruption, and receiueth a blemish by our crooked and vntoward [Page 404] vsing of it, and is neither giuen to that end, nor is sufficient to yeeld vs iustification in the sight of God. Hitherto therefore the argument standeth good: As Christ was made sinne, so we are made righteousnesse. Christ was made sinne by imputation of our sinne. We are therefore made righteous by the imputation of his righteousnesse.
6. W. BISHOP.
Rom. 5.M. Perkins third reason. As by one mans disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one, shall many be made righteous: mark here a comparison betweene the first and second Adam, hence I reason thus; As by the obedience of Adam men were made sinners, so by the obedience of Christ, are they made righteous: but men are made sinners by imputation of Adams sinne vnto them, and not onely by propagation of naturall corruption, ergo: by imputation of Christs iustice we are made righteous.
Answer. The comparison I allow, because it is the Apostles, and denie that men are made sinners by imputation of Adams fault; and say, that euery one descended of Adam by naturall propagation, hath his own personall iniquity sticking in them, which is commonly called Originall sinne, and an high point of Pelagianisme is it, to denie it. For albeit we did not tast of the forbidden fruit in proper person, yet receiue we the nature of man, polluted with that infection really, and not by imputation. And so the comparison serues not at all M. Perkins turne, but beareth very strongly against him, it being thus framed: As by Adams disobedience many were made sinners, euen so by Christs obedience many shall be iustified: This is his Maior. Now to the Minor. But by Adams disobedience they were made sinners, by drawing from him, euery one his owne proper inherent iniquity, in like manner we are iustified by Christ, not by imputation of his iustice, but by our inherent iustice, which is powred into our soules, when we are in Baptisme borne a new in him. See what penurie of poore arguments they haue, that to make some shew of store, are forced to propound such as make manifestly against them.
R. ABBOT.
This argument Maister Bishop could no way auoid, but by shewing [Page 405] himselfe either impudently wilfull, or absurdly ignorant: and surely if his knowledge be no better then be here expresseth, he hath ill bestowed those thrice seuen yeeres that he hath before spoken of, in the studie of Diuinitie, and were best to set himselfe to schoole againe. The case is very cleare, that if we be sinners by the imputation of Adams sinne, then are we also righteous by the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ. Therefore he denieth that we are made sinners by the imputation of Adams sinne. Yea, but M. Bishop, you should then haue told vs how it is true, that the Apostle saith, thatRom. 5.19. by Adams disobedience we are made sinners. For how should we be sinners by his disobedience, but for that his disobedience is imputed vnto vs? Bellarmine saith, and he therein saith truly, thatBellarm. de Amiss. grat. & statu peccati. lib. 4. ca. 10. Peccat [...] Adami ita posteris omnibus imputatur, acsi omnes idem peccatū patrauiss [...]nt. Adams sinne is imputed to all his posteritie, as if all had committed the same. He alledgeth to that purpose Saint Bernard, saying, thatBernard. Domin. prima post Epiphan. ser. 1. Nostra est culpa & nobis iusto Dei iudicio imputabatur licet occulto. Adams sinne is our sinne, and by the iust though secret iudgement of God, is imputed vnto vs. He saith againe in another place, thatBellar. ibid. lib. 5. ca. 17. Communicatur per imputationem. Omnibus enim imputatur qui ex Adamo nascuntur. Adams sinne is communicated vnto vs by imputation; that it is imputed to all that are borne of Adam, and calleth it the imputation of Adams disobedience. If Adam then by disobedience were holden a sinner, and his disobedience is imputed vnto vs, as if we our selues had disobeied, it must needes follow, that by the imputation of the same disobedience, we also are sinners as well as he. Therefore doth the Apostle say, thatRom. 5.12. in him, that is in Adam, all haue sinned. If in Adam all haue sinned, then in Adam all are sinners, in Adam all are guiltie of sinne. To which purpose Saint Bernard saith,Bernard. de aduent. Dom. ser. 1. In Adam omnes peccauimus, & in eo sententiam damnationis accepimus omnes. In Adam we haue all sinned, and in him we haue all receiued the sentence of damnation. So Saint Austine also saith, thatAugust. de Trint. lib. 13. ca. 12. Parentum priorum debito vniuersos posteros obligante. the debt (or trespasse) of our first parents, did binde all their posteritie after them. Adam then bare the person of all mankinde, either standing to stand for all, or falling to fall for all, being to beget children according to his owne image, either wherein he should continue if he did continue, or whereto he should fall if he did fall. ThereforeIbid. vt supra. when he sinned, we all being in his loines, as Bellarmine saith, sinned in him and by him, and his sin by imputation lieth vpon vs all. But saith M. Bishop, euery one descended of Adam by natural propagation, hath his own personal iniquity sticking in him, which is commonly called Originall sinne. In which words he somewhat toucheth the reputation of his scholership, in that he hath not learned [Page 406] to put difference betwixt personall and Originall sinne, which writers commonly distinguish one from another. For personall sinne is that which groweth from the person whose sinne it is, and is taken to be that which we call actuall sinne; but originall sinne is that, which being actuall and personall to the first man, is deriued by propagation, and thereby becommeth naturall to all the rest. Thus Cyprian mentioneth them as diuers, when speaking of the Patriarches and Prophets, and other iust and holy men, he saithCyprian. de ieiunio & tentat. Christi. Nec originals nec personali caruere delicto. they neither wanted originall nor personall sinne. So Bellarmine M. Bishops good Maister seuereth them, in saying, thatBellarm. vt supra. Originale peccatum nō minus verè & propriè peccatū est quàm personale. In Adamo actuale & personale, in nobis originale dicitur. Originall sinne is no lesse truly and properly sinne then personall, and that Adams sinne in him is called actuall and personall, but in vs originall. It is wonder that so great a man as M. Bishop should be ignorant in this point. But now what will he make of this originall sinne? Marry, saith he, we receiue the nature of man polluted with that infection really, and not by imputation. Indeede we receiue the nature of man polluted with infection, but doth your learning serue you no better, but to make infection the whole matter of originall sinne? You should know, that originall sinne conteinethBellarm. de Amiss▪ grat. & statu peccati. lib. 4. cap. 10. reatum & maculam, first a guilt of actuall transgression, and consequently a blot of infection. For of this infection or pollution of nature S. Austine in infinite places doth rightly obserue, that it isAugust. Retract. li. [...]. ca. 15. Peccatum tale vt idem sit & paena peccati. so a sinne, as that it is also a punishment of sinne. Now a punishment presupposeth a guilt of that sinne whereof it is a punishment. For Idem cont. Iulian. lib. 2. Non erat iustum sine crimine transire supplicium it is no iustice, as Austine saith, that the punishment should passe without the sinne. Seeing therefore the punishment of the sinne of Adam is lying vpon vs, it must necessarily follow, that there is lying vpon vs an imputation of the sinne. And so the same S. Austine saith, thatIdem. Retract. li. 1. cap. 15. Dicimus eos reatu eius implicatos & ob hoc poenae [...]bnoxi [...] denneri. we are holden enwrapped in the guilt therof, and thereby are holden subiect to the punishment. M. Bishop thē we hope wil learn henceforth to see that it ariseth of imputation, that we receiue the nature of man polluted really with infection. But by this meanes he is now become in a pitifull case, hauing no way left to auoid the argument, but that it standeth firme and sure, that as from Adam we are first sinners by imputation, and consequently sinfull by corruption, so from Christ we are first iustified by imputation, & consequently renewed to inherent iustice by sanctification. In moment of time both these concurre together, but in order of nature there is first righteousnesse by imputation, and thereby is way made to inward regeneration. [Page 407] At this argument they are all faine to hoodwinke themselues, because they cannot truly describe the state of originall sinne according to their owne grounds, but they giue it way ineuitably to proceede against them. They will haue it, as M. Bishop here telleth vs out ofBellarm de grat. & lib. arb. li. 1. ca. 4. Bellarmine, that the Apostles meaning is, that we are made sinners by inherent corruption. But we tell them, and they can by no meanes auoid it, that the condition of being sinners by inherent corruption, because it is a punishment of sinne; must presuppose vs to be formerly sinners otherwise, and that is onely by imputation. As therefore we are first sinners by imputation from Adam, so are we first iustified by imputation from Christ, regeneration to inherent righteousnesse following of the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ, euen as inherent corruption followeth of the imputation of Adams sinne, as before was said. And hereof S. Bernard speaketh most notably:Bernard. epist. 190. Cur no aliundè iustitiae cùm aliuna è reatus? Alius qui peccatorem constituit, alius qui iustificat a peccato: alter in semine, alter in sanguine. An peccatum in semine peccatoris & non iustitia in Christi sanguine? sed iustitia, inquiet, si cuius est quid ad te? Esto, sed sit etiam culpa cuius est; quid ad me? An iust [...]tia iusti super eum erit, & impietas impij no erit super eū? Non conueni [...] filium portare iniquitatem patris & fraterna fieri exortem iustitiae. Why should not righteousnesse be of another, seeing guilt is of another? It is another that maketh me a sinner, it is another that iustifieth from sinne: the one in his seede, the other in his bloud. Is there sinne in the seede of a sinner, and is there not righteousnesse in the bloud of Christ? But thou wilt say, If there be a righteousnesse of any ones, what is that to thee? Be it so: but then let the fault also be whose it is, what is that to me? shall the righteousnesse of the righteous be vpon himselfe, and shall not the wickednesse of the wicked be vpon himselfe. It is not meete that the sonne should beare the iniquitie of the Father, and be denied to be partaker of the righteousnesse of his brother. In which words we see that most clearely he affirmeth, both the imputation of Adams sinne to condemnation, and the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ accordingly to iustification. I will conclude this point with the words of Chrysostome: Chrysost. in Rom. hom. 10. Si tibi Iudaeus dixerit, Quo pacto vno rectè agente Christo vniuersu [...] orbis saluus factu [...] est, possit illi respondere, Quo pacto vno non obediente Adam vniuersus orbis condemnatus est? If a Iew shall say vnto thee (put case he had said, If a Papist shall say vnto thee) How is all the world saued, it being onely Christ that hath done righteously, thou maiest answer him, How was the whole world condemned, when it was onely Adam that obeied not? The matter of our condemnation then is in the one, and the matter of our saluation in the other, corruption of nature being consequently drawne by generation from the one, as a part of our condemnation, and sanctification to holinesse consequently deriued by faith and regeneration from the other, as a part of our saluation. And now he may well see that our arguments be not poore, [Page 408] nor make against our selues, as he pretendeth, but his answers are such penurious and poore shifts, as that now they are once discouered, we expect from him no further maintaining of them.
7. W. BISHOP.
His fourth reason. The Papists make Christs obedience their satisfaction, but satisfaction is equall to iustice, therefore they must make it as well their iustice as satisfaction. For the Maior he citeth Bellarmin.Lib. 2. de Iustif. cap. 7. I haue read the Chapter, and finde no such words, further I say, there is a great difference betweene satisfaction for mortall sinnes, and iustification: for satisfaction cannot be done vs; for the guilt of mortall sinne is infinite, being against an infinite Maiestie, and so no creature can make full satisfaction for it: wherefore the infinite valour of Christs satisfaction is necessarily required, who hauing taken away the guilt of eternall punishment, due to sinnes, leaueth vs his grace to satisfie for the temporall paine of it, as shall be in his due place declared more at large.
Againe, a man must needes haue his sinnes pardoned, and grace giuen him, before he can make any kinde of due satisfaction, for he must be in the state of grace before he can satisfie, wherefore he must needs flie to the benefit of Christ satisfaction: There is nothing like in iustification; for first to make a man iust in Gods sight, requires no infinite perfection, but such as a meere man is very well capable of, as all must needes confesse of Adam in the state of Innocencie, and of all the blessed Soules in heauen who be iust in Gods sight. Neither is it necessarie to be infinite, for to be worthy of the ioyes of heauen, which be not infinite as they are enioyed of men or Angels, either of whom haue all things there in number, weight, and measure. Briefly, it is a most easie thing for one man to pay the debts of another, but one man cannot bestow his wisedome or iustice on another, and not credible, that God (whose iudgement is according to truth) will repute a man for iust, who is full of iniquitie: no more then a simple man will take a Black-moore for white, although he see him cloathed in a white sute of apparell.
R. ABBOT.
In true and right vnderstanding, satisfaction is fully equiualent to iustification, and that that is our satisfaction, is also our iustification [Page 409] before God. For declaration whereof, it is to be obserued, that sinne consisteth partly in commission, partly in omission: partly in doing that that we ought not to do; partly in not doing that that we ought to do. Satisfaction then for sinne must serue to acquit both the one and the other: it must take away what we haue done, and supply what we haue not done, or else it cannot be called a satisfaction. Therefore as on the one side in the euill that we haue done, we are reputed as if it neuer had bene done; so on the other side, in the good that we haue not done, we are reputed as if all had bene done. Accordingly S. Austine saith, thatAugust. Retract. l. 1. cap 19. Omnia mandata facta deputātur, quando quicquid non sit ignoscitur. all the commandements of God are reputed to be done, when that is pardoned that is not done. Our satisfaction therefore is our iustification with God, because thereby we are reputed as if we had performed all the righteousnesse of God. And so doth Bernard make them both one, when saying,Bernard. ep. 190. Assignata est ei aliena iustitia qui caruit sua. There is the righteousnesse of another assigned to him who wanted of his owne, he addeth to expresse the same,Satisfactio vnius omnibus imputatur, &c. the satisfaction of one is imputed vnto all, euen as he alone hath borne the sinnes of all. But more clearely is it euicted by the words of the Apostle, who, where Dauid pronounceth the manPsal. 32.1. blessed, to whom the Lord forgiueth his sinnes, saith, that heRom. 4.6. describeth there the blessednesse of that man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without works; giuing thereby to vnderstand, that forgiuenesse of sinnes is the imputation of righteousnesse without works. If therefore in satisfaction there be forgiuenesse of sinnes, then is there also iustification, that is, the imputation of righteousnesse without workes. Now then sith Bellarmine confesseth, that the merit and obedience of Christ is our satisfaction,Bellarm. de Iustif. lib. 2. ca. 7. Si solùm vellent nobis imputari Christi merita, quia nobis donata sunt, & possumus ea Deo patrè offerre pro peccatis nostris, quoniam Christus suscepit super s [...] onus satisfaciendi pro peccatis nostris, nos (que) Deo p [...]tri recōciliādi, recta esset eorum sententia. he must acknowledge it also to be our iustification, that is, the thing whereby, and for which we are reputed iust in the sight of God, because thereby we are reputed, as hauing perfectly fulfilled all the commandements of God. I haue read the chapter in Bellarmine, saith M. Bishop, and finde no such words. But he was drowsie belike when he read it, let him reade it better when he is well awake, and then he shall finde that Bellarmine saith, that in true meaning it may be said, that the merits of Christ are imputed vnto vs, for that they are giuen vnto vs of God, and we may offer the same to God the Father for our sinnes, in respect that Christ hath taken vpon him the burden of satisfying for our sinnes. Where what doth he but acknowledge that Christ according to the burden taken [Page 410] vpon him, hath in his merits made satisfaction for our sinnes? but in his folly like M. Bishop, because he vnderstandeth not himselfe, will not haue them imputed for our righteousnesse before God. His differences betwixt saluation and iustification are impertinent, because that iustification which he speaketh of, is not our iustification before God, as shall appeare. Briefly therefore to touch what he saith, the guilt, saith he, of mortall sinne is infinite, being against an infinite maiestie. But therefore the guilt of all sinne is infinite, neither is there any sinne but what is mortall, because all sinne is against an infinite maiestie. Therefore to all sinne the infinite valour of Christes satisfaction is required, which because it is infinite, is absurdly by M. Bishop restrained to the taking away onely of the guilt of eternall punishment; for that that is infinite admitteth no restraint. Wherefore that which he addeth of our satisfaction for temporall paines, is a meere fable; neither without nor in the state of grace can we make satisfaction to God for any sinne. Iustification he saith requires no infinite perfection, and it is true indeede as he meaneth it, but the true iustification requireth an infinite perfection and worth, to purchase vnto sinners forgiuenesse of sinnes, attonement with God, regeneration of grace and euerlasting life, which none could doe but onely the Sonne of God. And whereas he saith, that there is not any infinite perfection necessarie to be worthie of the ioyes of heauen, he wonderfully deceiueth himselfe vpon a false ground. There is no infinite perfection necessary to come to the enioying or possessing of the ioyes of heauen, but there is an infinite perfection necessarily required to be worthie thereof, because that that is finite can haue no proportion in woorth to that that is infinite, and therefore the finite perfection of man cannot be worthie of the infinite ioyes of heauen. But saith M. Bishop, the ioyes of heauen are not infinite, as they are enioyed of men or of Angels, either of whom haue all things there in number, weight, and measure. Wherein he againe mistaketh much, because the ioyes of heauen as touching time and continuance, are infinite, and come within no bounds or compasse of number or measure, in which sort the damned beare the infinite wrath of God, according to the guilt of sinne, being not thereof capable in any other sort. Which being so, it would be knowne of M. Bishop or some of his, how it should come to passe, that the perfections of men in the state of grace, [Page 411] should be of sufficient woorth to purchase the infinite ioyes of heauen, and the satisfactions of men in the state of grace, should not be of the like sufficient woorth to purchase deliuerance from the infinite paines of hell. But in this we shall hereafter haue occasion further to appose him. Here he goeth on and telleth vs, that it is a most easie thing for one man to pay the debt of another, and we willingly admit it to be true. But then what we were in debt vnto God for want of wisedome and iustice, what hindereth but that Christ our surety might pay the same? If he pay for vs what we want for our selues, then his payment acquitteth vs of all imputation of our want. And surely though a man bestow not his wisedome or iustice vpon another yet nothing is there to let, but that what one man by wisedome or iustice doth for another, the same should stand good for him for whō it is done. But we would gladly know of M. Bishop, if his holy harlot mother haue instructed him so farre, how it should stand with reason, that they by the Popes indulgences, should be made partakers of the merits and good works one of another, and that it should be against reason, that we by the ordinance of God should be partakers of the merits & righteousnesse of Iesus Christ. The Abbots of the Cistercian Friars being gratified in a request by the King of Fraunce, are said by Mathew Paris. Math. Parisan Henrico. 3. anno 1244. Sp [...]ciale suorum bonorum operum ei participium concesserunt. to haue graunted vnto him the speciall participation of their good works. The Friars here in England made men beleeue, that theyOut of the copy of a pardon graunted by the Carmelite Friars in London. anno 1527. gaue them participation of all the masses, praiers, fastings, watchings, preachings, abstinences, indulgences, labours, and all good works that were done by the brethren of their order here in England. With what face doe these wretches deny, that to the righteousnesse and merit of the Sonne of God, which thus blasphemously and lewdly they attribute to the blinde deuotions, and imagined righteousnesse of sinfull and wicked men? Yea, but saith M. Bishop, it is not credible that God whose iudgement is according to truth, will repute a man for iust who is full of iniquity, no more thē a simple man wil take a Black-moore for white, although he see him in a white suit of apparel. And indeed it is not credible, that God will repute him to be inherently iust, whō he hath taught to acknowledge himselfe a sinner, but credible it is & true, that God doth accept as iust for Christes sake, & by forgiuenes of sins impute righteousnes vnto him, whō he seeth in himself to be vnrighteous.August. in Ioan. tract. 3. Omnes qui per Christum iustificati, iusti, non in se sed in illo Si in se interroges, Adam sunt: in illo si interroges, Christi suus. All that are iustified by Christ, saith Austin, are iust, not in themselues but in him. [Page 412] If a man aske of them in themselues, they are Adam: if in him, they are Christs. It should not then seeme so strange to M. Bishop, that men, though being vniust in themselues, yet by faith should be reputed iust and righteous in Christ. And surely S. Bernard painely sayth,Bernar. in Cāt. fer. 61. Et in me quidē operit (iustitia tua) multitudinem peccatorum; n te autem quid nisi pietatis thesauros diuitias bo [...]itat [...]? Thy righteousnes couereth in me a multitude of sins, but in thee ô Lord, what but the treasures of pietie, the riches of goodnes? Thus he is cōtent to acknowledge himselfe a blacke-moore, blacke in himselfe, but clothed with the white sute of Iesus Christ. So doth the Church the spouse of Christ say of her selfe,Cant. 1.4. I am blacke, O daughters of Ierusalem, but comely, that is, saith Theodoret, Theod in Cāt. Ego sum Aethiopissa. I am a Blacke-moore, not onely for that she hath bene, but also for that she still in part is:Ambros. de ijs qui [...]nit. myster. cap. 7. Nigra per fragilitatem conditionis humanae, decora per gratiam: nigra, quia ex peccatoribus, decora fidei sacramento blacke (saith Ambrose) by frailtie of humane condition, comely by grace; blacke because she is of sinners, comely by the sacrament of faith: Iustus in Cant. num. 8. Nigra co [...]fessione peccatorum; formosa gratia sacramenti. blacke (saith Iustus) by confession of sinnes, comely by the grace of the sacrament. This is the beautie of the Church for the time, not her being without sinne, but remission and forgiuenesse of sinnes, testified by the sacraments of Christ, being pledges of the redemption that she hath obtained in him. And hereof Bernard well sayth, thatBernar. in Cāt. ser. 25 P [...]test spō sa cum pulchritudine vtique compositionis naeuo no [...] carere nigredinis, sed sanè in loco peregrinatiocus suae. Alioqum erit eùm eam sibi in patria exhibebit sponsus gloriae gloriosam, non habentē maculā aut rugam, aut aliquid huiusmodi. At verò nunc si d [...]c [...]ret quia nig [...]dinem non haberet, seipsā seduceret, &c. in the place of her pilgrimage, with the comelinesse of her feature, she wanteth not her mole or spot of blacknesse. It shall be otherwise in her countrey (saith he) when the bridegroome of glorie shall make her to himselfe a glorious Church, not hauing spot or wrinkle, or any such thing. But now if she should say she hath no blacknesse, she should deceiue her selfe, and there were no truth in her. And yet we see, that euen now the bridegroome speaking to her, saith,Cant. 1.7. O thou fairest among women: Cap. 4 1. Behold thou art faire my loue, behold thou art faire. She isEzech. 16.14. faire by his beautie which he hath set vpon her, but remaineth yet still a Blacke-moore by that that she hath remaining of her selfe. Therefore he saith, O thou fairest, but yet addeth, amongst women. S. Bernard telleth the meaning,Ber [...]ar. in Cāt. ser 38 Ego te dico pulchram, sed inter mulieres, id est, ex parte. I call thee faire▪ but amongst women, that is, in part or partly faire, thereby giuing againe to vnderstand, that partly she continueth a Blacke-moore still. And what? doth M. Bishop thinke it amisse to confesse so much of himselfe? doth he take it in scorne to be likened to a Blacke-moore? Let him be well assured, that if he thinke scorne to confesse himselfe a Black-moore, he shall neuer be any of them that shall be clothed in white. Nay, because being a Blacke-moore, and very blacke, he setteth nought by the white garment of Iesus Christ, let him know [Page 413] that his shame and nakednesse lieth open, and his filthinesse continueth lothsome and hatefull in the sight of God. As for his exaggeration, I omit it, because it is but the running ouer of his vncleane mouth, which ceaseth not to crie, full of iniquitie, full of iniquitie, of him whom Christ hath begunne to purge from iniquitie, and framed in conuersation to depart from iniquitie, as we professe of euery one that is iustified by faith in him.
8. W. BISHOP.
M. Perkins last reason is taken from the consent of the auncient Church, and yet citeth (sauing one two lines) nothing out of any auncient writer, nor out of any other, but out of onely S. Bernard, who liued 1000. yeares after Christ, so that he signifieth that there is little releefe to be had in antiquity. Which Caluin declareth more plainly, for he commonly setting light by all other in this question, reiecteth also S. Augustine saying: Lib. 3. Instit. cap. 11. num. 15. Ye [...] not the sentence of Augustine himselfe is to be receiued in this matter, who attributeth our sanctification to grace, wherewith we are regenerate in newnesse of life by the spirit. And Kemnitius in the first part of his examination of the Councel of Trent saith, We contend not how the Fathers take iustification. And a little after: I am not ignorant that they spake otherwise then we do of it. Therefore M. Perkins had reason to content himselfe with some few broken sentences of later writers. But was S. Bernard (trow you) in this one point a Protestant? Nothing lesse. His words be these: The iustice of another is assigned vnto man, who wanted his owne:Epist. 190. man was indebted, and man made paiment, &c. But better let his owne reason there cited, serue for exposition of his former words: which is this: For why may not iustice be from another, as well as guiltinesse is from another? Now guiltinesse from Adam is not by imputation, but euery one contracts his owne, by taking flesh from him; euen so iustice is from Christ powred into euery man that is borne againe of water and the holy Ghost. In the second place he saith, That mans iustice is the mercifulnesse of God: that is, by Gods free grace and mercie it is bestowed vpon vs. With S. Bernard in the third place we acknowledge, that we haue no iustice of our owne, that is from our selues, but from the goodnesse of God, through the merits of our blessed Sauiors passion; reade his first sermon vpō these words of the Prophet Isay: Vidi Dominū, &c.Ser. 1. Super Isaiam. [Page 414] There you shall see him speake plainly of inherent iustice, and how it is a distinct thing from the iustice of Christ. Another broken peece of a sentence, In Psal. 22. there is cited out of S. Augustine: Christ made his iustice our iustice. That is, by his iustice, he hath merited iustice for vs, as he expoundeth himselfe. Tract. 27. in Ioan. What is this, the iustice of God, and the iustice of man? The iustice of God is here called that, not whereby God is iust, but that which God giueth to man, that man may be iust through God.
R. ABBOT.
S. Bernard may be sufficient to testifie vnto vs the doctrine and consent of the auncient Church, vnlesse M. Bishop can charge him to haue departed therefrom, which because he dares not do, least haply he should make an heretike of him, whom his holy Father hath made a Saint, he must needes yeeld, that antiquitie hath acknowledged the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ, because S. Bernard hauing so learned of antiquitie, hath giuen expresse testimonie and witnesse of it. Yea, but Maister Bishop telleth vs, that Caluin plainly declareth, that for this there is li [...]le reliefe to be had in antiquitie, who commonly setting light by all the rest, in this question reiecteth also Saint Austine. Now he citeth certaine words of Caluin very lewdly falsified, and wrested from the purpose to which they were spoken. The thing that Caluin there speaketh of, is the signification of the name of grace. He taxeth the Maister of the Sentences for his misconstruction of it, who, he saith, though taking vpon him to follow Austine, yet varied from him, both obscuring and corrupting him. But the schoolemen that came after, he condemneth much more, for that they neuer gaue ouer, till they were growne in a maner to Pelagianisme. Hereupon he addeth,Caluin. Instit. lib. 3. ca. 11. sect. 15. Ac ne Augustins quidem sententia vel saltem loquendi ratio per omnia recipienda est. Tametsi enim egregiè hominē omni iustitiae laude spoliet ac totam Dei gratiae transcribit, gratiam tamen ad sanctificationem refert, qua in vitae nouitatem per spir [...]tum regeneramur. And indeed the sentence of Austine, or at leastwise his manner of speaking, is not in all respects to be receiued. For although he do notably bereaue man of all commendation of righteousnesse, and do ascribe it wholy to the grace of God, yet he referreth grace to sanctification, whereby through the spirit we are borne againe to newnesse of life. Compare these words gentle Reader with those that M. Bishop hath cited, & consider whether thou maiest dare hereafter to trust him vpō his word. Caluin noteth Austine, only for some vnproper vnderstanding, or vsing of the name of grace, as meaning thereby the grace of [Page 415] sanctification, as the Scripture by grace meaneth the free mercy of God, accepting vs freely in Christ by the forgiuenesse of our sinnes, and this M. Bishop citeth, as if Caluin had affirmed, that Austines opiniō had ben wholy against him, as touching iustification by the righteousnesse of Christ. In like sort he abuseth Chemnicius, whose words in the former place are these,Chemn. Exam. Co [...]cil. Triden. de iustific. Patribus l [...]cet verbum (iustificare) accipiāt pro renouatione qua efficiuntur in nobis per spiritū opera iustitiae, non mouemus litem, vbi iuxta scripturam rectè & commodè tradunt doctrinam quemodo et quare persona Deo reconcilietur, &c We contend not against the Fathers, albeit they commonly take the word (iustifying) for that renew [...]g whereby the works of righteousnesse are wrought in vs, whereas according to the Scripture, they rightly and conueniently deliuer the doctrine, how and for what a man is reconciled vnto God, receiueth remission of sinnes, and adoption, and is accepted vnto euerlasting life. In the other place he saith,Patres quidem verbū iustificare in hac significatione saepe vsurpare non ignoro, sed de proprietate linguarum quaestio est. I am not ignorant that the Fathers do often vse the word (iustifie) in this signification, (namely to make inherently iust) but the question is of the propriety of tongues. He confesseth that the Fathers sometimes do somewhat differ from vs, as touching the signification of the word, but rightly & truly affirmeth, that as touching the matter & point of doctrine they teach the same that we do. Surely if betwixt the Papists and vs there were no greater difference, then onely about the meaning of a word, we would not loose our time nor spend our labour friuolously and idlely to contend against them. But they abuse the Fathers mistaking of a word, to the ouerthrowing of the doctrine approoued by the Fathers. And yet the Fathers when they place iustification in the forgiuenesse of sinnes, as many times they doe, and teach that by the righteousnesse that is in vs being defectiue and vnperfect,August. de Trin. lib. 13. cap. 14. Vtique iustū est vt debitores quos tenebat liberi dimittātur, credentes in eum quem sine vllo debito occidit: hoc est quòd iustificari dicimur in sanguine Christi. Psal. 143.2. no man liuing shall be iustified in the sight of God, as they alledge out of the Psalme, they doe neither in matter of doctrine, nor meaning of the word depart from that that is maintained by vs. S. Austine saith; Iust it is that the debters (or trespassers) whom the diuell held, should be let goe free, beleeuing in him whom he slew without debt (or trespasse.) This is it that we are said to be iustified in the bloud of Christ. Jbid. cap. 16. Iustificati planè in eo quòd à peccatis omnibus liberati: liberati autem à peccatis omnibus quoniam pro nobis est Dei filius qui nullum habebat occisus. We are iustified in his bloud, in that we are freed from all sinnes, and freed from all sinnes, for that the Son of God who had no sinne was slaine for vs. So Theodoret giuing the meaning of the words of the Apostle, we are iustified freely, &c. maketh it to be this,Theodoret. in Rom. cap. 3. Sola fid [...] allata remissionem peccatorum consequimur. Bringing faith onely, we obtaine the forgiuenesse of our sins. Origen maketh these words, Thy sins are forgiuen [Page 416] thee, Origen. ad Rom. cap. 3. the pronouncing of the iustification of the woman, who with her teares washed the feet of Christ. S. Bernard saith, thatBernard. in An [...]unciat. ser. 1. Crede quia per ips [...]m tibi peccata do [...]antur. Sic enim arbitratur Apostolus g [...]atis iustificari h [...]minem per fidem. our being iustified freely by faith, which the Apostle speaketh of, consisteth in beleeuing that our sinnes are forgiuen vs. But most fitly to the purpose he saith in another place,Idem epist. 190 Vbi re ō [...]iliatio, ibi rem [...]ssio pec catorum, & quid ipsa nisi iustificatio? Where there is reconciliation, there is forgiuenesse of sinnes, and what is that but iustification? Now according to this construction of iustification, they are wont to deliuer, thatAugust. in Psa. 33. Iste est modus humanae iustitiae, vt vita mortalis quantumlibet proficiat, quia sine delicto esse non potest in hoc non delinquat, dum speratin cum in quo est remissio delictorum. Jdē de ciu. Dei. lib. 19. cap. 27. vt supra. Sect. 5. mans iustice or righteousnesse, is to hope or put trust in him [...] whom is forgiuenesse of sinnes; that our righteousnesse in this life is rather forgiuenesse of sinnes, then perfection of vertues; thatIdem. cont 2. epist. Pelag. lib 3. cap. 5. Omnium piorum, &c. Spes vn [...] est quòd aduocatum habemus, &c. the onely hope of all the godly groning vnder this burden of corruptible flesh in the infirmitie of this life, is this, that we haue an aduocate with the Father Iesus Christ the iust, and he is the propitiation for our sinnes, as S. Austine speaketh: thatHieron. adu. Pelag. lib. 1 Tunc iusti sumus quā do nos peccatores fatemur & iustitia nostra non ex proprio merito sed ex Dei consistit misericordia. then we are iust when we confesse our selues sinners, and our righteousnesse consisteth not of our merit, but of the mercie of God, as Hierome saith: thatAmbros. de Jacob. &c. Non gloriabor quia iustus sum, sed gloriabor quia redemptus sum. Gloriabor non quia vacuus peccati sum▪ sed quia mihi remissa sunt peccata. Non gloriabor quia profui aut quia profuit mihi quisquam, sed quia pro me aduocatus apud patrem Christus est, sed quia pro me Christi sanguis effusus est. we are not to reioyce that we are iust, but that we are redeemed; not that we are without sinne, but that our sinnes are forgiuen vs; not in the good that we haue done, or that any other man hath done for vs, but that Christ is our aduocate with the Father, that the bloud of Christ was shed for vs, as Ambrose saith; thatBernard. in Cant. ser. 22. Iustitia in absolutione peccatorum. Christ is our righteousnesse in the forgiuenesse of our sinnes, and thatIbid. ser. 23. Hominis iustitia indulgentiae Dei. Gods forgiuenesse (or pardon) is mans righteousnesse, as S. Bernard saith. Now what do we teach otherwise then all these haue taught, when we say, that we are reputed iust by the forgiuenesse of our sinnes, and that this is our iustification in the sight of God? For what are we but iust in the sight of God, when there is taken from vs the imputation of all sinne? SurelyAugust. de verb. Apost. ser. 16. Puto hoc esse dicere. Iustus sum, quod est, Peccator non sum. to be iust is the same as not to be a sinner; andIdem in Psal. 118. conc. 3. Jovia fidei pro non peccantibus habentur quibus peccata non imputantur. in the way of faith they to whom their sinnes are not imputed, are accounted not sinners. Therefore it followeth that they are accounted iust. Yea as was before alledged,Idem Retract. lib. 1. cap. 19. vt supra sect. 7. all the commandements of God are reputed to be done, when that which is not done is pardoned. But he who is reputed to haue done all the commandements of God, is reputed iust. He therefore to whom God pardoneth, [Page 417] that which he hath not done is reputed iust.Idem in Psal. 118. con. 3. Siquid à deuiante cōmittitur propter viam non imputatur, & tanquam non fuerit operatus accipitur. In the way of faith if any thing be committed by stepping out of the way, for the waies sake it is not imputed, and a man is taken as if he had not done it. Yea,Bernard. in Cant. 23. Omne quod mihi ipse non imputare decreuerit sic est quasi non fuerit. all that God hath determined not to impute, is all one as if it had neuer bene. Now he that is taken as if he had neuer done amisse, is reputed iust. Whosoeuer therefore is in the way of faith, is reputed iust. And thus much is included in the sayings of the Fathers, [...]heresoeuer they teach forgiuenesse of sinnes, who thereby to expresse our iustification learned of the Apostle himselfe, who saith, that we are iustified Rom. 3.24. through the redemption that is in Christ, and expoundeth that redemption byEphe. 1.7. Col. 1.14. forgiuenesse of sinnes, and in the not imputing of sinne, vnderstandethRom. 4.6.7.8. the imputing of righteousnesse without works, as before was said. Now forgiuenesse of sinnes is yeelded vnto vs by vertue of the merit & righteousnesse which Christ hath wrought for vs, whoRom 8.32. was giuen for vs, andTit. 2.14. gaue himselfe for vs; who wasGal. 4.5. made vnder the law to redeeme vs, and therefore isBernard. in Cant. ser. 70. Iustus pro hominibus. iust or righteous for vs; whoLuk. 22.10. shed his bloud for vs, 1. Thess. 5.10. died for vs, Act. 3.26. rose againe for vs, and whatsoeuer he hath done, hath done for vs. And if for vs the Sonne of God haueMat. 3.15. fulfilled all righteousnesse and obedience to his Father, who had no neede to vndergoe any such seruice for himselfe, should it not be strange that the same should not be reckoned and imputed vnto vs? Very iustly it is accounted ours, whatsoeuer he hath done for vs, no lesse then if we our selues had performed the same for our selues. And this is the imputation of Christes righteousnesse which we maintaine, by which our sinnes are couered and hidden, that is, pardoned and forgiuen, and we are consequently reputed iust, euen by the iustice or righteousnesse of Christ, because in the righteousnesse of Christ is the forgiuenesse of our sins. But why do they reiect imputation of righteousnesse, which, as we haue seene before, the spirit of God so expresly recommendeth vnto vs, & by the very phrase importeth that we are not righteous in our selues? Surely it wereOrigen. in Rom ca. 4 Quid videbitur gratiae iusto reputari iustitiam ad iustitiam? no matter of grace (or fauour) as Origen well noteth, that to a iust or righteous man his righteousnesse should be reputed for righteousnesse. But it is a matter of fauour and grace that God reputeth vs iust. It must therefore of necessity be by other meanes then by the righteousnesse that is in vs, which can be no other but the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ, that it may be verified of him which is written,Ierem. 23.6. This is the name whereby [Page 418] they shall call him, The Lord our righteousnesse. Thus saith Ambrose, Ambros. in Psa. 118. ser 18. Ipse iustitia est & nobis de suo dedit sui habere consorti [...]m Christ is righteousnesse, and of that that is his, he hath giuen vnto vs to haue fellowship with him: Idē de Abrah. lib. 2. cap 8. verè nos tegmine velleris sui vestiuit & in demum introducit aeternae salutis he hath indeede clothed vs with the couer of his fleece, and bringeth vs into the house of euerlasting saluation. And hereof he intimateth a comparison, whichPigh. controu. De fide & iustificatione. Pighius himselfe could not but approoue, that as Iacob receiued the blessing and inheritance in the garments and apparell of Esau his elder brother, to whom the same did properly belong, so we receiue the blessin [...] of God, and are accepted to eternall life in the garment of the righteousnesse of Christ by faith in him, whilest thereby we obtaine the forgiuenesse of our sinnes.Ambros. de Iacob &c. li. 2. cap 2. Odoratus est odorem vestimentorum. Fortasse illud est quia non operibus iust [...]ficantur sed fi [...]e: quoniam carnalis infirmitas operibus impedimento est; fidei autem claritas factorum [...]b umbrat errorem quae meretu [...] veniam delicto [...]ū. Isaac smelled the sauour of Iacobs garments (namely which Rebecca his mother had put vpon him of his brother Esaus.) Haply, saith he, it importeth this, that we are not iustified by works but by faith, because the infirmitie of flesh is a hinderance to works, but the brightnesse of faith ouershadoweth the errour of our works, as which obtaineth the forgiuenesse of our sinnes. This ouershadowing is our safety; this hiding and couering of our errours and imperfections, which disgrace and blemish all our righteousnesse and works, and what haue we to couer and hide the same, but onely the fleece of the merit of Iesus Christ? And this point Saint Bernard, as he was most abundant in spirituall meditation, so hath most clearely and diuinely set forth vnto vs, and saue that we know with whom we haue to deale, we should hold it almost incredible, that there should be that impudencie in any man, as with so wretched and beggerly answers, to goe about to shift off so plaine and manifest proofes.Bernard. epist. [...]90. vt supra. Sect. 9. There is the righteousnesse of another, saith Saint Bernard, assigned vnto him that wanted of his owne. The righteousnesse then that is assigned vnto vs, is anothers and not our owne. Yea, but let his owne reason, saith Maister Bishop, serue for exposition of his former words. Be it so, and what is that reason? Forsooth this, saith he, For why may not iustice be from another, as well as guiltinesse is from another? Indeede Saint Bernard vseth these words, but how are they fitted to Maister Bishops turne, when as it is expresly saideIbid. aliunde iustitia, aliunde reatus, righteousnesse is elsewhence or of another; guilt is elsewhence or of another? For if it be of anothers iustice that a man is iust, and of anothers guilt that he is guilty, then is there imputed righteousnesse and imputed guilt. Nay, saith he, guiltinesse is not from Adam by [Page 419] imputation, but euery one contracts his owne by taking flesh from him. Babling sophister, if euery one contract guilt from Adam by taking flesh from him, tell vs what it is whereof euerie one is guiltie? Is it not of Adams sinne,Rom. 5.12. in whom all haue sinned? To be borne in sinne is the punishment of sinne, and there can be no punishment but by former guilt, and there can be no former guilt but of the sinne of Adam. It remaineth therefore that our first guilt is by the imputation of Adams sinne, and consequently that our Iustification is by the imputation of the Righteousnesse of Christ, as on both sides hath bene alreadie more largely handled in the sixt Section. I say nothing here more, but what Austin saith as touching infants new borne,August. de v [...]r [...]. D [...]m. ser. 3 [...]. [...] nihil adhuc commis [...]runt. sed in radics perterunt. They haue committed nothing in the branch, but in the roote they are perished and lost. To the second place cited by M. Perkins, he hath somewhat to answer by meanes of M. Perkins disaduantage to himselfe:Bernard. in Cant. ser. 2 [...]. Suff [...]cit m [...]i [...] ad omnem iustitiam solum habere propiti [...]m [...]llum cui s [...]li peccaus. It sufficeth me for all Righteousnesse onely to haue him mercifull vnto me to whom onely I haue sinned. But what is the mercie here intended by S. Bernard? That appeareth by the other words,Ibid. Non peccare Dei iustitia est; h [...]minis iustitia indulgē tia Dei. Gods pardon is mans Righteousnesse. The mercie of God then that sufficeth for all Righteousnesse is in the forgiuenesse and pardon of our sinnes. But M. Perkins translating the words, mans Righteousnesse is the mercifulnesse of God, gaue M. Bishop an aduantage to say, as if Bernard had spoken of Inherent righteousnesse, that by Gods free grace and mercie it is bestowed vpon vs. But S. Bernard doth not say that mans Inherent righteousnesse by the gift of God, but Gods forgiuenesse of mans sinnes, is the Righteousnesse of man in the sight of God: and if the place had bene rightly translated, he had bene further put to his shifts for answer to it. In the third place he was quite grauelled, and knew not which way to get out, and therefore mentioneth nothing of it, least the Reader should plainely discerne him to be a liar. But I will do him the fauour to set it downe once againe.Bernard. in Cant s [...]r. 61. Ego quoque misere [...]ri [...]as Dom [...]ni in aeternum c [...]nta [...]o. Nunquid ius [...]it. as meas? Domine memor bor iustitiae tuae s [...]us. Jp [...]a est enim & mea, nempe factu [...]es tu [...] iusti [...]ia a Deo. Nunquid verendum ne non v [...]a ambo [...]us sussiciat. Non est pallium breue qu [...]d s [...]cundum prophetam non possit operire duos. Et te paritèr et me [...]p [...]rte [...] l [...]rgit [...]r l [...]ga & aetern [...] iustitia Et in [...] quidem operit multitudinem peccatorum; in te quid nisi pietatis thesauros, diuitias bonitatis? I will sing of the mercies of the Lord for euer, saith Bernard. Shall I sing of mine owne Righteousnesse? Lord, I will remember (or will make mention of) thy Righteousnesse onely: for that is mine also. For thou art made vnto me Righteousnesse of God. Am I to stand in feare least one (Righteousnesse) be not sufficient for vs both? It is not a short cloake, such as cannot couer two. This Righteousnesse being large and euerlasting, shall largely couer both thee and me. And [Page 420] in me verily it couereth a multitude of sinnes, but in thee what but the treasures of pietie, the riches of goodnesse? Now what doth Saint Bernard here intend? Marrie saith M. Bishop, that we haue no iustice of our owne, that is, from our selues, but from the goodnesse of God, through the merits of Christs passion. Yea but what is that iustice that he meaneth, that we haue from the goodnesse of God? Forsooth he telleth vs, that it is Inherent iustice, and that Saint Bernard speaketh thereof elsewhere, as a distinct thing from the iustice of Christ, What, and is that all that S. Bernard here saith? Giue ouer, M. Bishop, giue ouer for shame; striue no longer against your conscience: your owne heart told you here, that you played the part of a lewd and wilfull man. The Righteousnesse here spoken of, is but one, and onely one: it is a Righteousnesse sufficient both for Christ and vs; it couereth both Christ and vs; it couereth in vs a multitude of sinnes, and in him the riches of mercie, and is this meant of Inherent righteousnesse? Is our Inherent righteousnesse sufficient both for Christ and vs? doth it couer both Christ and vs? But why do I thus debate with a man altogether void of conscience & shame? S. Bernard expresly testifieth the one Righteousnesse of Christ, which only we are to make mention of, as being sufficient both for him and vs, couering in vs a multitude of sinnes, so as that by it we are accepted for iust in the sight of God. But to make his matter seeme the better, he referreth the Reader to the first Sermon of Bernard vpon the words of Esay, Vidi Dominum, there to see somewhat of Inherent iustice, whereas in that Sermon he hath nothing at all to that purpose, so that I should haue thought it mistaken, but that the margin and the text haue cited it both alike. And that it may appeare that he doth but gull and abuse his Reader, it is in the fifth of those verie Sermons that S. Bernard hath affirmed, thatBernard. de verb. Esa. ser. 5 Vt supra sect. 3. our Righteousnesse, if we haue any, is not pure, and is by the Prophet compared to a defiled cloth, as before was shewed, whence it followeth ineuitably, that our Inherent righteousnesse is not that whereby we stand as iust in the sight of God. The sentence of Austin was not cited broken but whole.August. in Psal. 22. Delicta nostra sua delicta fecit, vt iustitiam suam nostrā iustitiam faceret. He hath made our sinnes his sinnes, that he might make his Righteousnesse our Righteousnesse. M. Bishops honestie appeareth as it is wont to do, in leauing out that part of the sentence which should giue light to the rest; otherwise S. Austins meaning would be plaine, that as Christ hath made our sinnes his, so [Page 421] he hath made his Righteousnesse ours, which is only by imputation. As for his exposition it is altogether absurd, because Christ by meriting Inherent iustice or Righteousnesse for vs, hath not made his Righteousnesse ours, which is the thing that S. Austin affimeth, but hath giuen vs, a Righteousnesse of our owne. The exposition of the iustice of God which he citeth out of Austin, is wholy impertinent, because the Righteousnesse of Christ, of which he saith that Christ made his Righteousnesse our Righteousnesse, is the Righteousnesse which Christ wrought for vs in his owne person, not that which God worketh in vs for his sake. The sinne was wrought by vs, the Righteousnesse by him: he tooke to him our sinne, and imparted his Righteousnesse vnto vs. And this Righteousnesse imputed vnto vs, is truly sayd to be that which God giueth to man, that man may be iust through God, so that therein S. Austin howsoeuer sayth nothing that is contrarie to our defence.
9. W. BISHOP.
Now let vs come to the reasons of Catholikes, which M. Perkins calling the obiections, proposeth for them, to proue, that the iustice which God bestoweth vpon vs, is Inherent, and not imputed.
OF INHERENT IVSTICE.
FIrst obiect. As one man cannot be made wise, valiant, or continent by the wisedome, valour, or continencie of another, so one man cannot be made iust, by the iustice of another. M. Perkins answereth, That one mans iustice cannot be made anothers, no more then life or health, but Christs iustice may, who by couenant of grace is made euerie mans owne, with all his gifts.
Reply. This answer solueth not the difficultie any whit at all, for Christs wisedome, power, and other gifts are not imputed vnto vs, as it is euident. Why then is his iustice more then the rest? we confesse that in a good sence all Christs gifts are ours, that is, they were all employed to purchase our redemption, and we do daily offer them to God, that he will for his Sonnes sake more and more wash vs from our sinnes, [Page 422] and bestow his graces more plentifull vpon vs: thus are all Christs riches ours, so long as we keepe our selues members of his mysticall bodie, but this is nothing to the point which the argument touched, how one man may formally be made iust by the iustice of another, rather then wise by the wisedome of another.
R. ABBOT.
We haueSect. 6. before heard it confessed by Bellarmine, that the sinne of Adam is imputed to all his posteritie, as if euerie man had committed the same himselfe, neither can they truly describe the state of Originall sinne out of the doctrine of their owne schooles, but they must confesse so much. Now let them resolue vs, how one man may be reputed to haue sinned in the sinne of another, and we will resolue them how we may be reputed to haue wrought all Righteousnesse in the Righteousnesse of Christ. Surely as Adam did beate the person of all mankind, andAugust. de peccat mer▪ & remiss. lib. 3. cap. 7 Adhuc omnes ille vnus fuerūt. we all were that one man, as S. Austin saith, and therefore what he did was as done by all and euerie one, so did Christ beare the person of all the elect and faithfull, and was accounted as them all in one,Bernard. epist. 190 Non alter qui forefecit alter qui satisfecit, quia caput & corpus vnus est Christus. not one that made the forfeiture, and another that made the satisfaction, because one Christ is both the head and the bodie, and therefore what he did, likewise was as done by all and euerie one. M. Perkins therfore rightly said, that Christ being made ours by the couenant of grace, we one with him, and he with vs, albeit the Righteousnesse Inherent in him cannot be inherent in vs, that we thereby should be inherently iust, yet by imputation the same is deriued vnto vs, and we thereby and for his sake are accepted, as if we were inherently iust in most perfect and high degree. But saith M. Bishop, the wisedome and power of Christ, and his other gifts are not imputed vnto vs: why then his iustice more then the rest? I answer him, that that onely is imputed vnto vs which by the couenant of grace is to be imputed, which onely hath reason of imputation. Although Christ be wholy ours, that is, for vs and for our vse vnto Saluation, yet by imputation he is ours onely, in that which by way of humiliation and obedience he hath vndertaken and performed for vs. That, I say, is imputed vnto vs of Christ, which Christ is meerly and onely for vs; what he is absolutely of himselfe, it is not imputed vnto vs, albeit [Page 423] his infinite wisedome, and power, and prudence, and whatsoeuer he is of himselfe, haue concurred to the doing of that that should be imputed vnto vs, and do concurre to the effecting and maintaining of those benefits, which of that imputation are to arise vnto vs. But the wisedome and power of Christ, as they are in his humane nature a part of the image of God, and of that Righteousnesse whereby man should be wise to know, and able to do what concerneth him towards God, are imputed vnto vs as a part of his Righteousnesse, & thereby he acquitteth our ignorances and errors, our weaknesses & frailties, that the same stand not against vs in the sight of God. And thus one may be reputed wise by the wisedom of another, & iust by the iustice of another, because where any thing is in nature of dutie and debt, it is at the discretion of him to whom it is due, to accept one mans performance thereof for discharge of the other. Yea, but saith M. Bishop, this is nothing to the argument, how one man may be formally iust by the iustice of another. And I answer him, that their obiection is a formall foolerie, grounded vpon a witlesse supposall of that which no man is so witlesse as to imagine. We say that a man may be formally iust two manner of wayes. A man is one way formally iust in qualitie, another way formally iust in law. Formally iust in qualitie, is he in whom is found the perfect inward forme and qualitie of iustce and Righteousnesse without spot or staine, and thus it were absurd indeed, to say that a man may be formall iust by the iustice of another, because the inherent qualitie of one subiect cannot become the inherent qualitie of another. But in course of law and iudgement, the forme of iustice is, not to be subiect to crime or accusation, and he is formally iust, against whom no action or accusation is liable by law. Now it is true indeed that euerie one that is formally iust in qualitie, is also formally iust in law, but yet a man may be formally iust in law, who by inherent forme and qualitie is not iust. For in this sort a man becommeth iust by pardon and forgiuenesse, because pardon being obtained, the law proceedeth no further, and all imputation of the offence in law is taken away as if it had neuer bene committed. And this is the state of our iustice and Righteousnesse in the sight of God, that through the imputation of the merit and satisfaction of Iesus Christ our sinnes are forgiuen vs, and thereby no accusation is liable against vs, either as hauing [Page 424] done what we ought not to do, or not done what we ought to do, according to the words of the Apostle,Rom. 8.33. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect? If we respect inherent qualitie, there is inough to charge him with, but by forgiuenesse of sinnes the same becommeth as if it had neuer bene. In a word therefore, we are not formally iust in qualitie, if God iudge vs thereby, being stained and defiled in all the Righteousnesse that we haue; but we are formally iust in law, by the imputation of the Righteousnesse of Christ, for that thereby a satisfaction is interposed, and our sinnes are remitted and pardoned, so that there is no let but that God mercifully for his sake accepteth vs vnto euerlasting life.
10. W. BISHOP.
2. Obiect. If we be righteous, or iust by the Righteousnesse of Christ imputed vnto vs, then is euerie iust man as righteous as Christ himselfe, hauing the same iustice his, which is Christs, but that is too too absurd, Ergo: M. Perkins answer. Christs Righteousnesse is not applied vnto vs in the same measure as it is in Christ, in him it is infinite, but of it so much is applied to this or that man, as will serue for his iustification. And to helpe this answer forward, I will adde his marginall note, euen as any starre partakes the whole light of the Sunne, with the rest so far forth as the light makes it to shine.
Reply. That which is applied of Christs iustice, to this or that man, is either infinite, and then the man is as iust as Christ: for there can be no greater then infinite in the same kind. Or it is not infinit, but in a certaine measure as he seemeth to graunt, and then it is no part of Christs infinit iustice, for all the parts of an infinite thing are infinite, according vnto true Philosophie. It remaineth then that a certaine limited portion of iustice is deriued out of Christs infinit iustice, and powred into this or that man, as in his owne example, The light of euerie starre is receiued from the Sunne beames: yet is not the light in the starre the same which is in the Sunne, for one accident cannot be in two subiects so farre distant, neither is it of like vertue to lighten the skies, as it is euident: but is a farre dimmer light, somewhat like vnto that of the Sunne from whence it came. Euen so in our iustification from the Sonne of iustice Christ Iesus, certaine beames of particular iustice are [Page 425] conueyed into this or that mans soule wherby it is both lightned by faith, and inflamed by charitie: but there is exceeding difference betweene their two iustices, more then there is betweene the light of the Sunne, and the light of a starre; which Saint Augustine in expresse tearmes deliuereth, saying: Lib. 12. conf. cap. 15. How much difference there is betweene the light that doth lighten, and that which is lightened, that is, the Sunne and the starre light, so much difference is there betweene the iustice that doth iustifie, and that iustice which is made by that iustification: to wit, betweene the iustice of Christ, and that which is in euerie good Christian.
R. ABBOT.
M. Bishops learning might here haue informed him, but that his will outranne his wit, that the Righteousnesse of Christ, as he is man is not infinite, because it is the Righteousnesse of a finite creature, which is not capable of that that is infinite. True diuinitie distinguisheth the things of the manhood, from the things of the godhead, the one finite, the other infinite, thereby to vphold the integritie of two natures in the one person of Iesus Christ. Yea, and the Righteousnesse of the manhood of Christ, as I conceiue, may two wayes be considered; either absolutely as in himselfe, or respectiuely as for vs. The absolute Righteousnesse of Christ, though it be finite, yet is next to that that is infinite, being aboue all the Righteousnesse of men and Angels, in that theIoh. 3.34. spirit was giuen him without measure, and therefore his perfections were the vttermost that a creature in any sort can be capable of. But the respectiue or dispensatiue Righteousnesse of Christ, is that whereby he isBernard. in Cant. ser. 70. Iustus pro hominibus. iust for men, as S. Bernard speaketh; the righteousnesse which he performed for vs in fulfilling the law,Gal. 4.4. being made vnder the law to redeeme vs. According to this Righteousnesse therefore it is true, that by the imputation of the Righteousnesse of Christ we are as righteous as Christ, not absolutely, but as Christ was for vs in fulfilling the law. The infinite value and force of which Righteousnesse in Christ arose not from any infinitenesse of it selfe, being but the Righteousnesse of the law, which is but the description of that image of God to which man was first created, and ought to be in man, but it arose from the infinitenesse of the [Page 426] person of him by whom it was performed, being both God and man, and thereby is of that large extent to iustifie all, and to purchase euerlasting life to all that do beleeue in him. Rightly the refore doth M. Perkins say, that the Righteousnesse of Christ is not applied to euerie particular man according to the infinite value of it selfe, because that infinitenesse proceeded not of the nature of it selfe, but according to that measure whereby it appertaineth to vs, which is described in the law. Neither is his comparison of the Sunne and the starres further to be strained, but onely to shew that euerie thing that receiueth from another, receiueth according to the stint and measure of it selfe: he neuer meant that the Righteousnesse of Christ which is imputed vnto vs, is deriued to vs to be actually inherent in vs, as the light of the Sunne is deriued from it to be actually inherent in the starres. Yet we denie not, but that the beames of inherent Righteousnesse are deriued vnto vs by regeneration and new birth through the spirit of Iesus Christ, but that is not the Righteousnesse here spoken of, and M. Bishop might take occasion out of his owne words to call it a dimme light, as indeed it is more dimme and darke then that by it we can find the way to God and euerlasting life.
11. W. BISHOP.
The third reason for the Catholike partie. If men be made truly and really iust by Christs iustice, imputed vnto them, in like manner Christ should be made really vniust, by the iniquitie and sinnes of men imputed vnto him. For there is no reason to the contrarie, but one may as well be made vniust by imputation, as iust; especially considering that euill is made more easily, and more wayes then good. M. Perkins answer is, that we may say Christ was a sinner truly, not because he had sinne in him, but because our sinnes were laid on his shoulders. That reason is naught, for he is not truly a sinner, that payes the debt of sinne, which an innocent and most iust person may performe: but he that either hath sinne truly in him, or is so by imputation stroken, that the sinnes are made his owne really, and he in all cases to be dealt with all, as if he sinned himselfe: as they hold that one iustified by imputation of Christs iustice, is really in Gods sight iust, and is both loued in this life, and shall be rewarded in the next, as if he were truly iust indeed: But to auouch [Page 427] our Sauiour Christ to be so a sinner, is to say that he was auerted from God, the slaue of the diuell, and sonne of perdition, which is plaine blasphemie. That sentence out of the Prophet, Isa. 53. He was counted with sinners, is expounded by the Euangelists, that he was so taken indeed, but by a wicked Iudge, and a reprobate people. And therefore if you allow of their sentence, range your selfe with them, as one of their number. S. Chrysostome by him produced, confirmeth the same, saying, that God permitted him to be condemned as a sinner, not that he was one truly. Christ I know is called sinne by S. Paul, but by a figure, signifying that he was a sacrifice for sinne, as hath bene before declared. The same blessed Apostle when he speaketh properly, affirmeth in plaine tearmes, that Christ was tempted like vnto vs, Heb. 4. in all things excepting sinne.
R. ABBOT.
M. Perkins yeeldeth, that as we are called righteous by the Righteousnesse of Christ, so Christ might be called a sinner by our sinnes, not by hauing the blemish and corruption thereof, but onely the guilt and imputation, euen as he becommeth truly a debtor that vndertaketh anothers debt. M. Bishop saith, that an innocent and most iust person may pay the debt of sinne, and such a one do we acknowledge the Sonne of God to be, who yet being iust and innocent, might by M. Bishops owne confession, be termed (being rightly vnderstood) a sinner, because he saith that he may be called truely a sinner, who is so by imputation stroken, as that the sinnes are made his owne really, and he in all cases to be dealt with as if he had sinned himselfe. For thus was the case with Christ, who really though not inherently, took vpon him our sinnes, by vndertaking really as in our person the guilt thereof, and therefore being dealt with as if he himselfe had committed the same. Therefore doth Hierome apply these words to Christ,Hieron. in Psal. 87. Vt supra sect. 5. Thou hast brought vpon me that wrath and storme of thy furie which thou wast to poure out vpon the nations, because I haue taken vpon me their sinnes. So Hilarie saith thatHilar. in Psa. 68. Omnis in eum terror desaeuientis in nos [...]ē pestatis in cubuit. all the terrour of the tempest that raged against vs, lighted (or lay) vpon him. Therefore in right meaning to say that Christ was made a sinner in the bearing of our sinnes, is not to affirme that Christ was auerted from God, the slaue of the diuell, [Page 428] and sonne of perdition, as M. Bishop ignorantly collecteth, because these are consequents onely of inherent corruption and sinne, whereby a man is borne in sinne, according to the depraued image of him of whom he is borne, and not euerie one to whom sinne is imputed, but1. Ioh. 3.8. whosoeuer committeth sinne is of the diuell. Therefore the Fathers in that sence that here is spoken of, haue not forborne to terme Christ a sinner, in respect as he tooke vpon him the imputation of our sinnes. So saith Oecumenius, Oecumen. in Heb. cap. 9 Etenim Christus vehementer peccator erat, vt qui tot [...]s mundi peccata assumpserat, sibi (que) propria fecerat, &c. Quod enim Christus peccator fuerit, audi; Eum qui peccatum, &c. Christ was greatly a sinner, as who did take vpon him the sinnes of the whole world, and make them proper to himselfe. For that Christ was a sinner heare the Apostle, He made him sinne for vs, &c. Vpon which words of the Apostle Chrysostome also saith, not only as M. Bishop citeth, that God permitted him to be condemned as a sinner, but also as M. Perkins alledgeth, though M. Bishop vnhonestly dissembleth it,Chrysost. vt supra sect. 5. He made the iust a sinner, that he might make sinners iust. In like sort Hierome as in one place he saith, thatHier. in Psal. 21. Peccata nostra sua reputat. Christ accounteth our sinnes his sinnes, so in another place he affirmeth, thatJdem in Psal. 37. Peccatorem se profi [...]etur qui peccata nostra portauit. Christ did professe himselfe a sinner, in that he bare our sinnes. So saith also Saint Austin, August. in Psal. 37. Tanqu [...]m peccauit in infirmitate tua Christus. Modo enim peccata tua tanquam ex cre suo dicebat & ea dicebat suae. Christ after a sort sinned in thy infirmitie: he mentioned thy sinnes out of his owne mouth, and called them his sinnes. All this the Prophet Esay confirmeth when he saith,Esa. 53.12. He was counted with the transgressors, which was not onely by a wicked iudge and a reprobate people, as M. Bishop mentioneth, but in that God made him sinne, God counted him with sinners, and therefore layed vpon him the curse of sinners, in that he wasGal. 3.13. Act. 5.30. hanged on a tree, for theDeut. 21.23. curse of God is vpon him that is hanged. Therefore the Prophet in the same place saith, thatEsa. 53.6.10. the Lord did lay vpon him our iniquities; the Lord would breake him and make him subiect to infirmities, that we may vnderstand that God did not onely leaue him to the hands of men, but himselfe counted him with sinners, by the bearing of our sinnes, and therefore dealt with him himselfe accordingly, so that he had cause to cry out,Psal. 88.6. Applied to Christ by Athana [...]. De interpret. Psal. by Arnob. and Hierome in Psal. 87. Thine indignation lieth hard vpon me, and thou hast vexed me with all thy stormes; Vers. 14. Lord why abhorrest thou my soule, and hidest thy face from me; Vers. 16. Thy wrathfull displeasure goeth ouer me, and the feare of thee hath vndone me. Yet as touching the person of Christ in himselfe, we acknowledge it as farre as M. Bishop, that he wasHeb. 4.15. excepted from sinne, that he wasCap. 7.26. holy, harmelesse, vndefiled, separated from sinners: and because to apply [Page 429] vnto Christ the name of a sinner in what sort soeuer is subiect to misunderstanding and offence, we wholy forbeare the same, and as though a man by taking vpon him another mans debt be become a debtor, yet we call him not a debtor but a suretie, and do name what befalleth him to befall him by suretiship, and not by debt, so do we content our selues to say with safetie, that Christ did beare our sinnes, and suffered for our sinnes, or with the Apostle, was made sinne for vs, but the name of sinner we do not giue vnto him.
12. W. BISHOP.
4. Obiect. If a man be righteous onely by imputation, he may together be full of iniquitie, whereupon it must needs follow, that God doth take for iust and good, him that is both vniust and wicked: but that is absurd, when Gods iudgement is according to truth. Here M. Perkins yeeldeth, That when God doth impute Christs iustice vnto any man, he doth together sanctifie the partie, giuing Originall sinne a deadly wound. And yet elsewhere he sayd, That Originall sinne,Of Originall sinne. Pag. 31. which remained after iustification in the partie, did beare such sway, that it infected all the workes of the sayd partie, and made him miserable, &c. But it is good hearing of amendment, if he will abide in it: Let vs go on.
R. ABBOT.
It had bene strange if M. Bishop could haue set downe this argument without full of iniquitie, for it had not otherwise sufficiently filled his mouth. But we denie, that if a man be righteous onely by imputation (speaking as we do of perfect Righteousnesse in the sight of God) it must follow that he is still full of iniquitie as before, because Iustification in the sight of God by the imputation of Christs merits is alwayes accompanied with the sanctification of the holy Ghost, whereby the inward qualitie of the man, August. de peccat. mer. & remiss. lib. 1 cap. 27. Hominis qualitatem non totam continuò mutari, &c. though not wholy, yet in part, is altered and changed, and is thencefoorth [Page 430] further to be renewed from day to day. In part, I say, because together with this sanctification there is still a remainder of originall corruption, by the touch and staine whereof the holinesse and newnesse that is wrought in vs is defiled, and standeth in need of mercie and fauour to accept it, which made Gregorie the Bishop of Rome to say;Greg. Moral. lib. 9. cap. 11. Omnis humana iustitia iniustitia esse conuincitur si districte iudicetur. Prece ergo post iustitiā indiget, vt quae succumbere discussa poterat, sola iudicis pietate conualescat. All the righteousnesse of man is proued to be vnrighteousnesse if it be strictly iudged: therefore a man needeth prayer after Righteousnesse, that that which being sifted might quaile, by the only mercie of the iudge may stand for good. For although it be true that Originall sinne haue receiued a deadly wound, yet it followeth not thereof that it is straightwayes wholy dead. It is dead indeed,August. cont. Iulian▪ lib. 2. Mortuum est in eo reatu quo nos tenebat, &c. as touching the guilt of it, as Austine saith, but it is not yet dead as touching corruption and infection, and therefore doth indeed infect the workes of the regenerate, and by lusting and rebelling giueth him occasion to cry out with the Apostle,Rom. 7.24. Miserable man that I am, who shall deliuer me from the body of this death? This M. Perkins vniformely teacheth: he doth not here amend what he had sayd before, because in the former place there was nothing to amend, and therefore it was but M. Bishops dreame, that made him imagine a contradiction there where all things well agree and stand together.
13. W. BISHOP.
5. Obiect. Or fifth reason, is inuerted by M. Perkins, but may be rightly framed thus. Christ restored vs that iustice which we lost by Adams fall, but by him we lost Inherent iustice, Ergo By him we are restored to Inherent iustice.Rom. 5. The Maior is gathered out of Saint Paul, vvho affirmeth, that vve receiue more by Christ then vve lost by Adam:Lib. 3. cap. 20. lib. 6. de gen. 24. [...]6. 26. and is Saint Irenaeus, and Saint Augustines most expresse doctrine, vvho say, How are we sayd to be renewed, if we receiue not againe which the first man lost, &c. Immortality of the bodie we receiue not, but we receiue iustice from the which he fell through sinne.
R. ABBOT.
This obiection proueth nothing that we denie, being vnderstood according to the meaning of Austin and Irenaeus whom he alledgeth. Christ came to restore to vs that which we lost in Adam. But in Adam we lost inherent iustice. Therefore Christ came to restore the same. We affirme the same, and say that what Christ came to do, he beginneth to do and to bring to effect in euerie man that is iustified, but in no man doth he perfect it so long as we continue in this life, and therefore inherent iustice is not such in any man here, as that thereby he can be found iust in the sight of God. Now therefore whereas M. Bishop saith, that Christ restored vs that iustice which we lost by Adams fall, if he meane it as the Apostle doth when he saith, thatEphe. 2 6. God hath quickned vs together with Christ, and hath raised vs vp together, and hath made vs sit together in the heauenly places in Christ Iesus, that is,August. de bapt. cont. Donatist. lib. 1. ca. [...]. Nondum vn [...] sed in spe. not yet really, but in hope, as S. Austin speaketh, we admit the proposition to be true, and it is nothing against vs. But if his meaning be, that Christ hath really and alreadie in possession restored vnto vs what we lost in Adam, the proposition is absurdly false, and all this discourse tendeth to proue the contrarie.
14. W. BISHOP.
The sixt and last reason for Catholikes is, The iustice, of the faithfull is eternall, dureth after this life, and is crowned in heauen, but Christs imputed iustice ceaseth in the end of this life. Ergo.
M. Perkins answereth. First, that imputed Righteousnesse continueth with vs for euer, and that in heauen we shall haue no other. Secondly, that perhaps in the end of this life, inward Righteousnesse shall be perfect, and then without perhaps it shall be most perfect in heauen. So that one part of this answer ouerthroweth the other. Wherefore I need not stand vpon it, but will proceed to fortifie our partie, with some authorities, taken both forth of the holy Scriptures, and auncient Fathers: The first place I take out of these words of Saint Paul. And these things certes, were you, (Drunkerds, Couetous,1. Cor. 6. Fornicators, &c.) But you are Washed, you are Sanctified, you are [Page 432] Iustified in the name of our Lord Iesus Christ, and in the spirit of our Lord:S. Chryso. Ambr. & Theophilac. in hunc locum. Here Iustification by the best interpreters iudgement is defined, to consist in those actions of washing vs from our sinnes, and of infusion of Gods holy gifts by the holy Ghost in the name, and for the sake of Christ Iesus.
Tit. 3. The like description of our Iustification is in S. Paul. Of his mercie he hath saued vs by the lauer of regeneration, and renewing of the holy Ghost, whom he hath powred into vs abundantly, through Iesus Christ our Sauiour, that being iustified by his grace, we may be heires in hope (and not in certaintie of faith) of life euerlasting. Where the Apostle inferring that being iustified by his grace, declareth that in the words before he had described the same Iustification, to consist in our new birth of Baptisme, and the renewing of our soules, by the infusion of his heauenly gifts, which God of his mercie did bestow vpon vs for his Sonne Christs sake. Many other places I omit for breuitie sake, and will be content to cite few Fathers, because the best learned of our aduersaries do confesse that they be all against them, as I haue shewed before.
De peccat merit. & remis. cap. 15. Epist 85. lib. 12. de Trinit. cap. 7. Lib. 6. de Trinit. First, Saint Augustine saith, That this iustice of ours, (vvhich they call Righteousnesse) is the grace of Christ, regenerating vs by the holy Ghost; and is a beautie of our inward man. It is the renewing of the reasonable part of our soule. And twentie other such like, whereby he manifestly declareth, our iustice to be inherent, and not the imputed iustice of Christ. Let him suffice for the Latine Fathers. And Saint Cyril for the Greekes, who of our Iustification writeth thus. The Spirit is a heate, who as soone as he hath powred charitie into vs, and hath with the fire of it, inflamed our minds, we haue euen then obtained iustice.
R. ABBOT.
Eccles. 19.24. There is a subtiltie that is fine, saith Ecclesiasticus, but it is vnrighteous, and there is that wresteth the open and manifest law. M. Bishop is none of those that deale finely, that will cogge by art, and will lie, and yet not seeme to lie: what he doth, he will do outright, and will lie so as that euerie man may see him to be a liar, that he may not be taken for other then indeed he is. Tell vs M. Bishop, where is it, that M. Perkins saith, that in heauen we shall haue [Page 433] no other but imputed iustice or Righteousnesse? where doth he make any shew or semblance of saying so? Fie, M. Bishop, fie for shame; leaue this lying and belying of men, a good cause needeth no such meanes for the vpholding of it; they that in apparent vntruth see you thus wilfull and shamelesse, cannot but take you for a cosiner in all the rest. M. Perkins saith, that imputed Righteousnesse continueth for euer, but doth he say that in heauen there shall be no other, who plainely saith, that sanctification shall be perfect in the world to come? We shall for euer enioy eternall life, by vertue of that whereby we are first admitted vnto it, because thereby we are admitted to it to enioy it thereby for euer. But he who by his merit purchased for vs eternall life, purchased for vs also to be made meete for the enioying of it, and therefore shall then make vs vnto himselfeEphe 5.27. a glorious Church not hauing spot or wrinckle or any such thing, but1. Cor. 15.28. God shall be all in all. Whereas he maketh M. Perkins to say, that perhaps inward Righteousnesse shall be perfect in the end of this life, he againe abuseth him: for he asketh the question onely as a supposition, what if it be so, but maketh no perhaps that it is so; denying that if it were so we could be iustified thereby. The rest of this Section as touching the maine drift of it is altogether impertinent, tending to proue Inherent iustice, which we denie not, but onely the perfection thereof in this life. But whereas he seeketh to make good, that our iustification consisteth therein, he commeth much too short, and one of his proofes directly proueth the contrarie. For when the Apostle saith,1. Cor. 6.11. You are washed, you are sanctified, you are iustified, vndoubtedly he meant not by iustification and sanctification to import one and the same thing. But there is no question, but that by sanctification is meant inherent iustice. Therefore inherent iustice cannot be vnderstood in iustification. And this is apparent by those very authors whom he himselfe citeth for exposition of the place, as namely Chrysostome, saying,Chrysan 1. Cor. cap. 6. hom. 16. Abluit nosmunquid igitur hoc solùm? Minimè sed sanctificauit: neque hoc etiam▪ sed iustificauit. Atqui liberari à peccatu magnū munus est, nunc autem te etiam innumeris impleuit bonis. He washed vs; and what, did he so onely? Nay but he also sanctified vs; and not this onely, but also he iustified vs: very plainely putting difference betwixt iustification and sanctification, and expounding iustification in the next words to be this, liberari à peccatis, to be deliuered from sinnes. So doth Theophylact also expresly referre iustification to forgiuenesse of sinnes:Theoph. in 1. Cor. ca. 6. Vos ille sanctificat. Quo pacto? Iustificando inquit Cum enim prius vos abluisset & iustitia condonasset, mox & sanctimoniam contulit. When he had first washed you, and by iustification had pardoned you, forthwith also he bestowed [Page 434] sanctification. Oecumenius likewise seuereth thē as Chrysostome doth:Oecumen▪ ibid. Nec id solum verum etiam sanctificauit, neque hoc tantum sed & iustificaui [...]. He hath not onely washed you, but also sanctified you; and not that only, but also iustified you. He citeth Ambrose also, but Ambrose saith not one word, to import that Iustification should be construed of inherent iustice.Am [...]ros. ibid. Illic omnibus peccatis a [...]uitur credens, iustificatur Dei nomine, & per spiritum Dei nostri De [...] filius ad [...]ptatur. In baptisme all sinnes being done away, the beleeuer is washed, is iustified in the name of the Lord, and by the spirit of our God is adopted to be a sonne of God. Now we may see what credit is to be giuen to this gamester, who shewing his cardes in packe, telleth vs he hath wonne the game, when he hath nothing at all to helpe for the winning of it. As for the other place to Titus, That being iustified by his grace, &c. There is no argument to proue the contrarie, but that the Apostle may comprehend the whole worke of sauing vs, which he before mentioneth, vnder the name of Iustification, as the maine point whereupon dependeth all the rest. But more properly we may take it in the third place, as in the former text to the Corinthians, distinguished from the sanctification and renewing of the holy Ghost, and expressing the other speciall effect of the washing of the new birth, consisting in the forgiuenesse of our sinnes. The places of Austin and Cyrill being spoken of inherent iustice begunne in this life, not denied by vs, say nothing against vs. How trecherously and falsly he dealeth in saying, that the best learned of our side do confesse that the Fathers be all against vs, hath bene shewed before, and it shall appeare God willing throughout this whole booke, that there is no cause for them so to say.
15. W. BISHOP.
The second difference about the manner of Iustification. VVE all agree in generall, that faith concurreth to our Iustification, but differ in three points. First, how faith is to be taken. Secondly, how it worketh in our iustification. Thirdly, whether it alone doth iustifie.
Concerning the first point, Catholikes hold a iustifying faith, to be that Christian faith, by which we beleeue the articles of our Creed, and all other things reuealed by God. The Protestants auerre it to be a particular faith, whereby they apply to themselues the promises of righteousnesse, and of life euerlasting by Christ. This to be the true iustifying faith, M. Perkins saith he hath proued alreadie: he should [Page 435] haue done well, to haue noted the place, for I know not where to seeke it: but he will here adde a reason or twaine.
1 Reason. The faith whereby we liue, is the faith whereby we are iustified: but the faith whereby we liue, is a particular faith, whereby we apply Christ to our selues, as Paul saith, I liue,Gal. 2 [...]0. that is spiritually, by the faith of the Sonne of God: which faith he sheweth to be a particular faith in Christ, in the words following: Who hath loued me, and giuen himselfe for me particularly.
Answer. The Maior I admit, and deny the Minor: and say, that the proofe is not to purpose. For in the Minor he speaketh of faith, whereby we apply Christes merits vnto our selues, making them ours, in the proofe Saint Paul saith onely, that Christ died for him in particular. He makes no mention of his apprehending of Christes iustice, and making of it his owne, which are very distinct things. All Catholikes beleeue with Saint Paul, that Christ died, as for all men in generall, so for euery man in particular, yea and that his loue was so exceeding great towards mankinde, that he would willingly haue bestowed his life, for the redemption of one onely man. But hereupon it doth not follow, that euery man may lay hands vpon Christes righteousnesse, and apply it to himselfe (or else Turkes, Iewes, Heretikes, and euill Catholikes, might make very bold with him) but must first doe those things which he requires at their hands, to be made partakers of his inestimable merits: as to repent them heartily of their sinnes, to beleeue and hope in him, to be baptized, and to haue a full purpose to obserue all his commandements. Which M. Perkins also confesseth that all men haue not onely promised, Pag. 152. but also vowed in Baptisme. Now because we are not assured that we shall performe all this, therefore we may not so presumptuously apply vnto our selues, Christes righteousnesse, and life euerlasting, although we beleeue that he died for euery one of vs in particular. That which followeth, M. Perkins, hath no colour of probability: that Saint Paul in this manner of beliefe, that is, in applying to himselfe Christes merits, was an example vnto all that are saued. See the places, good Reader, 1 Tim. 1.16. Phil. 3.15. and learne to beware the bold vnskilfulnesse of sectaries. For there is not a word sounding that way, but onely how he hauing receiued mercy, was made an example of patience.
R. ABBOT.
That the act of true faith is particularly to apply, hath bene handled before in the question of the Certaintie of Saluation; but yet the place so requiring, M. Perkins thought fit here to set downe some few reasons for further proofe thereof. The first whereof is grounded vpon the words of S. Paul: Gal. 2.20. I liue by the faith of the Sonne of God, who hath loued me, and giuen himselfe for me. M. Bishops exception is, that S. Paul speaketh not of faith, wherby we apply Christes merits or iustice vnto our selues making them ours, but saith onely that Christ died for him in particular. But what? is not the death of Christ a part, yea and a principall part of the merit of Christ? With vs it is so, and M. Bishop we suppose when he is well aduised, conceiueth no otherwise. If then the Apostle speake of faith, apprehending and applying vnto vs particularly the death of Christ, he speaketh of faith, apprehending and applying vnto vs particularly the merit of Christ. And all parts of the merit of Christ, are parts also with vs of the righteousnesse of Christ. As his obedience inAmbros. in Ps. 118. ser. 8. Baptizatus pro nobis. being baptized for vs was hisMat. 3.15. righteousnesse, so hisPhil. 2.8. obedience in dying for vs, was his righteousnesse also. Therfore faith applying vnto vs particularly the death of Christ, applieth vnto vs particularly the righteousnesse of Christ. Now M. Bishop telleth vs, that all Catholikes beleeue with S. Paul, that Christ died as for all men in generall, so for euery man in particular, of his exceeding great loue towards mankind. But tell vs further M. Bishop, was that all that S. Paul meant, that Christ loued him as he loued all men; he died for him as he died for all men? Was this S. Pauls faith, Christ loued me as he loued Iudas the traitour; he died for me as he died for Simon Magus? It is written concerning Esau, Rom. 9.13. I haue hated Esau, and in him a patterne of all reprobates is set forth vnto vs; and might Esau say as well as Paul, Christ hath loued me, and giuen himselfe for me? Indeed as S. Austine saith, [...] August. ad articul. sibi falso imposit. art. 1 Quod ad magnitudinē et potentiā pretū, & quod ad vnā ▪ pertinet causam generu humani, sanguis Christi redemptio est totim mundi, &c. Redemptionis proprietas haud dubiū penes illos est de quibus princeps h [...]ius mundi missus est foras, et [...]am non membra diaboli, sed vasa sunt Christi. Cu [...]us mors non impensa est humano generi vt ad redemptionem eius etiam qui regerandi non erant pertinerent, &c. as touching the greatnesse and sufficiencie of the price, and one cōmon cause or condition of mankind, the bloud of Christ is the redemption of the whole world; but yet as he further addeth, there is a propriety of this redemption on their part from whom the Prince of this world is cast forth, and who are not now vessels of the diuell but members of Christ, neither did he bestow his death vpon mankind, that they also that were not to be regenerated, should belong to his redemption. Christ in his [Page 437] death intended a price of such extent in value and woorth, as should be of power and ablenesse to saue all, and therefore should be offered indifferently to all; but yet in loue he paied this price onely for them, to whom of loue he intended fruit and benefit thereby, in loue he gaue hisMat. 20.28. & 26.28. soule or life a redemption for many, he shed his bloud for many, Hiero. in Mat. 20. Nō dixit pro omnibus, sed pro multis id est, pro his qui credere voluerunt. not for all, saith Hierome, but for many, that is, for them that should be willing to beleeue, who areAct. 13 48. so many as are ordained vnto eternall life. If he had loued Iudas, he would haue loued him to the end, becauseIoh. 13.1. whom he loued, he loued to the end. If he had loued vniuersally all, he would haue praied for all, but now there is a world of men, of whom he saith,Cap. 17.9. I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast giuen me Ver. 6. out of the world; that we may know that there isCap. 3.16. a world which God loueth, euenAugust in 1. Ioan. tract 1. Propitiatio peccatorum totius mundi quem suo sanguine comparauit. the world which Christ hath gained by his bloud, which is,Act. 20 28. the Church of God, the same Church being reckonedProsp. de voc. Gent. lib. 1. cap 3. Populus Dei specialis quaedā [...]ensetur vniuersitas, vt de toto mundo totus mundus liberatus, & de omnibus hominibus omnes homines vide [...]ntur assumpti. a speciall kind of vniuersality, as it were a whole world redeemed or deliuered out of the whole world; and that there is a world of which Christ saith,Ioh. 8.23. I am not of the world, andCap 17.9. I pray not for the world, which therefore he cannot be vnderstood to loue. And according to this difference, the Church of Smyrna writeth, thatEuseb. hist eccl. lib. 4 cap. 15. Pro totius seruandorū mundi salute passus est. Christ suffered for the saluation of the whole world of them that are to be saued. Properly therefore to speake of the intendment of Christes death, he died not generally for all, but onely for them that were to be saued thereby. Therefore S. Austine hauing mentioned the words of the Apostle,Rom. 8 3. Who spared not his owne Sonne, but gaue him for vs all, asketh the question,Aug. in Ioan. trac. 4 [...]. Sed quibus nobi? Praescitu praedestinatis, iustificatis, glorificatis, de quibus sequitur, Quis a [...]cusabit. &c. But which vs? Euen vs, saith he, whom he hath foreknowne, predestinated, iustified, glorified, of whom it followeth, Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect? So S. Ambrose, Ambr. in Luc. ca. 7 Etsi Christus pro omnibus passus est, pro nobis tamen specialiter passus est, quia pro Ecclesia passus est. Though Christ died for all, yet specially he suffered for vs, because he suffered for his Church. For the elect then Christ hath died in peculiar and speciall wise, to giue vnto them the benefit that should arise of his death: for them onely he hath giuen himselfe in loue, with purpose to make them partakers of his loue. And in this meaning it is, that the Apostle saith, Christ hath loued me, and giuen himselfe for me, which because it is the voice of faith, it followeth that by faith we haue particular application of Christes loue towards our selues, and do beleeue, that hauing giuen himselfe for vs, and being giuen vnto vs, he is wholy ours; the merit and righteousnesse that he hath performed in giuing himselfe to liue and to die [Page 438] for vs, is ours, to the forgiuenesse of our sinnes and euerlasting life. Now then euery true beleeuing man, hath by the Gospell this boldnesse ministred vnto him, to make application to himselfe of the death of Christ, and the benefit therof; and yet it followeth not, that Turkes, Iewes, heretikes, lewd Catholikes may make bold with Christ in that behalfe, because they haue not faith whereby to conceiue this boldnesse; and we cannot but wonder, that so drunken a conclusion should proceede from him that carieth the name and reputation of a learned man. They must first, saith he, do those things which he requires at their hands, to be made partakers of his inestimable merits, as to repent heartily of their sinnes, to beleeue and hope in him. First, saith he, they must do these things, but hauing so done, may they then apply vnto themselues the merit and righteousnesse of Christ? If so, then he saith nothing against vs, who teach no faith to saluation, but according to the rule of Christ;Mar. 115. Repent and beleeue the Gospell; no remission of sinnes, but according to the like rule, thatLuk. 24.47. repentance and remission of sinnes are preached in the name of Christ; and againe,Act. 2.38. Repent and be baptized euery one of you in the name of Iesus Christ for the remission of sinnes. We say with Austine, August. in Psal 41. Nemo currit ad remissionem peccatorū n [...]si qui displicet sibi. No man runneth to the forgiuenesse of sinnes, but he that is displeasing to himselfe; and againe:Jdem. in Psal. 123 Jn eccl [...]siae corpus nemo intrat [...]isi priùs eccisus: meritur quod fuit vt sit quod non fuit. No man entreth into the body of the Church, except he be first slaine; he dieth as touching that he was, that he may be that that he was not. Now if hauing done these things, he may not yet apply vnto himselfe the righteousnesse and merit of Christ, then M. Bishop doth but trifle and mocke his Reader, in saying, fi [...]st he must do these things. And yet how doth he say that a man thus doing, is made partaker of Christes inestimable merits, if he may not apply the same vnto himselfe? Marry, saith he, we are not assured that we shall performe all this; therefore we may not so presumptuously apply vnto our selues Christes righteousnesse. But what if we know that we haue done all this, may we then apply vnto our selues Christes righteousnesse? His meaning is, that we may not; because as we haue heard, he denieth wholy the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ; and therefore doth but spend his wit in assigning the cause, why we may not apply the same to be, because we are not assured of doing the things mentioned by him. But if he be not assured of his repentance, faith, hope, &c. no maruell if he faile of all other assurance towards God; yet let him not be like the [Page 439] dogge in the manger: if he can make no vse of Christ himselfe, let him not be snarling and biting at them that doe. As for the places alledged by M. Perkins to shew that Paul is vnto vs an example of beleeuing, the former of them is plaine:Phil. 3.17. Brethren be followers of me, and looke on them that walke so as ye haue vs for an ensample. If in the faith and doctrine of Christ we be to follow Paul, then by our faith we are to beleeue of our selues as he beleeued of himselfe, and what he wrote in that behalfe, we are to take it as written for our learning, not as a matter particular and peculiar to himselfe. The other place is most notable, where Paul first propoundeth it as1. Tim. 1.15. a true saying, and worthie by all meanes to be receiued, that Iesus Christ came into the world to saue sinners. He addeth, Of whom I am chiefe, that is, of which sinners whom Christ would saue I was a chiefe, I was the formost man,August. in Psal. 70 Primus non tempore, sed malignitate. not in time but in badnesse, as S. Austine expoundeth it. Notwithstanding for this cause I was receiued to mercy, saith he, that Iesus Christ should shew on me being the chiefe, all long suffering, to the ensample of them that should in time to come, beleeue in him vnto eternall life. Now how doth the place import, that Paul should be an ensample to them that beleeue in Christ, but that all that beleeue in Christ, may learne in him not to be dismaied at the greatnesse and grieuousnesse of their sinnes, whereof they haue seene the like in him, but with him to receiue that true saying, that Christ came into the world to saue sinners, and therefore resolue that he would saue them as he had saued him, that they should not feare to say euen as he could say, Christ hath loued me, and giuen himselfe for me? August. de Temp ser. 49. Talem se peccatorē consitetur fuisse vt omnis peccator propterea de se non despere [...] quia Paulus meruit indulgentiā ▪ He confesseth himselfe such a sinner, saith Austine, as that therefore no sinner may despaire of himselfe, because Paul obtained pardon. It was not therefore the vnskilfulnesse of a sectarie, but true diuinitie that made Maister Perkins to make that vse and application of the Apostles words, but it was M. Bishops absurdity, to say that the place importeth only, that Paul was made an example of patience, without expressing how or what patience he meaneth, there being no patience there spoken of, but the patience of Christ, bearing with men long in great and fearefull sinnes, and yet at length of his owne mercy, calling them to be partakers of his saluation.
16. W. BISHOP.
M. Perkins 2. Reason. That which we must aske of God in praier, that we must beleeue shall be giuen vs: but in prayer we must aske the merits of Christes righteousnesse to our selues. ergo.
Answer. Of the Maior much hath bene said before, here I admit it, all due circumstances of prayer being obserued, and denie that we must pray, that our Sauiour Christ Iesus merits may be made ours in particular, for that were greatly to abase them: but good Christians pray, that through the infinite value of those his merits, our sinnes may be forgiuen, and a iustice proportionable vnto our capacitie, may be powred into our soules, whereby we may lead a vertuous life, and make a blessed end. But it is goodly to behold, how M. Perkins proueth that we must pray, that Christs righteousnesse may be made our particular iustice, because saith he, We are taught in the Pater noster, to pray in this manner: forgiue vs our debts, and to this we must say Amen, which is as much to say, as our petition is graunted. I thinke the poore mans wits were gone a pilgrimage, when he wrote thus. Good Sir, cannot our sinnes or debts be forgiuen, without we apply Christes righteousnesse to vs in particular? we say yes. Do not then so simply begge that which is in question, nor take that for giuen, which will neuer be graunted. But a word with you by the way. Your righteous man must ouer-skip that petition of the Pater noster (forgiue vs our debts) for he is well assured, that his debts be alreadie pardoned. For at the very first instant that he had faith, he had Christes righteousnesse applied to him, and thereby assurance both of the pardon of sinnes, and of life euerlasting. Wherefore he cannot without infidelity, distrust of his former iustifica [...]ion, or pray for remission of his debts: but following the famous example of that formall Pharise, in liew of demaunding pardon, Luc. 18. may wel say, O God I giue thee thanks, that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, vniust, aduouterers, as also these Papists: Fearing the remission of my sinnes, or the certaintie of my saluation, but am well assured thereof, and of Christes owne righteousnesse to, and so forth. But to go on with M. Perkins discourse. Here we must note, that the Church of Rome cutteth off one principall duty of faith, for in faith (saith M. Perkins) are two things: first, knowledge reuealed in the word, touching the meanes of saluation: Secondly, an applying of things knowne vnto our selues, [Page 441] which some call affiance: the first they acknowledge. So then by M. Perkins owne confession, Catholikes haue true knowledge of the meanes of saluation; (then he and his fellowes erre miserable.) The second which is the substance and principall they deny.
Answer. Catholikes teach men also to haue a firme hope, and a great confidence of obtaining saluation, through the mercy of God, and merits of Christes Passion, so they performe their duty towards God, and their neighbour, or else die with true repentance. But for a man at his first conuersion, to assure himselfe by faith of Christes righteousnesse, and life euerlasting, without condition of doing those things he ought to do, that we Catholikes affirme to be, not any gift of faith, but the haynous crime of presumption, which is a sinne against the holy Ghost, not pardonable, neither in this life, nor in the world to come. See S. Tho. 22. q. 21. art. 1.
R. ABBOT.
The Maior proposition he graunteth, yet with this limitation, all due circumstances of praier being obserued. But his circumstances as he intendeth them, are but a Labyrinth to intricate and perplexe the consciences of men, and to bereaue them of all ioy and comfort of their praiers. We beleeue thatPsal. 145, 18. God is nigh vnto all them that call vpon him in truth. We know that many are the weakenesses and imperfections of our praiers, many our distractions in that deuotion, but yet we beleeue that God respecting the truth, and not the measure of our hearts, pardoneth the same for Christes sake, who is our high Priest,Exod. 28.38. to beare the iniquitie of our holy offerings, to make them acceptable before the Lord. To the Minor proposition he answereth, that we must not pray that Christes merits may be made ours in particular, for that were greatly to abase them. As though the Prophet Dauid did abase God in making him his in particular saying,Psal. 18.2. The Lord is my rocke and my fortresse, my God and my strength, my shield, the horne of my saluation, and my refuge, with infinite other speeches of the like sort. As though Thomas did abase our Sauiour Christ in calling him,Iohn. 20.28. My Lord and my God. We do no iniurie to God to make him ours in particular, because he hath said, as to Abraham, so to euery one of the seede of Abraham, Gen. 17.7. I will be thy God. We do no iniurie to men, because we do not thereby make him our peculiar, but leaue him the same to others, that he is to vs, as [Page 442] euery man enioieth the light of the Sunne to his owne vse, without impeachment thereof to the vse of any other man.Aug. in Psal. 32. conc 2. Ipse sit haereditas nostra, possessio nostra. An fortè temerè dicimus f [...]ciendo nobis Deū possessi [...]nem cùm sit Dominus, cùm sit Creator? Non est ista temeritas; affectus est desideri [...] & dulcedo spes. Dicat anima, omninò secura dicat; Deus meus e [...] tu, qui dicit animae nostrae, salus tua ego sum. Non faciet in [...]uriā cùm hoc dixerit, immo faciet si nō dixerit. Let God, saith Austine, be our possession, our inheritance. What, do we vnaduisedly in making God a possession to our selues, he being our Lord and Creator? It is no rashnesse or vnaduisednesse; it is affection of desire, it is sweetnesse of hope. Let the soule boldly say, Thou art my God, to him that saith to our soule, I am thy saluation. It shall do no wrong in saying so; nay it shall do wrong in not saying so. And thus S. Bernard saith, thatBernard. in Cant. ser. 69 Anima Deū videns haud secut videt quàm si s [...]la videatur à Deo. the soule that looketh vpon God, doth no otherwise looke vpon him, then as if it selfe only were looked vpon of God. ForChrysost in Gene. hom. 34. Peculiare hoc est amori, vt ex communibus propria faciat. this is the property of loue, as Chrysostom saith, to make proper to a mans selfe that that is common; which he speaketh by occasion of the Apostles words handled in the former section, Christ hath loued me, &c, where he saith, that the ApostleIbid. Propter amorem in eum id quod factum est omnibus mihi proprium facto. vpon his loue to Christ, doth make proper to himselfe that that was done for all. Accordingly S. Austine saith,August. de visit i [...]f [...]m lib. 2. cap. 2. Tutius & iucundius loquor ad meum Iesum quàm ad aliquē sanctorum spirituum Dei. I speake more safely and more sweetly to my Iesus then to any of the holy Spirits or Angels of God. Now do all these speeches tend to the abasing of God, and of his Sonne Iesus Christ? Did S. Austine, or whosoeuer was the Author of those words, abase Christ in naming him my Iesus? If not, what abasing then is it of the merits of Christ, that we should make them particularly ours? But to shew him his folly, S. Bernard saith thatBerna. in Cant. ser. 61 Nisi quòd non erat de membris C [...]risti nec pertinebat ad eū de Christi merito vt su [...] praesumeret, suum diceret quod illius esset, tanquā rem cap [...] membrum. but that Cain was not of the members of Christ, nor had any thing to do with the merit of Christ, to presume the same to be his, he would haue called that his that was Christes, as the member doth that that is the heads, plainly giuing to vnderstand, that the faithfull man being a member of Christ, doth cal that his that is Christs, & presumeth the merit of Christ to be particularly his. And therefore he saith in the next words,Ibid. Ego fidentèr quod ex me mihi deest vsurpo mihi ex visceribus Domini, quo [...]am misericordia eff [...]uunt. Whatsoeuer is wanting vnto me of my selfe, I boldly take it vnto me out of the bowels of the Lord Iesus, because they runne out with mercy. What should let then but that we may pray that the merits of Christ may be made particularly ours, and accepted as particularly a satisfaction for vs to the forgiuenesse of our sinnes? Nay, saith M. Bishop, good Christians pray that through the infinite value of Christes merits our sinnes may be forgiuen vs, &c. But I pray, M. Bishop, how do you thinke your sinnes particularly forgiuen, but by the particular application of his merits, his passion, death, and resurrection, and his sitting at the right hand of God, to make intercession [Page 443] for vs? Can a medicine worke without being applied particularly to him in whom it is to work? How do you pray that a iustice proportionable to your capacity, as you very nicely and gingerly describe it, may be giuen particularly to you for Christes sake, that is, as we take it, in regard of that that Christ hath done, as generally for others, so particularly for you, but that you take it, that Christ hath done the same particularly for you, as wel as for other particulars? And but that your wits outrunne you, and leaue you to say you know not what, what is this but to apply the merits of Christ particularly to your selfe? Otherwise it may be said vnto you, what haue you to do particularly with Christ, that for his sake you aske any thing particularly for your selfe? Surely we cannot aske any thing of God for Christes sake, but by supposing a particular relation betwixt Christ and vs, depending vpon that that he hath done and merited for vs. But Maister Perkins to shew that in our praier, we aske the merit of Christes righteousnesse to our selues, alledgeth the petition of the Lords praier, Forgiue vs our trespasses. For what is forgiuenesse of sinnes, but a thing merited by the righteousnesse & obedience of Christ? Our Sauiour saith in the Gospel, thatMat. 2 [...].28. his bloud is shed for the forgiuenesse of sinnes. When then we begge forgiuenesse of sinnes, what do we but begge to our selues the fruit of the bloudshedding of Iesus Christ? The righteousnesse of Christ containeth the whole obedience that Christ performed to his Father, both in liuing and dying, to be the satisfaction for our sinnes. And if there be no forgiuenesse of sinnes, but onely by his satisfaction for vs, what do we when we craue forgiuenesse of sinnes, but craue the application of Christes righteousnesse vnto vs, that it may be accepted for our satisfaction to the forgiuenesse of our sinnes? Now to our praier M. Perkins noteth, that we adde Amen, as a word of confirmation vnto vs, that God heareth our petition, and graunteth the same according to the promise that he hath made vnto vs. Which he saide not onely of himselfe, but alledged to that purpose the saying of Austine, affirming, thatAugust. de Temp. ser. 182. Amen in his petitionibus significat indubitātèr à Domino conserri quod petitur, si vltimae conditionis pactum firmitèr teneatur. Amen in these petitions signifieth, that that which is craued of the Lord, is vndoubtedly graunted, if we stedfastly hold fast the couenant of our last condition or creation, which is our faith in Christ Iesus. Now if Maister Bishops wits had beene at home, he would not haue thought Maister Perkins wits to be gone a pilgrimage for the [Page 444] writing of these things, neither would he haue conceiued that he had begged the thing in question, but rather proued it, vnlesse he will say, that there can be forgiuenesse of sinnes without the satisfaction and merit of Christ, which what is it to vs, but by being particularly applied vnto vs, and accepted to our vse? As for our righteous man, as he calleth him, he hath no warrant to omit to pray for the forgiuenesse of his sinnes, because he is no otherwise taught to beleeue it, but as he praieth for it. But in praying for it, he hath assurance from Christ to beleeue the obtaining of it, who saith,Mar. 11.24. Whatsoeuer ye desire when ye pray, beleeue that ye shall haue it, and it shall be done vnto you. Of this sufficient hath bene said before in the question ofSect. 5. & 18. the Certaintie of Saluation, and I list not here to follow him in an idle and impertinent vagarie. Onely I maruell that his head should goe so farre awry, as to apply to vs the example of the Pharisee, being so farre different from vs. For the Pharisee was outright a Papist, auouching inherent iustice, and presuming thereof in himselfe, although by the gift of God euen as the Papists do. Nay, Maister Bishops righteous man goeth beyond the Pharisee, saying, I thanke thee, O God, that I am iustCha. 2. sect. 10. before thee, cleane and whiter then snow, no more sinne left in me then was in Adam in the state of innocencie, and thereforeCha. 4. sect. 2, worthy of thy kingdome and of the ioyes of heauen, Ibid sect. 4. not needing greatly to feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge; and if I do not certainly know it, yetCha. 3. sect. 3. & 14. I hope that I am so; and not like these Protestants, whoseCha. 4. sect. 2. righteous man is like vnto sepulchers whited on the outside with an imputed iustice, but within full of iniquity and disorder. Let him here take knowledge of his description of their righteous man out of his own words, & thereby know himselfe to be some degrees aboue the absurdity of the Pharisee. But the righteous man whom we teach, is such, as the auncient Fathers many times describe out of the words of Solomon, as they did reade them:Prou. 18.17. Pustus in principio sermonis accusator est sui. Hieron. cont. Pelag. lib. 1. The iust man in the beginning of his speech, is an accuser of himselfe. When he commeth into the presence of God, he beginneth his speech with acknowledging his owne vnworthinesse & sinne. His righteousnesse he knoweth to be such, as leaueth him still to say with Dauid, Psal. 143.2. Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant, O Lord; for in thy sight no man liuing shal be found righteous, Prou. 24.16. Ʋulgat. He falleth seuen times a day, and daily praieth for forgiuenesse, and so continueth till God manifest the effect of his praier, being [Page 445] well assured in the meane time vpon the promise of God, that God heareth him, and will make it appeare that he hath not praied in vaine. But to let this go, M. Bishop taketh it for an aduantage to him, that M. Perkins confesseth, that the Church of Rome acknowledgeth a know [...]edge reuealed in the word touching the meanes of saluation. But what doth it aduantage him, that the Church of Rome hath that which the diuels haue? They know that the meanes of saluation is by Christ crucified, dying, rising againe frō the dead, by faith, by the sacraments, but they haue not the vse of this knowledge, wherein cōsisteth the life thereof. No more hath the Church of Rome, which professing generally the meanes of saluation, to be in the crosse, and death, & resurrection of Christ, in faith, and in the sacraments, doth in the speciall vse & application thereof, wholy ouerthrow all, frustrateth the crosse, and death, and resurrection of Christ, peruerteth the faith, corrupteth the sacraments, blendeth & mingleth the Gospel with her owne traditions, deuiseth other meanes of saluation, & wickedly maketh the people to trust therein. Now if it follow that we erre miserably, as he saith, because they do thus know the means of saluation reuealed in the word, it must follow that they also erre miserably, because all other heretikes know the meanes of saluation in that sort as well as they. And indeed they do erre miserably who go from the word, as touching the vse and effect of that meanes of saluation which they learne from thence, and contrary to the word tie the same to other supplements, which they themselues haue borowed of humane deuice. Now the firme hope and great confidence, wherof he answereth to the second point mentioned by M. Perkins, is a meere collusion. He maketh it firme on Gods behalfe, but on our side most infirme & vncertaine, because by his rules a man cannot tell whether he haue any true repentance, or faith, or hope, or charitie, or any thing else whereupon his hope should stand, which he still hangeth vpon mans worthinesse & disposition of himselfe, & leaueth it in the power & choise of his owne free will. But true faith beleeuethAug. in Psal. 88. Non secundum merita nostra, sed secund [...] illius miserecordiam firma est promissio. the promise of God to be firme and sure, not vpon our merits, but vpon his owne mercy, and accordingly embraceth the same, not with an vncertaine condition, if we do this or that, but with ful assurance that GodIerem. 32 40. according to his promise wil keepe vs in his feare, to do that which we ought to do, and when by frailty we fall, wil in mercy looke vpon vs as he did vponLuk. 22.61. Peter, and will cause vs to rise [Page 446] againe. And this hope and assurance God offereth vnto vs, euen from our first conuersion for Christes sake, and thenceforth we accordingly expect euerlasting life, not for our owne sakes, but1. Iohn. 5.11. in Christ, by vertue of his righteousnesse, obedience, and merit, and of the purchase that he hath made in our behalfe. Neither is this any vnlawfull presumption, butAmbros. de sacram. li. 5. cap. 4. Praesume non de operatione tua, sed de Christi gratia. Bona praesumptio. a good presumption, as S. Ambrose speaketh, and thatAugust. de verb. Dom. ser. 7. Gratia mea plenus es, quia nō de virtute tua, sed de gratia mea praesumpsisti because, as S. Austine saith, we presume not vpon our owne vertue or power, but vpon the grace of God. As for his charging of vs in respect hereof with sinne against the holy Ghost, it is but a scape of his ignorance, who as it seemeth, vnderstandeth not what is meant thereby. What his schoolemen haue written thereof, it is nothing to vs, but let him learne by Hierome how to vnderstand it out of the text it selfe.Hieron. in Ma [...] ca. 12. Qui manifestè intell g [...]ns opera Dei, cùm de virtute negare nō possit, eadem stimulatus inuidia calū niatur, & Christū Dei (que) verbū & opera Sp sancti di [...]et esse Beelzebub, isti non dimittetur ne (que) in praesenti seculo nec i [...] futuro. He, saith he, who vnderstanding manifestly the works of God, when he cannot gainesay as touching the power, doth yet of enuie calumniate the same, and affirmeth Christ and the word of God, and the works of the holy Ghost to be of the diuell, to him it shall not be forgiuen, neither in this world nor in the world to come. This is a dreadfull sinne, and let M. Bishop take heede, the light of God so clearely shining as that it cannot but dazle his eyes, that he doe not intangle himselfe in the guilt thereof, by wilfull opposition against the truth.
17. W. BISHOP.
Maister Perkins third reason, is drawne from the consent of the auncient Church, of which for fashion sake to make some shew, he often speaketh, but can seldome finde any one sentence in them that fits his purpose, as you may see in this sentence of Saint Augustine, cited by him. De verbis Domini. serm. 7. Augustine saith: I demaund now, doest thou beleeue in Christ, O sinner? thou saiest I beleeue: what, beleeuest thou that all thy sinnes may freely be pardoned by him? thou hast that which thou beleeuest. See, here is neither applying of Christs righteousnesse vnto vs by faith, nor so much as beleeuing our sinnes to be pardoned through him, but that they may be pardoned by him. So there is not one word for M. Perkins. But S. Bernard saith plainly: That we must beleeue that our sinnes are pardoned vs. But he addeth not by the imputed righteousnes of Christ. Againe, he addeth conditions on our party, which M. Perkins craftily concealeth. For S. Bernard graunteth, that we may beleeue [Page 447] our sinnes to be forgiuen, if the truth of our conuersion meete with the mercy of God preuenting vs, for in the same place he hath these words: So therefore shall his mercy dwell in our earth, that is, the grace of God in our soules, if mercy and truth meet together, if iustice and peace embrace and kisse each other. Which is as S. Bernard there expoundeth it, if we stirred vp by the grace of God, do truly bewaile our sinnes and confesse them, and afterward follow holinesse of life and peace. All which M. Perkins did wisely cut off, because it dashed cleane the vain glosse of the former words.
His last authority is out of S. Cyprian, who exhorteth men, passing out of this life, not to doubt of Gods promises, but to beleeue that we shall come to Christ with ioyfull security.
Answer. S. Cyprian encourageth good Christians dying to haue a full confidence in the promises of Christ, and so do all Catholikes, and bid them be secure too on that side, that Christ will neuer faile of his word and promise, but say that the cause of feare lies on our owne infirmities: And yet bids them not to doubt, as though they were as likely to be condemned as saued, but animates them, and puts them in the good way of hope, by twenty kinds of reason.
R. ABBOT.
The drift of Saint Austine in the place alledged, is to shew, that we areAug. de verb. Dom. ser. 7. Eleg [...] de me praesumetes, non de se. Totū gratiae semper reputa. Si de tuo opere prasumis, ergo merces tibi redditur, non gratia condonatur. Si autē gratia est, gratis daetur. to presume of God onely, not of our selues, and to attribute all that we are (towards him) wholy to his grace. If thou presume of thine owne worke, then is it a wages paied, not a grace giuen vnto thee. But if it be grace, then it is freely giuen. Hereupon follow the words alledged:Interrogo nunc, Credis, ô peccator, Christo? Dicis, Credo. Quid credis? Gratis vniuersa peccatae tibi per ipsū posse remitti? Habes quod credidisti. O gratia gratis data. I demaund now, O sinner, doest thou beleeue Christ? Thou saiest, I beleeue. What doest thou beleeue? That all thy sinnes may be pardoned freely by him? By which words he would import, that the sinner is to beleeue, that in Christ onely there is enough to yeeld him forgiuenesse of sinnes, and therefore that he is to presume onely vpon him. Which if he do, Saint Austine telleth him, Thou hast that which thou beleeuest, and addeth, O grace freely giuen. Now M. Bishop should here haue told vs, what it is that S. Austine telleth the beleeuing sinner that he hath: what that grace is that he saith is here freely giuen vnto him. For if it be forgiuenesse of sins, as indeed it is, then the words import, that the sinner beleeuing in Christ for the [Page 448] forgiuenesse of sinnes, and relying wholy vpon him, assuredly hath that for which he beleeueth, and therefore is not to doubt thereof. And herein he alludeth to that in the Gospell, where Christ asketh the blind men;Mat. 9.28. Beleeue ye that I am able to do this, to draw frō them, whether they did attribute so much to him, as to expect so great a benefit from him. When therefore they answered, Yea, Lord, he touched their eies, saying According to your faith so be it vnto you. So with S. Austine the word may serueth to chalenge a sufficiencie to Iesus Christ, and to exclude other meanes of forgiuenesse of sinnes, not to question the beliefe of the forgiuenesse thereof, which he so resolutely affirmeth to him that beleeueth, and can be no otherwise but by the applying of the righteousnesse, the merit, the satisfaction of Christ, because we cannot beleeeue it but only thereby. The place of Bernard is very impudently shifted off. First, by altering the question, which is not here, by what we beleeue our sinnes to be forgiuen, but whether it be the property of a iustifying faith, to beleeue particularly the forgiuenesse of a mans own sinnes. Now S. Bernard saith, thatBernard in Annun [...]iat. ser. 1. Jnitium quoddam & velut fundamentum fidei. for a man to beleeue that he cannot haue forgiuenesse of sinnes, but by Gods pardon is but the beginning and foundation of faith. Therefore, saith he, if thou beleeue that thy sinnes cannot be done away, but by him to whom onely thou hast sinned, thou doest well, Sed adde adhuc vt & hoc credas quia per ipsū tibi peccata donātur. Hoc est testimonium quod perhibet in corde nostro Sp. sanctus, dicens, Dimitiū tur tibi peccata tua. Sic enim arbitratur. Apostelus gratis iustificari hominem per fidem. but go f [...]rther yet, to beleeue that by him thy sinnes are forgiuen thee. This is, saith he, the testimonie that the holy Ghost giueth in our heart, saying, Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee. For thus doth the Apostle suppose that a man is iustified freely by faith. Of imputed righteousnesse enough hath bene said before: the point here is of particular faith, whether a man beleeue his owne sinnes to be forgiuen him. S. Bernard saith yea, and saith it so plainly, as that M. Bishop could not tell for his life what directly to answer to it. But forsooth S. Bernard addeth conditions on our party, saith he, which M. Perkins craftily concealeth, and here he bringeth words following a mile after, where S. Bernard hath broken off the point formerly in hand, which was to set forth the condition of a true iustifying and sauing faith. And what I pray are the conditions that he addeth? Forsooth truth of conuersion, bewailing of our sinnes and confessing them, and afterwards following holinesse and peace. Where we see a glosing sycophant, which will make the simple Reader beleeue, that he giueth an answer when indeede he giueth none. For when we teach the beliefe of the forgiuenesse [Page 449] of sinnes, do we teach a man vnconuerted to beleeue the same? The penitent sinner confessing and bewailing his sinnes to God, and carefull as hauing felt the sting of sinne, thenceforth to auoid the same, is the proper and onely true subiect of this disputation of iustification by faith. We denie that faith hath place in any other man, and therefore denie that any other can haue the true beliefe of the forgiuenesse of his sinnes. Of the conuerted man then, of him that truly repenteth and forsaketh his sinne, S. Bernard saith, and we say, that the faith whereby he is iustified, is a faith whereby he particularly beleeueth the forgiuenesse of his owne sinnes. What is M. Bishop now but a wrangling Sophister, that thus in a mist of idle discourse, seeketh to steale away, where indeede he is so fast holden that he cannot vntie himselfe? In like sort he dealeth with the other place of Cyprian, who encouraging faithfull Christians against the terrour and feare of death, saith;Cyprian. de Mortal. Deus tibi de hoc mundo recidenti immortalitatē pollicetur, & tu dubitas & fluctuasi Hoc est Deū omninò non nosse: hoc est Christū credentium magistrum peccato incredulitatis offendere: hoc est in ecclesia constitutum fidē in domo fidei non habere. God hath promised immortality vnto thee, when thou departest out of this world, and doest thou wauer and doubt thereof? This is not to know God, this is by the sinne of vnbeliefe, to offend Christ the maister of beleeuers; this is for a man being in the Church, to be without faith in the house of faith. The words are manifest. He propoundeth the promise of God particularly: requireth the same accordingly to be beleeued; not to beleeue it so, he affirmeth is to be without faith in the house of faith. God promiseth to thee, and doest thou doubt? this is not to haue faith. Cyprian then teacheth such a confidence in the promises of Christ, as is to be without all wauering or doubt. Yea, saith M. Bishop, we are secure on Christes side, that he will neuer faile of his word and promise, but the cause of feare lies vpon our owne infirmities. Thus he is like the mother that strangleth her child so soone as she hath brought it forth. He setteth vp confidence with one hand, and throweth it downe with another; nay, he setteth it vp with one hand, and throweth it downe with both. What is it to vs, that Christ is true of his word, if we may not beleeue that his word doth appertaine to vs? what confidence can it yeeld, that Christ faileth not of his promise, so long as we must feare least our infirmities disable vs of hauing any part therein? And would Cyprian talke so idlely, to bid men not wauer or doubt, when they might answer they had cause to feare and doubt, by reason of their owne infirmities? Would he bid men not doubt to go out of the world, because of [Page 450] the promise of God, when their owne infirmities might be a sufficient cause to make them feare their departure out of this world? But Cyprian knew well that we can haue nothing but feare from our selues, and therefore teacheth vs to build our selues wholy vpon the promise of God, that howsoeuer our owne infirmities doe offer vs occasion of distrust, yet resting vpon the truth of God, we beleeue with Abraham Rom. 4.18. vnder hope against hope, that God will performe what he hath spoken, for his owne sake, as he saith by the Prophet,Ezech. 36.22. Not for your sakes, but for my holy names sake I will do it, saith the Lord. Yea, but we bid them not doubt, saith Maister Bishop, as if they were as likely to be condemned as saued. But how so, when they see and know in themselues, that for which they may be condemned, and cannot know any thing whereupon they may rest the hope of saluation? For you say, Maister Bishop, that a man cannot tell whether he haue repentance, hope, charity, praier, whether he be iustified, and in the state of grace or not, and therefore how should he but thinke himselfe more likely to be condemned then otherwise? You say you animate them and put them in the good way of hope, by twenty kinds of reasons. But how can you put them in hope when you teach them to feare? That one reason whereby you impose feare, carieth more sway in the conscience, then all those twenty kinds of reasons, whereby you perswade hope. And when you teach that a man cannot tell whether he haue any hope or not, what can there rest but horrour and despaire, at leastwise anguish, perplexity, trembling and feare, saue onely in consciences that are benummed and astonished, and haue no feeling of themselues? In a word, in death there can be no hope, but setting aside the respect of our selues, to depend vpon the promise of God, and to say with Hilary out of the Psalme,Hilar. in Psal. 51. Spes nostra in miserecordia Domini in secu [...]um & in secu [...]m seculi. Our hope is in the mercy of God for euer and euer.
18. W. BISHOP.
M. Perkins hauing thus confirmed his owne partie, why doth he not after his manner confute those reasons which the Catholikes alledge in fauour of their assertion? Was it because they are not wont to produce any in this matter? Nothing lesse: It was then belike, because he knew not how to answer them. I will out of their store take that one principall [Page 451] one, of the testimonie of holy Scripture, and by that alone sufficiently proue, that the faith required to Iustification, is that Catholike faith, whereby we beleeue all that to be true, which by God is reuealed, and not any other particular beleeuing Christs Righteousnesse to be ours. How can this be better knowne, then if we see, weigh, and consider well, what kind of faith that was which all they had, who are sayd in Scriptures to be iustified by their faith.
S. Paul saith of Noe, That he was instituted heire of the iustice,Heb. 11.7. which is, by faith. What faith had he? That by Christs Righteousnesse he was assured of Saluation? No such matter, but beleeued, that God according to his word and iustice, would drowne the world, and made an Arke to saue himselfe and his familie, as God commaunded him.
Abraham the Father of beleeuers, and the Paterne and example of iustice by faith, as the Apostle disputeth to the Romans: What faith he was iustified by, let S. Paul declare, who of him and his faith, Rom. cap. 4. hath these words. He contrarie to hope beleeueth in hope, that he might be made the father of manie Nations, according to that which was sayd vnto him: So shall thy seed be as the starres of heauen, and the sands of the sea: and he was not weakned in faith, neither did he consider his owne bodie, now quite dead, whereas he was almost an hundreth yeares old, nor the dead Matrice of Sara, in the promise of God he staggered not by distrust, but was strengthened in faith, giuing glorie to God, most fully knowing, that whatsoeuer he promised, he was able also to do, therefore was it reputed to him to iustice. Lo, because he glorified God in beleeuing, that old and barren persons might haue children if God sayd the word, and that whatsoeuer God promised he was able to performe, he was iustified. The Centurions faith was verie pleasing vnto our Sauiour, who sayd in commendation of it, That he had not found so great faith in Israel? What faith was that? Marrie, that he could with a word cure his seruant absent: Math. 8. Say the word only (quoth he) and my seruant shall be healed.
S. Peters faith so much magnified by the auncient Fathers, and highly rewarded by our Sauiour, was it any other, Math. 16. Then that our Sauiour was Christ, the Sonne of the liuing God? And briefly let S. Iohn that great Secretarie of the holy Ghost, tell vs what faith is the finall end of the whole Gospell. These things,Iohn. 20. (saith he) are written [Page 452] that you may beleeue that Iesus is Christ the Sonne of God, and that beleeuing you may haue life in his name. With the Euangelist the Apostle S. Paul accordeth verie well, Rom. 10. saying: This is the word of faith which we preach, for if thou confesse with thy mouth our Lord Iesus Christ, and shalt beleeue in thy heart that God raised him from death,1. Cor. 15 thou shalt be saued. And in another place: I make knowne vnto you the Gospell, which I haue preached, and by which you shall be saued, vnlesse perhaps you haue beleeued in vaine. What was that Gospell? I haue deliuered vnto you that which I haue receiued, that Christ died for our sinnes, according to the Scriptures, was buried, and rose againe the third day, &c. So by the verdite of S. Paul, the beleefe of the articles of the Creed, is that iustifying faith, by which you must be saued. And neither in Saint Paul, nor any other place of holy Scriptures is it once taught, that a particular faith, whereby we apply Christs Righteousnesse to our selues, and assure our selues of our saluation, is either a iustifying, or any Christian mans faith, but the verie naturall act of that vgly Monster, presumption: which being layd as the verie corner stone of the Protestants irreligion, what morall and modest conuersation, what humilitie and deuotion can they build vpon it?
R. ABBOT.
What the reason was why M. Perkins here propounded no obiections of the Papists M. Bishop might haue conceiued, because he hadChap. 3. Of the Certaintie of Saluation. before noted and confuted the best that are alledged by them. If he had not so done, yet it should not be likely that he had therefore omitted them, because he knew not how to answer them, because this which M. Bishop bringeth for their principall reason, is but a verie weake and simple reason. The thing that he would proue thereby, is that iustifying faith is that Catholike faith, as he calleth it, whereby we beleeue all that to be true which God hath reuealed. He abuseth the name of Catholike faith, whereby hath bene wont to be imported the true and sound doctrine of the Catholike Church, comprised in bookes, taught in Pulpits and schooles, professed by the mouth, which a man may preach to others, and himselfe be voide of iustifying faith. Thus Vigilius saith, hauing discoursed of some points of doctrine,Vigil. cont. Eutych. lib. 1. Haec est fides & professio Catholica, quam Apostoli tradiderunt, Martyres roborauerunt & fideles hucus (que) custodiunt. This is the [Page 453] Catholike faith and profession which the Apostles deliuered, the Martyrs haue confirmed, and the faithfull keepe vntill this day. Iustifying faith is the priuate act of the heart and conscience of the man that is iustified, which though it be grounded and built vpon it, yet cannot but absurdly be termed the Catholike faith. But M. Bishop perhaps by Catholike faith meaneth that iustifying faith, whereby he and his fellow Catholikes must hope to be iustified. By which meanes he hath matched the diuel with himselfe and his Catholikes, and hath made him a Catholike. For if it be the only faith of a Catholike to beleeue all that to be true which God hath reuealed, what hindereth the diuell to be a Catholike, seeing he beleeueth, and to his griefe well knoweth, that all is true that is reuealed by God? This is that which we rightly call historicall faith, the obiect whereof is the word of God in generall, and it is no more but credere Deo, to beleeue God in that which he speaketh, which is incident to diuels and damned men. This historicall faith is presupposed and included in iustifying faith, but the proper obiect of iustifying saith is2. Cor. 5.19. God in Christ, reconciling the world vnto himselfe, or the promise of Gods mercie to vs in Christ Iesus, whereby we do not onely beleeue the promise in generall to be true, but do trust in God, and expect good at his hands, according to that promise for Christs sake. This faith therefore is calledRom. 3.22. Phil. 3.9. the faith of Christ, that is, whereby we beleeue in Christ, and is further expressed to beAct. 3.16. faith in his name, Rom. 3.25. faith in his bloud. Of which S. Austin saith;August. in Ioan. tract. 35. Fides Christi est credere in eum qui iustificat impium: credere in mediatorem sine quo interposito non reconciliamur De [...]; credere in saluatorem qui venit quod perterat quaer [...]re atque saluare, &c. The faith of Christ is to beleeue in him that iustifieth the vngodly; to beleeue in the Mediator, without whose meanes we are not reconciled vnto God; to beleeue in the Sauiour, which came to seeke and to saue that which is lost; to beleeue in him that saith, without me ye can do nothing. This is the faith whereby we are saued, and whereby all the faithfull haue bene saued from the beginning of the world. To which purpose S. Austin againe saith;August. de nat. & grat. cap. 44. [...]a fides iustes sanauit antiquos quae sanat et nos, id est, mediatoris Dei & hominum hominis Iesu C [...]risti, fides sanguinis eius, fides crucis eius, fides mortis & resurrectionis [...]ius. The same faith saued the righteous of old that now saueth vs, that is, the faith of the man Iesus Christ the Mediator betwixt God and men, the faith of his bloud, the faith of his crosse, the faith of his death and resurrection. Thus by faith Abel in his lambe beheld1. Ioh. 1.29. the lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world, and thereby his sacrifice was accepted, and in that respect is Christ calledApoc. 13.8. the lambe that was slaine from the beginning of the world. But here M. Bishop [Page 454] vndertaketh to tell vs, and therefore let vs heare of him according to the depth of his diuinitie, what kind of faith that was which all they had who are sayd in Scriptures to be iustified by their faith. And first he beginneth with Noe, of whom it is sayd, thatHeb. 11.7. he was made heire of the righteousnesse which is by faith. But what faith was that? He beleeued, saith he, that God according to his word and iustice would drowne the world, and made an Arke to saue himselfe and his familie, as God commanded him. And what? in the drowning of the world and making of an arke to saue himselfe, did Noe consider nothing but the drowning of the world and the making of an arke to saue himselfe? S. Austin calleth the Arke, Aug. cont. Faust. Manich. lib. 19 cap. 12. Sacramentum arcae in qua Noe domus à diluuio. liberata est. the sacrament of the Arke, and in a sacrament or mysterie did the faith of Noe see no more but onely what his eyes did see?Chrysost. in 1. Cor. hom. 7. Mysterium appellatur quoniam non id quod credimus inituemur, sed quòd alia videmus, alia credimus. In sacraments, as Chrysostome saith, we do not see that which we beleeue, but we see one thing and beleeue another. Noe then in the Arke did beleeue that which he did not see, which what it was, S. Peter giueth vs to vnderstand, when he maketh our baptisme the thing that1. Pet. 3.21. [...] answereth the type and figure of the Arke, which, saith he, saueth vs by the resurrection of Iesus Christ. The Arke then was to him a figure and seale of the same, whereof Baptisme is a figure and seale to vs;Rom. 4.11. a seale of the righteousnesse of faith, of Cap. 3.22. the righteousnesse of God by the faith of Iesus Christ, to all and vpon all that do beleeue. His deliuerance temporally was a figure of that spirituall saluation, which both he and we haue by the washing away and forgiuenesse of our sinnes, by the bloud, and death, and resurrection of Iesus Christ, and in the beleefe hereof was it that he was made heire of the righteousnesse of faith. In the second place Abraham is brought forth, whose faith M. Bishop construeth to be no more but this, that he beleeued that old and barren persons might haue children if God sayd the word, and that whatsoeuer God promised he was able to performe. Where if he had looked into the Apostles words with the eyes of a doctor of diuinitie, he would haue found the seed there spoken of to beGal. 3.16. Christ, as the same Apostle elsewhere expoundeth it, Christ in person as the head, and all the faithfull gathered as members into one bodie with him,August. in Psal. 58. Totus Christus caput & corpus, & post; Christus est to [...]um corpus Christi. the head and the bodie making one whole Christ, as S. Austin speaketh. God promised vnto Abraham a seed, whereinGenes. 15.2. all the nations of the earth should be blessed. Herein God would make himRom. 4.13. the heire of the world, andVers. 16.17. a father of many nations, [Page 455] not to that seed onely which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, that we may know that a spirituall seed is here to be vnderstood, which should become the children of Abraham, byVers. 12. walking in the steppes of the faith of our father Abraham, and so should be made partakers of the blessing with him. The performance of all this promise of blessing to Abraham and all the nations of the earth, stood vpon his hauing of a sonne which God had promised vnto him. The barrennes of Sara, & the old age both of Abraham and her, might seeme to denie all hope of hauing a sonne. But yet Abraham rested secure in the affiance of the power of God, not doubting but that God was able, and would giue him a sonne of whom Christ should come, to be vnto him that blessing that God had promised. This was the thing that Abrahams faith respected, and to which the Apostle referreth it, speaking of a promise that was to be sure, not to Abraham only,Vers. 16. but to all the seed both of beleeuing Iewes and Gentiles; who are also calledHeb. 6.17. heires of the promise, to the performance whereof, to shew vnto them the stablenesse of his counsell, God bound himselfe by an oath, that by two immutable things, wherein it was vnpossible that God should lie, (his promise and his oath) we might haue strong consolation, which haue our refuge to hold fast the hope that is set before vs. Of what? that old and barren persons may haue children if God say the word? O base and abiect conceipt of so diuine and heauenly a matter. Nay but of the blessing, which as the Apostle noteth before, God did sweare vnto Abraham, and vnto that seed which he would multiplie vnto him, by faith to be blessed together with him. Thirdly, he alledgeth the faith of the Centurion, of which our Sauiour testifieth, thatMat. 8.10. he had not found so great faith in Israel. And what was that faith? Marrie, saith he, that he could with a word cure his seruant absent. Say the word only, quoth he, and my seruant shall be healed. But did he only beleeue that by saying the word Christ could cure his seruant? Surely he beleeued somewhat else that made him to beleeue that: he beleeued somewhat else that made him to say, Lord I am not worthie that thou shouldest enter vnder my roofe. August. de verb. Dom ser. 6. Neque ho [...] [...] ret [...]um [...] ▪ He would not thus haue sayd with so great faith and humilitie, saith S. Austin, but that he did alreadie beare Christ in his hea [...]. W [...] doubt not but he had conceiued of Christ that he was the Sonne [...] God, the Sauiour of the world, and with this faith came vnto [...] [Page 456] The profession of his faith is here mentioned according to the present occasion. It followeth not, that because the act of faith is no further expressed here, therefore there was nothing further in his faith for his iustification towards God. Yea we hope M. Bishop will not say, that he could be iustified without beleeuing the remission of sinnes by the bloud of Iesus Christ, which yet is not expressed here; and therefore what doth he but absurdly and childishly to bring vs this example to shew what is meant by iustifying faith? In the other places as touching beleeuing thatMat. 16 16. Ioh. 20.32. Iesus is Christ the Sonne of God, the question is, what is meant by beleeuing that Iesus is Christ. If no more but an act of vnderstanding barely to assent vnto it, then the diuels professe as much,Mar. 1.24. O Iesus of Nazaret, I know thee who thou art; euen the holy one of God. But that we may not make that beleefe a matter common to the diuell, we must vnderstand it to be a compounded action, not of the vnderstanding onely, but of the heart, of the will and affections, as appeareth by the third place which to this purpose he citeth;Rom. 10.9. If thou confesse with thy mouth the Lord Iesus, and beleeue with thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saued; for with the heart man beleeueth vnto righteousnesse, &c. So to the Eunuch desiring to be baptized, Philip saith,Act. 8.37. If thou beleeue with all thine heart, thou mayest. I beleeue, saith he, that Iesus Christ is the Sonne of God. Beleefe therefore in these speeches importeth such a beleefe, as whereby Christ is to our heart that which we beleeue him to be; whereby we beleeue to our owne vse and comfort that which we beleeue. It is such a faith as desireth, seeketh, embraceth, holdeth, ioyeth in that which it beleeueth, because therein it seeth and apprehendeth peace; whereby we so beleeue that Iesus is Christ, as that according to that we beleeue him to be, we beleeue in him, and put our trust and confidence in him. This is implied in the words that Iesus is Christ, that is, the promised Messias and Sauiour, in whom is promised vnto vs, and in whom we looke to find blessing, peace, immortalitie and euerlasting life. Notably to this purpose S. Austin saith;August. in Psal. 130. Hoc est credere in Christum diligere Christum, non quomodo daemones cre [...]ebant, sed non diligebāt Christum, & ideo quamuis crederent, dicebant, Quid nobis & tibi est, fili Dei? Nos autem sic credamus vt in ipsum credamus, diligentes eum & non dicamus, Quid nebis & tibi est, sed potius di [...]amus, Ad te pertinemus, tu redimisti nos. Omnes qui sic credunt tanquā lapides sunt viui de quibus templū Dei ad fi [...]a [...]um est, & tanquam ligna imputribilia quibus ar [...]a illa compacta est quae in diluu [...]o merge non potuit. This is to beleeue in Christ, euen to loue Christ, not as the diuels beleeued and loued not, and therefore albeit they beleeued yet said, What haue we to do with thee, thou sonne of God? But let vs so beleeue, as that we beleeue in him louing him, and let vs not say, What haue we to do with thee, but rather let vs say, We [Page 457] belong to thee, thou hast redeemed vs. All that thus beleeue, are as liuely stones of which the temple of God is builded, and as those neuer putrifying plankes and timber, whereof the Arke was compacted that could not be drowned in the flood. Such a faith must M. Bishop confesse to be meant in the places by him alledged, that with Austin he may make a difference betwixt the faith of true Christians and the faith of diuels. By this the answer is plaine to the last place, which mentioneth only the subiect and matter of the Gospell, but of the manner of beleeuing expresseth nothing. Only in that it is said that Christ died for our sinnes, there is implied a particular application of that which by the Gospell we beleeue, as where the same Apostle saith;Rom. 4.25. He was deliuered (to death) for our sinnes, and rose againe for our iustification, which we cannot be sayd truly to beleeue, vnlesse we beleeue our selues to be redeemed and iustified from our sinnes by the death and resurrection of Iesus Christ. Now then we deny not, but that the beleefe expressed in the articles of the Creed, is that iustifying faith by which we must be saued, yet not according to that historicall meaning which M. Bishop maketh of them, but according to that true meaning of beleeuing in God, which the Scripture teacheth, whereby a man can truly say, I beleeue in God, which M. Bishop cannot tell whether he can say or not, and therefore we are sure that he cannot say. But though he cannot say it, yet let him not repine at vs that can, and if he list not to haue any part in that faith, whereby he should apply to himselfe the righteousnesse and merit of Christ, to the assurance of the forgiuenesse of sinnes and euerlasting life, let him leaue it vnto vs, and we will ioy therein, and make it indeed the corner stone of our religion, because thereby Iesus Christ is our foundation and corner stone, of whom we presume all things towards God, who can presume nothing of our selues. But at his conclusion of this point I could not but smile, where mentioning this faith layed as the corner stone of our religion (which the sycophant, as the Popes parrot to speake what he teacheth him, termeth irreligion) he inferreth, this being so, what morall or modest conuersation, what humilitie and deuotion can they build vpon it? It made me call to mind the morall and modest conuersation of their Popes, the humilitie and deuotion of the most of their Cardinals and Bishops, the sweet and cleanly life of their Votaries, both religious and secular, and by them to consider [Page 458] what good fruits M. Bishops faith hath brought forth amongst them. It made me remember a storie that I haue heard out of Boccace of a conuerted Iew, of whom he that conuerted him would by no meanes heare that he should go to Rome, fearing that the sight of the behauiour that he should see there, would make him renounce Christianitie againe. It made me thinke of the nobles of the Sultan of Babylon, who seeing enormous behauiours so to abound at Rome, refused to become Christians, saying,M [...]t. Parisan Henrico. 2. Quia Romae tot scaturiunt enormitates, dicebant▪ Quomodo ex vno fonte aequa dulcis & salsa poterit emanare? Vbi Christiani fonte [...] iustitiae ha erir [...] tenentu [...], in [...]eniunt la [...]c m toxicatum. How can water both sweet and salt flow out of one fountaine? Where Christians are bound to draw at the fountaine of iustice, there they find a poysoned brooke? It made me call to mind the good vsage and behauiour of the Spaniards in the west Indies, where by their extreme villanies and cruelties they haue made the name of Christian religion to stinke amongst those poore and vnbeleeuing soules. It made me consider the humilitie, and deuotion, and great vertue that the Iesuits and Seculars bewrayed the one of the other, in the late contentions that were amongst them. It put me in mind of the morall and modest conuersation of Weston the Iesuite and his fellows, in hunting the diuell in Sara Williams, and many pretie trickes about that matter. Surely M. Bishop if the faith and religion which we professe, did bring forth such vgly monsters as your Popes haue bene, or did nourish such execrable villanies and filtheries as are practised amongst you, we might iustly grow suspicious of it. But thankes be to God, that though our fruits be not such as they ought to be, yet the face and state of our Church and common wealth is such, as that we may boldly tell you, that it is not for a harlot to compare with an honest matrone, nor for you to make comparison betwixt vs and you.
19. W. BISHOP.
The second difference in the manner of iustification, is about the formall act of faith, which M. Perkins handleth as it were by the way, cuttedly I will be as short as he, the matter not being great. The Catholikes teach, as you haue heard out of the Councell of Trent, in the beginning of this question, that many acts of faith, feare, hope, and charity do go before our iustification, preparing our soule to receiue into it from God through Christ that great grace.
M. Perkins Doctor like resolueth otherwise, That faith is an instrument, created by God in the heart of man, at his conuersion, whereby he apprehendeth and receiueth Christs righteousnesse, for his iustification.
This ioyly description is set downe without any other probation, then his owne authoritie that deliuered it: and so, let it passe as alreadie sufficiently confuted. And if there needed any other disproofe of it, I might gather one more out of his owne explication of it, where he saith, that the couenant of grace is communicated vnto vs, by the word of God, and by the Sacraments. For if faith created in our hearts, be the onely sufficient supernaturall instrument, to apprehend that couenant of grace, then there needs no Sacraments for that purpose, and consequently I would faine know by the way, how little infants, that cannot for want of iudgement and discretion haue any such act of faith, as to lay hold on Christ his iustice, are iustified? Must we without any warrant in Gods word contrarie to all experience, beleeue that they haue this act of faith, before they come to any vnderstanding?
R. ABBOT.
By those acts of faith, feare, hope, charitie going before iustification, the Councell of Trent doth expresly consort it selfe with Pelagius the heretike. This faith, feare, hope, charitie, we must know not to be the effects or workes of any infused grace, which before iustification is none, but they are the proper actes of mans free will onely, assisted by some externall or outward grace, as they by collusion call it, which as I haue shewed before in the question ofSect. 5. Free will, Pelagius the heretike affirmed and graunted as well as they. But hereby they directly crosse the rule of S. Austine, thatAugust. de fide & oper, cap. 14. Sequunt [...]r iustificatum, [...]on praecedunt iustificandum. good workes follow in a man being iustified, but they go not before iustification. He saith they do not go before, they say they do go before, onely they are not properly meritorious. Meritorious they are alsoBellarm de iustific. lib. 1. ca 17. Fides suo quodā modo meretur remissionē peccatorum. in some sort, but not properly meritorious ex condigno, as the new faith, hope, and charitie are in the iustified man. Let the Reader well obserue it, that there is one faith, hope and charitie before iustification; another faith, hope and charitie infused when a man is iustified. But of that we shall heare more anone. Here the speciall matter is as touching M. Perkins his description of faith to be an instrument supernaturall [Page 460] created by God in the heart of man at his conuersion, whereby he apprehendeth and receiueth Christs righteousnesse for his iustification. This M. Bishop saith, is set downe without anie proofe, and is alreadie sufficiently confuted: but where? Surely we haue seene much for proofe on M. Perkins side, but M. Bishops confutation yet we haue not seene. Yea where M. Perkins did notably demonstrate this act of faith out of the Gospell, M. Bishop passed it ouer without anie further answer but onely to say,Chap. 3. sect. 16 He might be ashamed to vse this discourse to vs, who admit no part of it to be true, in which sort he might easily answer any thing that he list not to admit for truth. But what is it that he would haue to be proued? For that faith is an instrument to apprehend and receiue, it is plaine, because it isAug. in Ioan. tract. 50. Quomodo tenebo absentem? quomodo in coelum manū mittam, vt ibi sedentem teneam? fidem mitte & tenuisti. the hand which we stretch to heauen to take hold of Christ, and to hold him sitting there; it is the mouth whereby we eate and drinke Christ; becauseIbid. tract. 26. Qui credit manducat. to beleeue is to eate: it is the stomach wherby we digest him, forTertul. de resur. carn. fide digerendus. he is to be digested by faith; it isBernard. in Cant. ser. 32. In bonis Domini quatenus fiduciae pedem p [...]rrexeris eatenus possidebis the foot wherby we enter possession of the benefites of Christ, and possesse so farre as we stretch the same, it isIdem in Annunc. ser. 3. Dominus oleum misericord [...]ae nisi in vase fiduciae non ponit. the vessell whereinto God putteth the oyle of his mercy. Aug. de verb. Dom. ser. 33. Fide illum accipimus. By faith, saith Austin, we receiue Christ: it isAmbros. in Ps [...]l. 43. Fidei tactus est quo tangitur Christus. by faith, saith Ambrose, that we touch Christ, andCyprian. lib. 2. epist. 2. Quatum fidei capac [...] afferimus, tantum gratiae inundanin haurimus. looke how much faith we bring to receiue, saith Cyprian, so much we draw of the abundant grace of God. This being plaine, the question then must be of the thing that is to be receiued. Now the thing to be receiued, is the thing wherby we are to be iustified. The thing whereby we are to be iustified is the obedience of Christ, forRom. 5.15. by the obedience of one, saith the Apostle, shall many be made righteous, and what is the obedience of Christ, but the righteousnesse of Christ? The righteousnes of Christ then is the thing to be apprehended and receiued for our iustification. And how should we be2. Cor. 5.21. made the righteousnesse of God in him, but by apprehending and receiuing a righteousnesse which is in him? He is called theIerem. 23.6. Lord our righteousnes, not who maketh vs righteous only, but who himselfe is our righteousnes, and how should he be our righteousnes, but by his righteousnesse? Therefore in apprehending and receiuing Christ by faith, we apprehend & receiue the righteousnes of Christ to be our iustification before God. But I need not stand vpon this; for seeing through this whole Chapter we shall proue, that we receiue no gift of inherent righteousnesse, whereby we can be iustified in the sight of God, it followeth, as is also proued, that the [Page 461] righteousnesse which we receiue by faith for iustification, is the merite and obedience of Christ imputed vnto vs. Now M. Bishop telleth vs, that he can gather a disproofe of all this out of M. Perkins owne explication. For, saith he, if faith created in our hearts, be the onely sufficient supernaturall instrument to apprehend the couenant of grace, then there needes no Sacraments for that purpose. But such disproofes will make men thinke that he is runne not out of his learning onely, but also out of his wits. If he will apply that answer to M. Perkins, it must be thus, If faith be the onely instrument whereby we apprehend Christ, what neede we anie Sacraments to offer him vnto vs? And why did he not as well say, what neede there anie word of God to that purpose? for his disproofe standeth as good in the one as in the other. But M. Perkins setteth both downe, as meanes on Gods part to offer Christ vnto vs, not as instruments or meanes on our part to apprehend and lay hold of Christ, and notably obserueth, how the giuing of bread and wine to the seuerall communicants in the Lords Supper, is a pledge and signe of Gods particular giuing of Christs bodie and bloud with all his merites, to euery of them by faith in him. Yea, saith M. Bishop, but how then are infants iustified, who cannot haue any such act of faith? I answer him, that infants dying, are iustified and saued meerely by vertue of the couenant and promise of God, to which they are entitled by the calling and faith of their parents, and in right whereof they are baptized and entred into the bodie of the Church, God hauing sayd,Gen. 17.7. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed. For where the offer of the couenant hath no place, there the meanes of acceptance cannot be required, but by meere and absolute gift righteousnesse and life are giuen, and in the Sacrament sealed vnto them, who according to the purpose of the grace of God, are by inward regeneration made the seed of the faithfull, according to the intendment and meaning of the couenant. Yet nothing hindereth, but that we may conceiue, that God calling infants frō hence, doth in their passage by the power of his Spirit, giue them light of vnderstanding, and knowledge, and faith of Christ, as an entrance to that light and life which after by Christ and with him they enioy for euer. Who when he will, maketh babes and sucklings to praise him, and euen in young children sometimes in our sight, sheweth the admirable fruit of his grace in their death, far beyond [Page 462] that their yeares are capable of. As for infants baptized and continuing to elder yeares, they are not alwayes iustified in being baptized, but God calleth them, some sooner, some later; some at one houre, some at another, according to his good will and pleasure, and then the medicine long before applied, beginneth to worke the effect that doth appertaine vnto it.
20. W. BISHOP.
But to returne vnto the sound doctrine of our Catholike faith, M. Perkins finds fault with it, one that we teach faith to go before iustification, whereas by the word of God (saith he) at the very instant, when any man beleeueth first, he is then both iustified and sanctified. What word of God so teacheth? Ioh. 6.54. Marrie this: He that beleeueth, eateth and drinketh the bodie and bloud of Christ, and is alreadie passed from death to life. I answer, that our Sauiour in that text speaketh not of beleeuing, but of eating his bodie in the blessed Sacrament, which who so receiueth worthily, obtaineth thereby life euerlasting, as Christ saith expresly in that place. And so this proofe is vaine.
Now will I proue out of the holy Scriptures, that faith goeth before iustification, Rom. 10. first by that of S. Paul: Whosoeuer calleth on the name of our Lord shall be saued, but how shall they call vpon him, in whom they do not beleeue, how shall they beleeue without a preacher, &c. Where there is this order set downe to arriue vnto iustification. First, to heare the preacher, then to beleeue, afterward to call vpon God for mercie, and finally mercie is graunted and giuen in iustification: so that prayer goeth betweene faith and iustification. This Saint Augustine obserued, De praedest. sanc. cap. 7. De spirit. & lit. cap. 30. when he said: Faith is giuen first, by which we obtaine the rest. And againe: By the Law is knowledge of sinne, by faith we obtaine grace, and by grace our soule is cured. If we list to see the practise of this recorded in holy writ, reade the second of the Acts, and there you shall find, how that the people hauing heard S. Peters Sermon, were striken to the hearts, and beleeued, yet were they not straight way iustified, but asked of the Apostles what they must do, who willed them to do penance, and to be baptized in the name of Iesus, in remission of their sinnes, and then lo, they were iustified, so that penance and baptisme went betweene their faith, and their iustification.
In like maner Queene Candaces Eunuch, hauing heard S. Philip, announcing vnto him Christ, beleeued that IESVS CHRIST was the [Page 463] Sonne of God (no talke in those dayes of applying vnto himselfe Christs righteousnesse,) yet was he not iustified, Act. 8. before descending out of his chariot he was baptized. And three dayes passed betwene S. Pauls conuersion and his iustification, Act. 9. as doth euidently appeare by the historie of his conuersion.
The second fault he findeth with our faith, is that we take it to be nothing else, but an illumination of the mind, stirring vp the will, which being so moued and helped by grace, causeth in the heart many good spirituall motions. But this (saies M. Perkins) is as much to say, that dead men onely helped, can prepare themselues to their resurrection. Not so good Sir, but that men spiritually dead, being quickned by Gods spirit, may haue many good motions, for as our spirit giueth life vnto our bodies; so the spirit of God by his grace animateth, and giueth life vnto our soules. But of this it hath bene once before spoken at large, in the question of Free will.
R. ABBOT.
We are so to affirme the effect of iustifying faith, as may make good what the Scripture hath deliuered concerning it. Which because the Church of Rome doth not, in making faith precedent in time to iustification and grace, M. Perkins iustly findeth fault therewith. Our Sauiour saith,Ioh. 5.24. He that heareth my word and beleeueth in him that sent me, hath euerlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed frō death to life. Our passing from death to life, is our iustification. If euery one that beleeueth be passed from death to life, then euery one that beleeueth is iustified; or if there be any that beleeueth, and yet is not iustified, thē it is not true of euery one that beleeueth, that he is passed from death to life. To this place M. Perkins alluded though he quoted it not, but M. Bishop thought it safest for him to say nothing of it. To the other place his answer is a simple shift. He that beleeueth eateth and drinketh the bodie and bloud of Christ. I answer, saith M. Bishop, that our Sauiour in that text speaketh not of beleeuing, but of eating his bodie in the blessed Sacrament. But we answer him againe, that if Christ speake of eating in the sacrament, then it must follow, that whosoeuer is not partaker of the sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ is excluded from life, because our Sauiour expresly saith,Ioh. 6.53. Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man, and drinke his bloud, yee [Page 464] haue no life in you. But so to say is absurd and false, as in the example of the crucified theefe and many other, is apparant and plaine. Againe the Sacrament was not instituted long after, and will M. Bishop exclude any faithfull, that after this time died, before that institution from that eating of the flesh of Christ and drinking of his bloud, which Christ here recommendeth for the hauing of eternall life? S. Austin saith, thatBed [...] in 1. Cor. 10. ex August. ser. ad infantes. in baptisme we are made partakers of the bodie and bloud of Christ, so that though one die before he come to the Sacrament of the Bread and the Cup, yet is he not depriued of the participation and benefit of that Sacrament, seeing he hath found that alreadie which that Sacrament signifieth. The Apostle testifieth, that the fathers of the old Testament did1. Cor. 10.3.4. all eate the same spirituall meate, and did all drinke the same spirituall drinke, not the same one with another, as theRhem. Annot. 1. Cor. 10. Rhemistes for a shift expound it, butAug. in Joan. tract. 26. spiritualem eandem quem nos. the same that we do. ForIdem de vtilit. penitent. c. 1. Eundem non inuento quomodo intelligam nisi eundem quem manducamus & nos. I find not, saith S. Austin, how I should vnderstand, The same, but the same that we eate. Therefore they also did eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his bloud. But their eating and drinking was not the participation of the Sacrament. Therefore Christ by eating his flesh and drinking his bloud, doth not import any thing tied to the participation of the Sacrament. Yea the whole course of that text giueth vs plainely to vnderstand, that Christ by eating his flesh and drinking his bloud, meaneth the same as by beleeuing in him. Therefore doth S. Austin by the one expound the other.Aug. in Ioan. tract. 25. Crede & manducasti. Ibid. tract. 26. Hortans vt credamus in eum. Credere enim in eum, ho [...] est manducare p [...]nem viuum. Qui credit manducat. Beleeue and thou hast eaten; he exhorteth vs to beleeue in him; for to beleeue in him, that is to eate the bread of life; he that beleeueth, eateth. And so saith he of the fathers eating and drinking, that thisIdem de vtilit. poenit. Fide capiebatur, non corpore hauriebatur. spirituall meate and drinke was receiued by faith, and not by the bodie. Now if beleefe in Christ be imported by eating and drinking the flesh and bloud of Christ, then M. Perkins proofe was not vaine but M. Bishop hath shewed himselfe a vaine man, to giue so vaine an answer without any proofe thereof at all. Without doubtIoh. 6.54. whosoeuer eateth the flesh of Christ and drinketh his bloud, hath eternall life. But no man hath eternall life, but he that is iustified and sanctified. Whosoeuer therfore eateth and drinketh the flesh & bloud of Christ, is iustified & sanctified. But our beleeuing in Christ is our eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud. So soone therfore as we beleeue in Christ, we are iustified & sanctified, that it may be true which the Apostle saith, thatRom. 3.22. the righteousnesse [Page 465] of God by the faith of Iesus Christ, is to all and vpon all that do beleeue, which cannot be sayd, if any beleeue vpon whom there yet is not the Righteousnesse of God to iustifie him before God. The proofes that he alledgeth to the contrarie, are verie simple and slender. First he alledgeth the words of S. Paul, Rom. 10.13. Whosoeuer shall call vpon the name of the Lord shalbe saued, but how shall they call vpon him in whom they haue not beleeued? &c. Where of iustification we heare not a word, nor is any thing purposely meant thereof. For the words which the Apostle citeth out of the Prophet Ioel, touch not the order of iustification, but import a promise to them that are iustified by faith in Christ, and accordingly do call vpon the name of the Lord, that in the calamities and confusion of the world God will preserue them to be partakers of euerlasting saluation. Now we graunt that by order of nature there is a precedence of faith to iustification, but we denie all prioritie in respect of time. And whereas M. Bishop auoucheth, that prayer goeth betwixt faith and iustification, beside that it is not proued by the Apostles words, it is verie vntrue and false. For there can be no true prayer withoutZach. 12.10. Vulgat. the spirit of grace and of prayer, withoutRom. 8.15. Gal. 4.6. the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba Father. The spirit of adoption and grace is the spirit of sanctification. It followeth then that we pray not but by being first sanctified, and because sanctification is consequent to iustification, it must follow also, that iustification goeth before prayer, so that in praying for the forgiuenesse of sinnes, it commeth to passe with vs which the Prophet saith,Esa. 6 [...].24. Before they call I will answer them. Let M. Bishop order the matter how he will, yet this must alwayes stand good, that faith in the first instant of the being of it, gaspeth vnto God by prayer, as the thirstie land, and together therewith receiueth blessing of God. God tieth not himselfe to M. Bishops order, but where he giueth faith, in the gift thereof he beginneth with it the whole effect and fruit of faith. As there is no flame without light, but in the beginning of the flame there is ioyntly a beginning of light, and yet in nature the flame is before the light; so is there no faith without iustification and sanctification, and in the first act of faith ioyntly we are iustified and sanctified, albeit in order of nature faith is precedent to them both. Thus are the speeches vnderstood that he alledgeth out of Austin, and thus they are true, and make nothing at all to serue for the purpose [Page 466] to which he alledgeth them. No more do those other examples that he bringeth of the baptisme of the people conuerted by Peters sermon, of the Eunuch and the Apostle Paul. He proueth thereby, that there was some time betwixt their beleeuing and their being baptized▪ but proueth not that there was any time betwixt their beleeuing and their being iustified. For he must vnderstand, that we do not tye the iustification of a man to the act or instant of his baptisme, and of all these do affirme, that they receiued the sacrament of baptisme as Abraham did the sacrament of circumcision. After iustification,Rom. 5.11. he receiued the signe of circumcision as the seale of the righteousnesse of faith which he had when he was vncircumcised. Euen so did these receiue the signe of baptisme as the seale of forgiuenesse of sinnes and of the righteousnesse of faith, which they had embraced and receiued before they were baptized. We reade of Cornelius and his companie, thatAct. 10.44.47 the holy Ghost came on them, they receiued the holy Ghost when they were yet vnbaptized, and doth M. Bishop doubt but that they were iustified? Constantine the Emperour was not baptizedEuseb. de vita Constant. lib. 4. till neere his death, and shall we say that till then he was neuer iustified? Valentinian wasAmbros. de [...]bitu Valentia. not baptized at all, and yet Ambrose doubted not of his iustification. Verie idlely therefore and impertinently doth M. Bishop bring these examples, and gaineth nothing thereby to his cause. I omit his penance in steed of repentance only, as a toy that he is in loue withall. It is the plaine doctrine of their schooles,Tho. Aqu. p. 3. q. 68. ar. 3. in corp Et qui baptizatur pro quibuscunque peccatis, nō est aliqua satisfactio iniungenda: hoc enim esset iniuriam facere passioni & morti Christi, quasi ipsa non esset suffi [...]iens ad plenariam satisfactionem pro peccatis baptizatorum. that no penance is to be inioyned vnto men in baptisme, or that are to be baptized for any sinnes whatsoeuer, because that should be a wrong to the passion and death of Christ, as if it were not sufficient for full satisfaction for the sinnes of the baptized. Seeing therefore S. Peter in the place alledged, expresly directeth his speech to them that were to be baptized, M. Bishop and his fellowes would forbeare there to translate doing of penance, but that, poore men, they are afraid they shall be all vndone, vnlesse they make the Scripture say somewhat by right or by wrong for doing of penance. Whether in those dayes there were talke of applying Christs righteousnesse, appeareth I hope sufficiently in this discourse. The other fault which M. Perkins here findeth with the Romish doctrine, is that they make faith nothing else but an illumination of the mind, stirring vp the will, which being so moued and helped by grace, causeth in the heart manie [Page 467] good spirituall motions. M. Bishop putteth in (by grace) onely to delude the Reader, because he vnderstandeth hereby no other grace, but the same that Pelagius did, as before hath bene said. But hereof M. Perkins rightly said, that it is as much as if they should say, that a dead man onely helped, can prepare himselfe to his resurrection. Not so good Sir, saith M. Bishop, but that men spiritually dead being quickened by Gods spirit, may haue many good motions. I answer, you say true, good Sir, when a man is quickened by Gods spirit, but can a man be quickened before he be quickned? We suppose that the iustifying of a man is the quickening of him, and not we onely, but you also in the fiue and twentieth section following, do hold that our iustification is the translating of vs from death to life. Before iustification then we are not quickened, nor receiue any infused or inhabitant grace of the spirit of life, wherein spirituall life consisteth. Therefore to auouch many good spirituall motions before iustification, is to auouch grace without grace, life without life, the spirit without the spirit, and a quickening of vs before we are quickened. Which because it cannot be, it is true that M. Perkins saith, that by your doctrine you make a dead man prepare himselfe to his resurrection. What you haue said in the question of Free will, I hope hath his answer sufficiently in that place.
21 W. BISHOP.
The third difference, saith M. Perkins, concerning faith, is this.Page. 84. The Papists say, that man is iustified by faith, yet not by faith alone, but also by other vertues, as the feare of God, hope, loue, &c. The reasons which are brought to maintaine their opinion, are of no moment. Well, let vs heare some of them, that the indifdifferent Reader may iudge, whether they be of any moment or no.
FIRST REASON.
MAny sinnes are forgiuen her, because she hath loued much: Luke. 7 47. whence they gather that the womā there spokē of, had pardō of her sinnes, & was iustified by loue. Answer. In this text, loue is not [Page 468] made an impulsiue cause, to moue God to pardon her sinnes, but onely a signe, to shew that God had already pardoned them.
Reply. Obserue first, that Catholikes do not teach, that she was pardoned for loue alone, for they vse not (as Protestants do) when they find one cause of iustification, to exclude all, or any of the rest: But considering that in sundry places of holy writ, iustification is ascribed vnto manie seuerall vertues, affirme that not faith alone, but diuers other diuine qualities concurre vnto iustification, and as mention here made of loue, excludeth not faith, hope, repentance, and such like: so in other places, where faith is onely spoken of, there hope, charity, and the rest must not also be excluded. This sinner had assured beliefe in Christes power to remit sinnes, and great hope in his mercy that he would forgiue them great sorrow and detestation of her sinne also she had, that in such an assembly did so humbly prostrate her selfe at Christes feete, to wash them with her teares, and to wipe them with the haires of her head. And as she had true repentance of her former life, so no doubt but she had also a firme purpose, to leade a new life. So that in her conuersion, all those vertues met together, which we hold to concurre to iustification, and among the rest, the preheminence worthily is giuen to loue, as to the principall disposition. She loued our Sauiour as the fountaine of all mercies, and goodnesse, and therefore accounted her precious ointments best bestowed on him; yea, and the humblest seruice, and most affectionate she could offer him, to be all too little, and nothing answerable to the inward burning charity which she bare him. Which noble affection of hers, towards her diuine Redeemer, no question, was most acceptable vnto him, as by his owne word is most manifest: for he said, That many sinnes were forgiuen her, because she loued much. But M. Perkins saith, that her loue was no cause that moued Christ to pardon her, but onely a signe of pardon giuen before: which is so contrary to the text, that a man not past all shame, would blush once to affirme it. First Christ saith expresly, that it was the cause of the pardon: Because she had loued much. Secondly, that her loue went before, is as plainly declared, both by mention of the time past, Because she hath loued; and by the euidence of her fact of washing, wiping, and anointing his feete: for the which saith our Sauiour, then already performed: Many sinnes are forgiuen her. So that here can be no impediment of beleeuing the Catholike Doctrine, so clearlie deliuered by the holy Ghost, vnlesse one will be so blindly led by our new Maisters, that he will beleeue no words of Christ, be they neuer so [Page 469] plaine, otherwise then it please the Ministers to expound them. And this much of the first of those reasons, which M. Perkins said were of no moment.
R. ABBOT.
I wished thee, gentle Reader, before to obserue that which here plainly thou seest, that by the Romish doctrine there is one faith, hope, charity before iustification, which must prepare a man in iustification to receiue, and is the cause for which in iustification he doth receiue another; a faith, which is the cause why God endueth him with faith; a hope, which is the cause for which God endueth him with hope; a charity, which is the cause for which God bestoweth vpon him the gift of charity. A strange doctrine, and the same for which Pelagius was of old condemned,August. epist. 46. that vpon our merits the grace of God is bestowed vpon vs. M. Bishop will say, that they make no merits of these; yet he himselfe knoweth that their schooles do make them merits ex congruo, though not ex condigno, merits which are of force to moue God, and which it is conuenient that God should respect, though they do not fully deserue grace. And this merit Bellarm. de iustif. lib. 1. cap. 17. Fides suo quodā modo meretur remissionem peccatorum: iustificat per modū dispositionis ac meriti. Bellarmine himselfe affirmeth, as before was said. But let vs know why they account them not properly merits? The reason indeede is, because they say they are not the effects of any infused grace; for they make them intrinsecally the acts onely of mans free will, though adioyning the shew of a counterfeit grace, which doth as it were put a hand vnder the arme to helpe lift it vp for the acting thereof. Yet M. Bishop at randon not knowing what he saith, calleth them diuine qualities, contrary to the doctrine of his owne schooles. For if faith, hope, and charity before iustification be diuine qualities, and essentially the works of grace, there can nothing hinder, but that they should be as properly meritorious as those infused graces, wherein they affirme iustification to consist. But now he must vnderstand, that the Fathers did not take merit so strictly, as that they giue him way to shift off from himselfe the assertion of Pelagius. They vnderstood it so largely, as thatAugust. epist. 105. Si excusatio iusta est quisquis ea vtitur, non gratia sed merito liberatur. if a man can but plead a iust excuse for his deliuerance, he that vseth it is not deliuered by grace but by merit; if there be butCont. 2. epist. Pelag. lib 1. cap. 19. Pro meritis videlicet voluntatis bonae: ac sic gratia nö sit gratia, sed sit illud, &c. gratiam Dei secundum merita nostra dari. a good will before grace, then grace is not grace, but is giuen vpon merit. And if he will say, that they affirme not any good will before grace, [Page 470] let him remember, that Pelagius affirmed such a preuenting grace as they do, but S. Austine professeth to know no grace, but iustifying grace, as hath bene shewedCha. 1. sect. 5. before, so that if before iustifying grace, there be any good will or good worke, then the grace of God is not freely giuen, but by merit, according to the doctrine of Pelagius. Yea, Bellarmine himselfe confesseth, that theBellarm. de grat. & li. arbit. lib. 6. cap. 5. Gratiam secundum merita nostra dari intelligum patres, cùm aliquid sit proprijs viribus (etiamsi n [...]n sit meritum de condigno) ratione cuius datur gratia. Fathers do vnderstand the grace of God to be giuen by merits, when any thing is done by our owne strength, in respect whereof grace is giuen, though the same be not any merit de condigno, of condignity or worth. Such are the faith, hope, and charity, that they teach before iustification, which therefore as I haue said, are denied to be merits de condigno, because they proceede from our owne strength. Yea, say they, but not without the helpe of God. But so Pelagius also said, as we haue shewed in the place before quoted in the question of Free wil, and therefore in that they say nothing to free themselues from saying that which the Fathers condemned in Pelagius, that according to our merits the grace of God is bestowed vpon vs. And this M. Bishop will proue by the example of the woman, who in the Pharisees house washed the feete of Christ, of whom our Sauiour saith;Luk. 7.47. Manie sinnes are forgiuen her, because she hath loued much. She was iustified therefore, saith he, because of her loue. M. Perkins answereth, that that because importeth not any impulsiue cause of the forgiuenesse of her sinnes, but onely a signe thereof, as if Christ had said, It is a token that much hath bene forgiuen her, because she loueth much. But M. Bishop like to bad disposed persons, who face the matter most boldly, where their cause is woorst, saith, that this is so contrary to the text, that a man not past all shame, would blush once to affirme it. The text of it owne accord yeeldeth this construction and no other. The creditour forgiueth to one fiue hundred talents, to the other fifty; whether of them will loue him more? He, saith the Pharisee, to whom he forgaue most. Here is loue expresly set downe, as a thankfulnesse following after, in respect of a forgiuenesse gone before. Christ then in effect inferreth thus, Thou hast giuen me smal tokens of thy loue, since my entring into thy house, but thus and thus hath she shewed her loue. What is the cause?August. hom. 23. O Pharisaee, ideo parum diligis quia parum tibi dimitti suspicaris: non quia parum dimittitur, sed quia parum putas esse quod dimi [...]ttiur. O thou Pharisee, therefore thou louest little, because thou thinkest that little is forgiuen thee, not because it is little, but because thou thinkest it to be but little. But this woman knoweth that much hath bene forgiuen [Page 471] her, therefore she loueth much. And this exposition is apparently confirmed by the words which Christ addeth, To whom a little is forgiuen, he doth loue a little: which if we will fit to the words going before, Many sinnes are forgiuen her, because she hath loued much, we must make the meaning of these former words to be this; But she loueth much; it is a signe therefore that much hath bene forgiuen her. In this meaning Ambrose maketh this woman a figure of the Church of the Gentiles,Ambros de Tobia. cap. 22 Plu [...] remissum est ecclesiae quia plus debebat; sed & ipsa plus soluit. &c. Mentor gratiae eo plura soluit, qu [...] plura meruiss [...]t. to which there was more forgiuen, because she was indebted more, but being mindfull of this grace, hath paied so much the more (in loue) by how much the greater mercy she had obtained. And to the same sence doth he expound it,In Luc. cap. 7. writing vpon the place, euen as Basil also doth, when alluding to that place, he saith:Basil. exhort. ad baptism. Pl [...]s debenti plus remittitur vt vehementius amet. To him that oweth more, more is forgiuen, that he may loue the more. So doth Hierome take it, saying,Hieron. adu. Iouin. lib. 2. De duobus debitoribus cui plus dimittitur plus amat. Vnde & saluator ait, &c. Of two debters, to whom more is forgiuen, he loueth more; thereupon our Sauiour saith, Many sinnes are forgiuen her, because she hath loued much, which cannot hang together, if loue be taken for an effect of forgiuenesse in the one speech, and a cause thereof in the other. But now we expect, that Maister Bishop so peremptorily reiecting that exposition, should giue vs some great reason of the denying of it. First, saith he, Christ saith expresly, that it was the cause of the pardon; because she had loued much. But his learning should teach him, that the word because doth not alwaies note an antecedent cause, but sometimes a succeeding effect or signe. As where our Sauiour Christ saith of the diuell,Iohn. 8.44. he abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him, he did not meane to say, that the cause of his not abiding in the truth, was because now there is no truth in him, but that hereby as by an effect and signe, it appeareth that he abode not in the truth. So where he saith;Jbid. cap. 15. v. 15. [...], &c. I haue called you friends, because all things that I haue heard of the Father I haue made knowne vnto you, he maketh this imparting of all things to them not a cause, but a token of accounting them his friends. Which being euident and plaine, M. Bishops first reason hindereth nothing, but that Christes words may well be vnderstood, that he nameth the womans loue onely as a signe and token of many sinnes to be forgiuen vnto her. And to take it otherwise as he doth, ouerthroweth the rule that is deliuered by S. Austine: August. epist. 120 cap. 30 Ex hoc incipiunt bona opera ex quo iustificamur, non quia praecesserūt iustificamur. Good works begin from the time that we are iustified, we are not iustified for any good works that go before. His second reason is [Page 472] lesse worth, and he sheweth therein either his ignorance or his negligence. For whereas he argueth out of the Tenses, that her loue is expressed by the time past, she hath loued much, and her forgiuenesse by the time present, Many sinnes are forgiuen her, importing that the former cannot be the signe, and therefore must needes be the cause of that that followeth, if he had bene so carefull as to looke into the Greeke text, he should haue found that her forgiuenesse of sinnes is expressed also by the time past, by the Atticke preter perfect tense [...]; Many sinnes haue bene forgiuen her, because she hath loued much, albeit it should not haue noted necessarily a present act, but a continuation of the benefit, if it had bene expressed in the present tense. The exposition therefore alledged, being direct, and arising simply out of the text it selfe, what reason hath M. Bishop to force another, which plainly thwarteth that which Christ after saith, Thy faith hath saued thee? To conclude, let him take for his reproofe, that which Origen saith;Origen. ad Rom. cap. 3. Ex nullo legis opere sed pro sola fide ait ad eam: Remittuntur, &c. For no worke of the law (and therefore not for her loue) but for faith onely doth Christ say to the woman, Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee, and againe, Thy faith hath saued thee: and let him learne to condemne his owne presumption, in that he taketh vpon him so rashly to define, that which he is not able, by reason to make good. As for the Ministers, they are very simple men, if they cannot better approoue their expositions and doctrines then he hath done.
22. W. BISHOP.
Gal. 5.6.2. Reason. Neither Circumcision, nor prepuce, auaileth any thing, but faith that worketh by charity. Hence Catholikes gather, that when the Apostle attributeth iustification to faith, he meanes not faith alone, but as it is ioyned with charity, and other like vertues, as are requisite to prepare the soule of man, to receiue that cō plete grace of iustification. M. Perkins answereth, that they are ioyned together. But it is faith alone that apprehendeth Christs righteousnesse, and maketh it ours. It vseth charity as an instrument to performe the duties of the first and second table, but it hath no part with faith in the matter of our iustification.
Reply. That it hath the chiefest part, and that faith is rather the instrument and handmayd of charity; my proofe shall be out of the very [Page 473] text alledged, where life and motion is giuen to faith by charity, as the Greeke word Energoumene being passiue, doth plainly shew, that faith is moued, led, and guided by charity. Which S. Iames doth demonstrate most manifestly saying, that Euen as the body is dead without the soule, so is faith without charity: Making charity to be the life, and as it were the soule of faith: Now no man is ignorant, but it is the soule that vseth the body, as an instrument, euen so then it is charity, that vseth faith as her instrument and inferiour, and not contrariwise: which S. Paul confirmeth at large in a whole chapter, prouing charity to be a more excellent gift then faith, or any other, concluding with these words: 1. Cor. 13. Now there remaineth faith, hope, and charity; these three, but the greater of these is charity. Whereupon S. Augustine resolueth thus: Nothing but charity maketh faith it selfe auailable,Li. de Trinit. cap. 18. for faith (saith he) may be without charity, but it cannot be auailable without it: So that first you see that charity is the mouer and commaunder, and faith, as her instrument and handmayd.
Now that in the worke of iustification, it hath the chiefe place, may be thus proued, I demaund whether that worke of iustification by faith be done, for the loue of God, and to his honour or no? If not, as it is void of charity, so it is a wicked and sinfull act, no iustification, but infection, our owne interest being the principall end of it: now if it comprehend and conclude Gods glory, and seruice in it, that is, if they apply Christs righteousnesse to them, to glorifie God thereby, then hath charity the principall part therein: for the directing of all, to the honour and glory of God, is the proper office and action of charity. All this reason that charity both concurreth to iustification, and that as principall, S. Augustine confirmeth in these words: The house of God, (that is, a righteous and godly soule, Serm. 22. de v [...]rbis Apostol.) hath for his foundation faith; hope is the walles of it; but charity is the roofe and perfection of it.
R. ABBOT.
Here M. Bishop was loth to trouble himselfe too much with M. Perkins answer, who truly obserueth the difference betwixt faith & charity, that the proper act of faith is to take & receiue to vs; the proper act of loue, to giue our selues forth to others. Seeing thē that iustificatiō is a thing to be receiued, the same must needs be performed properly by faith, but not by charity, because charity is no instrumēt [Page 474] to receiue. But yet faith receiuing all of God, vseth charity, as the meanes to make returne of it selfe to God againe, and by charity, as a working hand performeth all the duties commaunded of God, to the honour and glory of God. This therefore the Apostle intendeth in the place alledged, that faith hauing alone iustified vs by receiuing the gift of righteousnesse, which is by the merit of Iesus Christ, doth not stay there, but goeth forth by charity, to serue God, to serue one another, and to shew our selues thankfull vnto God. And wonder it were, that the Apostle hauing before professedly disputed the matter of iustification, and referring the same wholy to faith, should here crosse all that he hath before said, and tell vs, that not onely faith, but loue also must concurre to make vp our iustification before God. Marke it well, gentle Reader, that where the Apostle purposely speaketh of the meanes of iustification, M. Bishop can finde nothing to proue, that we are iustified by loue, nothing pleaded but onely faith; but here where the Apostle describeth only the condition of the faith by which we are iustified, here he will finde somewhat whereby to plead against the Apostles former doctrine, yea, and will proue, that loue hath not onely a part, but the chiefest part in our iustification, and that faith is rather the instrument or handmaid of charity. How much is he beholding to his Maister Bellarmine, that hath taught him such a trick, and furnished him with a deuice, which neuer any Father Greeke or Latine, neuer any translatour could light vpon, till his admirable wit had found it out? We may well thinke that such a head could not but deserue a Cardinals hat. Forsooth the text proueth, that life and motion is giuen to faith by charity. But how so?Bellarm. de iustific. lib. 2. cap. 4. Marry the Greeke word, [...] being passiue, doth plainly shew, that faith is moued, led, and guided by charity. But what? must we, M. Bishop, vpon Bellarmines word and yours take this, without any further authority or warrant so to do? Indeede it is true, that the Greeke word sometimes is taken passiuely, but by the Apostle is more often vsed in the actiue signification, and in this place was neuer before by any Father Greeke or Latine taken otherwise. Yea, the spite is, that the vulgar Latine interpreter to whom they are tied by the Councell of Trent, crosseth this deuice, for he readeth as we do, Fides quae per charitatem operatur, faith which worketh by loue. But there is a tricke to salue that to; for, saith Bellarmine, Jllud (operatur) passiuè accipiendum est, non a [...]iuè. the word [Page 475] (operatur) must be taken passiuely, not actiuely. Now what blockheads were the Diuines of Rhemes, that could not see so much, or would omit so materiall a proofe against the heretikes? for they haue translated as we do, faith which worketh by loue. But they were bashfull; they thought Bellarmine could carie out the matter with his name and countenance, but it would be condemned for a great fault in them. Better it is for some man to steale a horse, then for another to looke ouer the hedge. They knew well, that euerie child would crie out vpon them for lewd men, if they had translated operatur passiuely, in as much as neither their owne interpreter in any other place, nor any other Latine author hath euer vsed it in that sort. Againe, they saw that a very grosse and palpable absurdity would thereupon haue ensued, which on their owne part cannot be denied. For if they had translated faith which is wrought by loue, then it would haue followed, that loue by which faith is wrought, must needes be before faith, whereas they all acknowledge, that faith hath the first being, according to that which M. Bishop a littleSect. 20. Ex August. de praedest. sanct. ca. 7. before alledged out of Austine, faith is giuen first, by which we obtaine the rest. Which being a principle in diuinitie, and accorded on both sides, they could not tell how to make good, if they should haue said that faith is wrought by loue. Now M. Bishop, though for the rest he would aduenture vpon his Maisters credit, yet durst not follow him so farre, as to translate operatur passiuely, but onely beateth about the bush, and telleth vs, that the Greeke sheweth, that faith is moued, led, and guided by charity. Wherein he doth wrong to the Rhemists his country-men, to whom for countries sake he should haue done that honour, to stand to their translation. Yea, and he abuseth his Reader, in that he doth not directly translate the place, which if he had done, he durst not translate it, to giue that meaning that now he maketh of it. Which meaning of his cannot in any sort be true, because it is faith which first heareth, and beleeueth, and receiueth the words of God, & thereby prescribeth vnto charity the way that it is to go, and the duty that it is to performe, without which what is charity, but a wild & a wandering affection, easely swaruing and caried away from the due respect and loue of God, so that by faith it is that charity pleaseth God, andHeb. 11.6. without faith it is vnpossible to please God. Now seeing with God we cannot thinke, that the greater is accepted for the [Page 476] lesse, but rather the lesse for the greater, not the mistresse (so to speake) for the handmaides sake, but rather the handmaid for the mistresse sake, we must needes make faith not the handmaide, as M. Bishop doth, but the mistresse, because by faith it is that charity is acceptable vnto God. But he telleth vs, that S. Iames doth demonstrate charity to be the life, and as it were the soule of faith, when he saith, Euen as the body is dead without the soule, so is faith without charitie. But he wrongeth his Reader, in citing thus falsly the words of S. Iames. For S. Iames saith not, so is faith without charity, but so is faith without workes. Now charity cannot be without works, but if there might not be workes without charity, S. Paul would not haue said,1. Cor. 13.3. Though I feede the poore with all my goods, and though I giue my body to be burned and haue not loue, it profiteth me nothing. Charity is inwardly the affection of the heart, seene onely to God: but workes are outwardly visible and apparant to men, and therefore there is a difference to be made betwixt charity and workes, which wholy ouerthroweth all that M. Bishop here goeth about to prooue. For the faith whereof we here dispute, is inward in the heart, because withRom. 10.10. the heart man beleeueth vnto righteousnesse. But that which is without, cannot be the life or soule of that which is within, nay it selfe hath from within all the life that it hath, and if it receiue not life from within, it is altogether dead. Workes therefore being outward, and issuing from within, if they be true, can by no meanes be said to be the life of faith that is within. But that which S. Iames saith, he saith it of workes. He saith nothing therefore, to prooue that charity is the life and soule of faith. But how then, will he say, doth Saint Iames make workes, as it were the life and soule of faith? Very well, according to that meaning of faith which he there intendeth. For he speaketh of faith, as it is outwardly professed to men.Iam. 2.14.18. Th [...]u saiest thou hast faith, shew me thy faith: I will shew thee my faith. Now in this respect, workes are rightly said to be the lif [...] of faith; not charitie, but workes, because charity cannot be discerned by the eies of men, but workes of behauiour and conuersation are discerned. Yea, there may be a profession of the faith and works thereunto correspondent outwardly, when yet there is neither faith nor charity within. Yet where it is so, men outwardly to men and to the Church, go for no other but liuing m [...]m [...]s of the Church, vntill such time as the winde of [Page 477] temptation bloweth them away, and discouereth them to haue bene but chaffe, when in semblance they seemed to be good corne. But where there is outward profession of faith, and there is not conuersation thereunto agreeing, a man is accounted but a dead branch fit to be cut off; his profession wanteth that that should giue it life and grace; he is euery mans by word and reproch, his hypocrisie is detested of all men, and therefore is much more lothsome vnto God. In a word, S. Paul speaketh of faith in one meaning, as it is inward in the heart to God: S. Iames speaketh of faith in another meaning, as it is outward in the face to men. If we vnderstand it according to Saint Paul, it is faith that giueth life to all the rest, as afterwards shall further appeare. If we vnderstand it according to Saint Iames, workes are the life of faith, and giue it name and being, because a man is not accounted faithfull for his words, vnlesse there be also workes agreeable to his words. Now therefore Maister Bishops comparison, whereby he would make charitie as the life and soule, and faith as the body, cannot be made good out of this place, nay indeede it cannot be made good at all. For that which must be as the life and soule, must be the internall and essentiall forme of the thing. ButBellarm. de iustificat. lib. 2. cap. 4. Forma fidei extrinseca, nō intrinseca, & quae dei illi non vt sit sed vt moueatur [...] sit res actuosa & operans. charitie is to faith a forme onely extrinsecall and outward, not an inward forme, saith Bellarmine, not giuing it his being, but onely his mouing, actiuitie, and working. Charity therefore cannot be called the life and soule of faith. Now because it is but an outward and accidentall forme, the mouing and working that it giueth vnto faith, is but outward and accidentall For the proper and naturall act and motion of a thing, cannot proceed from an accidentall forme. Faith therefore hath it owne inward & essentiall forme, whereby it hath life & being within it selfe, & whence proceedeth a motion & working that is proper to it selfe. And thus doth the Apostle set it down distinctly, as a vertue absolute in it self, whē he saith,1. Cor. 13.13. Now abide these three, faith, hope, and loue. Where to say that faith is as the body, and loue as the soule, is to make the Apostle to speake absurdly, as if a man for two should reckō a body & a soule. According to this distinction doth the scripture still set forth faith in the nature of faith, to be the instrument of our iustification before God, euē according to that life & soule that is that proper & essentiall forme, whereby it hath the being of faith, which yet in iustifying vs, receiueth charity as an accidentall forme [Page 478] to be vnto it an instrument for mouing and stirring abroad, in the performance of all duties recommended vnto vs both to God and men. Thus Bellarmine perforce wresteth from M. Bishop, yea and from himselfe also, this assertion of faith being likened to the body, and charity to the soule. Yet M. Bishop once againe will assay to proue it by S. Paul, making charity a more excellent gift then faith, reckoning faith, hope, and charity, and concluding, the greatest of these is charity. But this testimony auaileth him nothing at all; for it followeth not, that because the eie is a more excellent member then the eare, therefore the eie is as the life and soule to the eare, or the eare the instrument of the eie. No more doth it follow, that because charity is a more excellent gift then faith, therefore it should be the forme and life of faith, or faith the instrument of charitie. It followeth not, that because the eie is more excellent then the eare, therefore for the vse of hearing, it should be more excellent then the eare. No more doth it follow, that because charitie is more excellent then faith, therefore for the vse of iustification it must excell faith. Faith and charitie respectiuely haue the preferment each of other. If we respect latitude of vse, charitie is more excellent then faith, as which is extended euery way to God, to Angels, to men, and by which all the gifts of God which he bestoweth vpon vs, are made profitable to other men, so as thatAug. de verb. Dō. ser. 18. Ʋniuersa inutilitèr habet, qui vnum illud qu [...] vniuersis vtatur non habet. vnprofitably he hath all, saith Austine, who wanteth that one whereby he should vse all. Chrysost. hom. de fide, spe & charit. Nullum charismae sine charitate perfectam est; nullum donū sine charitate aptū. Quicquid enim charismatis aut doni quis (que) meruerit, desertū charitate non stabit. Omnia enim quae Sp. sanctus deuotis aut impertit aut donat aut charitate perficiu [...]tur, aut sine charitate effectū nullū sortiuntur. No gift, saith Chrysostome, is perfect or conuenient without charitie. Whatsoeuer grace or gift a man hath obtained, being destitute of charitie, it will not stand; because whatsoeuer God imparteth or giueth, either is perfected by charity, or without charity, it commeth to no effect or vse. But if we consider a man priuately in himselfe, and for his owne vse, faith is more excellent then charity, as wherin originally standeth our communion and fellowship with God;Ephe. 3.17. by which Christ dwelleth in our hearts; into which as a hand God putteth all the riches of his grace for our saluation; and by which whatsoeuer else is in vs, is commended vnto God. We haue nothing in vs pure, nothing cleane, nothing but what is corrupted & defiled, but faith salueth all, healeth all, setteth Christ betwixt God and vs, that for his sake he may be mercifull vnto vs. Againe if we respect latitude of time & cōtinuance, charity is to be preferred before faith. For faith is but for a time, and when [Page 479] the promise of God, which is the matter or subiect of it, shall be fully accomplished, the vse of it shall cease. But charity and loue abideth for euer, and shall continue betwixt God and vs an euerlasting bond. Therfore Origen saith,Origen. in Numer. hom 14. Sola charitas nunquā excidit, ideò super prophetiā, super fidē. super scientiam super ipsum etiā martyrium charitas habenda est. Onely loue it is that neuer faileth; therefore it is more excellent then prophecie, then faith, then knowledge, then martyrdome. Chrysost. hom. de fide, spe & charit. Sola charitas aeterna est, quia cum Deo in sancti [...] est: ideo maior est. Only charity is eternall, saith Chrysostome, because with God it is in the Saints; for that cause it is the greater. The same reason S. Austine also giueth,August. de doct. Christ. lib. 1. cap. 39. Quia cùm quis (que) ad aeterna peruenerit, duobus istis decedentibus charitas auctior & certior permanebit. because, saith he, when a man is come to things eternall, those two (faith and hope) failing, charity shall remaine more increased, and better assured. In few words to resolue M. Bishop in this behalfe, we say thatAristot. Topic. the end is more excellent, then those things which pertaine to the end. The end of our faith & iustification is charity, that is, the full restoring of vs to the image of God, the very summe and effect whereof is loue. Absolutely therefore to speake it is true, that loue is greater and more excellent then faith. But when we speake of the meanes of iustification and attainment of that saluation, whereto perfect charity and righteousnesse doth belong, then faith must be preferred as the greater and more excellent, faith onely beareth sway therein, and this slender & weake charity which here we haue, is of no effect or moment thereunto. To saue a man, I say, faith is the greater; in man being saued charity is the greater. Till faith haue finished our saluation, loue must yeeld to faith; When faith hath fully saued vs, it shall haue an end, but loue which simply is the greater, shall abide for euer. Now as touching the place of Austine, he speaketh there of faith according to vulgar vnderstanding, in like sort as S. Iames doth. He speaketh of a faith that may be without charity, which true faith cannot be.August. epist. 85. Pia fides sine spe & charitate esse non vult. Godly faith, saith the same Austine, will not be without hope and charity. For Idem de verb. Dom. ser. 61. Si fidem habet sine spe & delectione, Christum esse credit, non in Christum credit. if a man haue faith without hope and loue, saith he, he beleeueth Christ to be, but he beleeueth not in Christ. But that onely is the true iustifying faith, whereby a man beleeueth in Christ, which taketh not his life and force of loue, but incorporating vs into Christ, receiueth of him2. Tim. 1.7. the spirit of loue, and by Christ giueth life and force to all the fruites and workes thereof. Faith then as it is professed to men, may be without charity, but being without charity, it profiteth nothing, nor can stand vs in any steed with God: but true faith is neuer diuided from charitie, nor can be, and therefore of it Saint Austine speaketh not. That which he would [Page 480] seeme to inferre, is without any premisses, and apparantly false by the very words here questioned. For if faith worketh by loue, then faith is the worker, that is, the mouer and commaunder, and loue the instrument by which it worketh, and as absurd it must needes be, to say, that charity or loue is the commaunder, and faith the instrument, as to say, the axe is the commaunder of the Carpenter that heweth with it, or the Carpenter the instrument of the axe. For conclusion of this section, Maister Bishop wil giue vs a reason to proue, that in the worke of iustification charitie hath the chiefest place. First he asketh full wisely, whether that worke of iustification by faith, be done for the loue of God, and to his owne honour or no? Iustification is the worke of God, who isRom. 3.26. the iustifier of him that is of the faith of Iesus. His question is this, whether God do iustifie vs for the loue of God? But I answer him, that the finall end of our iustification, is the honour and glory of God, who hathEphe. 1.5.6. predestinated vs to be adopted through Iesus Christ vnto himselfe, to the praise of the 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,Rom. 4.20. to giue glory vnto God, and therefore Moses and Aaron at the waters of strife, are saidNum. 20 12. not to haue sanctified the Lord, that is to say, not to haue giuen him glory, because they beleeued him not. For1. 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, thatArno 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. Chrysost. ad Rom. hom. 8. Qui mandata illius implet obedit ei: hic autem (qui credit) conuenientē de eo opinionē accipit, cum (que) glorificat at (que) admi [...]atur nu [...]lo magis quàm operū demonstratio. Jlla ergò gloriatio eius est qui rect [...] factū aliquod prae [...]titeri [...]: haec autem Deum ipsum glorificat ac qu [...]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 [Page 481] God.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, whē 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: [Page 482] 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, whē 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 may conceiue, or mind one of these, without hauing consideration of the rest. Now if M. Bishop by negatiue separation, do remoue hope & charity frō faith, so as that his meaning is, that if faith alone do iustifie thē, though there be neither hope nor charity, [Page 483] yet faith will neuerthelesse iustifie, his maior proposition is false. For though it be true, that the totall cause of any thing being in act, the effect must needs follow, yet from the totall cause can we not separate those things, together with which it hath in nature his existēce and being, and without which it cannot be in act for the producing of the effect, though they conferre nothing thereto; because that is to denie the being of it, and the destroying of the cause. But if his meaning be, that if faith alone do iustifie, then though we consider not hope and charitie as concurring therewith, yet it selfe doth iustifie, we graunt his maior proposition for true, but his minor is not true. We say, that faith considered without hope and charitie (that is, hope and charitie not considered with it) doth iustifie. Then saith he, a man may be iustified without any hope of heauen, and without anie loue towards God, or estimation of his honour. True say I, if his meaning be, that the hope of heauen, or loue of God, and estimation of his honour be excepted onely priuatiuely, and only not considered with faith as causes of iustification. But if his meaning be, as it is, that a man then is iustified without hauing any hope of heauen, or loue towards God, or estimation of his honour, he playeth the part onely of a brabler, inferring a reall separation of those things in the subiect, which the argument supposeth onely respectiuely separated in the vnderstanding. Here is then no presumption in the Protestants iustification, but M. Bishop is much to be condemned of presumption, that hauing left his head at Rome, and broken his braines in contending against the Iesuites, he would notwithstanding take vpon him to be a writer, and do it so vainely and idlely as he hath done. According to that that hath bene said, M. Perkins answereth, that though faith be neuer subsisting without hope and loue and other graces of God, yet in regard of the act of iustification, it is alone without them all, euen as the eye in regard of substance and being is neuer alone, yet in respect of seeing it is alone: for it is the eye onely that doth see. Here is (saith M. Bishop) a worthie peece of Philosophy, that the eye alone doth see. Why I pray, what is the default? Marrie the eye is but the instrument of seeing, saith he, the soule being the principall cause of sight, as it is of all other actions of life, sense and reason. But did not your sense and reason serue you to vnderstand that M. Perkins meant accordingly, that the eye alone doth see, that is, that the eye alone of all the mēbers & parts, is the [Page 484] instrument of seeing, and proportionably that faith alone of all the vertues and graces of the soule, is the instrument of iustification? As the soule then seeth onely by the eye, so the soule spiritually receiueth iustification by faith alone. If his head had stood the right way, he might verie easily haue conceiued, that M. Perkins in saying that the eye alone doth see, did not meane to exclude the soule that seeth by the eye, but onely all other parts of the bodie from being consorted with the eye in the soules imployment & seruice for that vse. And that that M. Perkins saith therein, is directly to the purpose, because the question is not here of the whole cause of iustification, but onely of the instrumentall cause. Of the efficient and finall cause of iustification there is no question, which is, God in Iesus Christ, for our saluation and the glorie of his name. The materiall cause we say and haue proued to be the merite and obedience of Christ. The formall cause is Gods imputation, apprehended and receiued by vs. The instrument of this apprehension we say is faith alone, which is the verie point here disputed of. But here he will returne the similitude vpon vs; the eye cannot see without the head, because it receiueth influence from the head before it can see. Be it so: no more can faith iustifie without Christ, without God whose ordinance and gift it is, of whom it hath it force and power, being by him as peculiarly appointed to iustifie, as the eye is to see. The eye is a naturall instrument, receiuing his influence frō the head, wherof it is naturally a member and part: but faith is an instrument supernaturall; not any naturall part or power and facultie of the soule, but the instinct and worke of God, and therefore receiueth all the force and influence that it hath, from the spirit of Iesus Christ. But he maketh other application hereof. So cannot faith iustifie without charitie, because it necessarily receiueth spirit of life frō it, before it can do any thing acceptable in Gods sight. So then charitie is the head, and faith the eye, and we must needs take it so, because M. Bishop hath told vs that it is so. But if it be so, then it should be as strange a matter to see faith without charitie, as it is to see an eye without a head; as strange that charitie being extinguished and gone, there should remaine a faith whereby to beleeue; as that the head being dead, there should remaine an eye whereby to see. But that that giueth influence and life to another thing, must needs haue a prioritie to that that receiueth it. Charitie hath no prioritie to faith, but charity [Page 485] it selfe is obtained by faith. ForEccles. 25 13. faith is the beginning to be ioyned vnto God. Aug. de praedest. sanct. cap. 7. Fides prima daetur, ex qua impetrentur caetera. Faith is first giuen, by which the rest is obtained; Prosp. de voc. gent. lib. 1. cap. 9. Cum fides data fuerit non petitae ipsius tam petitionibus bona caetera consequuntur. which being first giuen vnrequested, at the request thereof all other benefites or good things do ensue and follow. Aug. in Psal. 31. Laudo superaedificationē boni operis, sed agnosco fidei fundamentum: fidei radicem. Nec bona illa (opera) appellauerim quādiu non de radice bona procedant. Faith is the roote and foundation of good works; from which vnlesse they grow, they are not to be called good; euen Origen. in Ro. cap. 4. Fides tanquam radix imbre suscepto haeret in animae solo vt surgantromi qui fructus operū ferant: illa scil. radix iustitiae qua Deus accepto fert iustitiam sine operibus. that root of righteousnes wherby the Lord imputeth righteousnes without works, which receiuing the deaw or showre sticketh in the groūd that thence the branches may spring which bring forth the fruits of good works. Faith isAug. in Psa. 83 Fides nidus est pullorum tuorū: in hoc nido operare opera tua. the nest wherein we are to lay our workes, that we may hatch them vnto God. Faith isProsp. de voc. gen. l. 1 c. 8. Fides bonae voluntatis & iustae actionis est genitrix. the mother of a good will, and iust and righteous conuersation. Our faith in Christ is Aug. in Ps. 120 Christus in corde vestro fides est. Christ in vs, and Ambr. in Luc. l. 1. c. 21. Mihi sol ille caelestis mea fide vel minuttur vel augetur that heauenly Sunne is either impaired or increased vnto me, saith Ambrose, according to my faith. In a word, S. Austin telleth vs, thatAug. in Joan. tract. 49. Vnde mors in anima? Quia fides nō est. Ergo animae tuae anima fides est. faith is the soule of our soule, & what is that to say, but the life of all our life? It is faith then and not charitie, that giueth influence to all the rest, euen to charitie it selfe; as faith increaseth, so other graces are increased; as faith decreaseth, so other graces decrease; the life of faith is our life; the strength of faith is ourCyprian. ad Quirinum, lib. 3. cap. 43. Tantum possumus, quantum credimus. strength: if our faith be weake, there is nothing else wherby we can be strong. Therfore M. Bishop goeth much awry (yet no otherwise then he is wont to do) in assigning to charitie to giue the spirit of life and influence to faith, when as it is by faith that weGalath. 3.14. receiue the spirit which is the author of all spiritual life and grace, & on which all our state dependeth towards God.
24. W. BISHOP.
The fourth reason, if faith alone do iustifie, then faith alone will saue, but it wil not saue, ergo. M. Perkins first denieth the proposition, & saith, That it may iustifie, and yet not saue: because more is required to saluation then to iustification. Which is false: for put the case that an innocent babe die shortly after his baptisme wherein he was iustified shal he not be saued for want of any thing? I hope you will say yes: euen so any man that is iustified, if he depart in that state, no man makes doubt of his saluation, therfore this first shift was very friuolous. Which M. Perkins perceiuing flies to a second, that for faith alone we shal also be saued, and that good works shall not be regarded at the day of our iudgement. Then must those words of the holy Ghost so often repeated in the Scriptures, be razed out of the text. God at that time wil rēder vnto euery man according to his works. But of this more amply in the question of merits.
R. ABBOT.
Tertullian rightly saith,Tertul. de poenit. Horum bonorum vnus est [...]itulus sal [...]s hominis criminum pristinorum abolitione praemissa. the saluation of man is the one title of all the benefites of God, forgiuenesse of sinnes being put in the first place. If saluation be the whole, and iustification but a part, then more is required to saluation then to iustification, because more is required to the whole then to a part. Vnder saluation we comprehend both iustification and sanctification in this world, & life and blisse eternall in the world to come. The first act of our saluation is our iustification; but God hauing by iustification reconciled vs vnto him, goeth forward by sanctificationCol. 1 12. to make vs meete to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light. To iustification belongeth only faith; to sanctification all other vertues and graces, wherein consisteth thatHeb. 12.14. holinesse without which no man shall see the Lord. His exception as touching infants dying after baptisme, is very idle. They are not onely iustified by forgiuenesse of sinnes, but also sanctified by the spirit of grace; neither is there any man iustified to the title of eternall life, but the same is together also sanctified to the possession thereof, and therfore hath more to saluation then onely iustification. But as touching the verie point, his minor proposition is false. We say, that we are saued also by faith onely, according to that that before I alledged out of Origen, thatOrigen. in Ro. cap. 3 sup. sect. 21 for faith only Christ said to the woman, Thy faith hath saued thee. Hath saued thee, saith he, as a thing alreadie done, according to the vsuall phrase of the Scripture in that behalfe. For so it is said of Zacheus, Luk. 19.9. This day saluation is come to this house. So saith the Apostle,2. Tim. 1.9. He hath saued vs, and called vs with a holy calling; Tit. 3.5. of his owne mercy he hath saued vs. The reason whereof is, because in iustification, as I haue sayd, our saluation is begun, and in that we are iustified we are saued, Christ therein being giuen vs, and in him the interest and title of eternall life thenceforth by that right onely to be continued and performed vnto vs. Being then iustified by faith alone, we are saued by faith alone, the gift of sanctification to holinesse and good works being necessarily cōsequent, not as by vertue wherof we are to be saued, whom the Scripture pronounceth to be already saued, but as the processe of Gods worke, for accomplishment of that saluation, whereto in iustification we are begotten, and in way of inheritāce intitled by faith alone. We are saued by faith alone, saith [Page 487] M. Perkins, because faith alone is the instrument whereby we apprehend Christ, who onely is our saluation. Where obserue, gentle Reader, what M. Bishop maketh of that speech, that for faith alone we are saued, and that good works shall not be regarded at the day of our iudgement. Os impudens. Where doth M. Perkins say, that good workes shall not be regarded at the day of our iudgement? What? a Doctor of diuinitie to lye? wilfully to lye? What is this but meere varletrie, to abuse his Reader, not being carefull haply to looke into M. Perkins booke, but taking it vpon his word. But if thou haue M. Perkins booke, I pray thee to looke to the obiections and answers set down in the end of this question of Iustification, which M. Bishop hath vnhonestly left out; and there in the answer to the sixt Obiection, thou shalt find these words, In equitie the last iudgement is to proceed by workes, because they are the fittest meanes to make triall of euery mans cause, and serue fitly to declare whom God hath iustified in this life. By which words thou mayest esteeme how little faith or credite is to be yeelded to this wretched man, who doubteth not here with manifest falshood, to affime that M. Perkins saith, that good workes shall not be regarded at the day of our iudgement. And by the same words the solution is plaine to the words which he alledgeth; for God shall render to the faithfullMath. 16.27. according to their workes, because good workes are the proper markes whereby God will take knowledge of them that are iustified and saued onely by faith in Christ. For whom God hath iustified and saued, vpon them he setteth the seale and marke of his Spirit, working in them another nature, andEphes. 2.10. creating them in Christ Iesus vnto good works, whereby he will thenceforth know them to belong to him, and thereby at that day will put difference betwixt them and other men. So that to speake of saluation in that sort as we commonly vnderstand it, for the finall blisse and saluation that we expect in heauen, faith alone in it selfe is not sufficient to saluation, because though we be interested to it onely by faith, yet somewhat else is required to prepare vs and fit vs to be partakers thereof. And to speake of saluation in grosse, faith alone excludeth not sanctification and good workes, but includeth them, as a part of that saluation whereof we are made partakers by faith alone, so that rightly are we said to be saued by faith alone, because nothing else doth giue vs anie title, and it selfe alone doth giue vnto vs all other [Page 488] things that are necessarie to saluation.
25. W. BISHOP.
5. Reason. There be many other vertues, vnto which iustification and saluation are ascribed in Gods word: therefore faith alone sufficeth not. Ecclesiast. 1. Rom. 8. Luk. 13. 1. Ioh. 3. The Antecedent is proued, first of feare it is said: He that is without feare, cannot be iustified. We are saued by hope. Vnlesse you do penance, you shall all in like sort perish. We are translated from death to life, (that is, iustified) because we loue the brethren. Againe of Baptisme: Vnlesse you be borne againe of water and the holy Ghost, you cannot enter into the kingdome of heauen. Lastly we must haue a resolute purpose to amend our euill liues: Rom. 6. For we are buried together with Christ by baptisme into death, that as Christ is risen from the dead &c. so we may also walke in newnesse of life. To all these & many such like places of holy Scripture, it pleased M. Perkins to make answer in that one: Rom. 8. You are saued by hope: to wit, that Paules meaning is onely, that we haue not as yet saluation in possession, but must wait patiently for it, vntill the time of our full deliuerance; this is all. Now whether that patient expectation, which is not hope, but issueth out of hope, of eternall saluation, or hope it selfe be any cause of saluation, he saith neither yea nor nay, and leaues you to thinke as it seemeth best vnto your selfe. S. Paul then affirming it to be a cause of saluation, it is best to beleeue him: and so neither to exclude hope or charitie, or any of the foresaid vertues from the worke of iustification, hauing so good warrant as the word of God, for the confirmation of it.
R. ABBOT.
Iustification before God is no where in all the Scripture ascribed to any other vertue saue onely faith: the promise of saluation is sometimes adioyned to other vertues, as fruits and marks of them whom God hath saued, but neuer as causes thereof, as in the question of merits shall appeare. We may well thinke that M. Bishop was here shrewdly put to his shifts, that in all the Scripture could find no plainer proofes to serue his turne. M. Perkins propounded but one place for them; he thought himselfe to lay on loade, and yet cannot bring vs any thing whereby it is said that we are iustified, but onely faith. His first place is taken out of an Apocryphall [Page 489] Scripture, and yet such as it is it saith nothing for him. First his translation is false; for the words as their owne Arias Montanus translateth them, are these,Eccles. 1.27. [...]. Non poterit [...]racundus vir iustificari. A man giuen to much anger cannot be iustified; that is, cannot be acquitted of doing amisse, cannot be cleared of committing offence, because as S. Iames saith,Iam. 1 20. the wrath of man doth not accomplish the righteousnesse of God, euen in like sort as the same Ecclesiasticus after saith,Eccles. 23.11. he that sweareth vainely shall not be iustified, and againe,Cap. 26.30. a victualler shall not be iustified of sinne. For so is the Scripture wont continually to vse the word of iustifying for acquitting, clearing, discharging, holding or pronouncing guiltlesse and innocent, approuing, allowing, acknowledging for iust, and such like, as where it is said,Esa. 5.23. which iustifie the wicked for reward; Mich. 6.11. shall I iustifie the false ballance? Luk. 10.29. he willing to iustifie himselfe, &c. Secondly therefore if the words be taken as he translateth them, he that is without feare cannot be iustified, he is as farre off from his purpose. For the words import to the same effect, that he that is without feare shall not be found innocent, he shall not be found free from great sinne, because the want of feare maketh a man bold to runne into all sinne: but a verie senslesse man is he that would go about hereby to proue, that a man is iustified by feare. Againe he bringeth the words of Christ,Luk. 13.3. Ʋnlesse ye repent (do penance, saith he, according to their foolerie) ye shall all likewise perish. And what of this? Ergo forsooth a man must bee iustified by doing of penance. Yea? and is doing of penance a matter of iustification now? But Ambrose sayeth, that the Apostle calleth them l the blessed, of whom God hath decreed, Ambros. in Ro cap. 4. Beatos dicit de quibus hoc sanxit Deus, vt sine labore & aliqua obseruatione sola fide iustificentur apud Deum. Et paulò post: Nulla ab his requisita poenitentiae opera, nisi tantum vt credant. that without labour or any obseru [...]tion they are iustified with God onely by faith: there being required of them no labour of penance, but onely to beleeue. Why then doth Maister Bishop tell vs, that we are iustified by doing of penance? Our Sauiour spake nothing there in their behalfe, and verie absurdly doe they applie that that was meant of inward conuersion and repentance, to outward and ceremoniall obseruation of doing penance. As for repentance, it setteth foorth the subiect capable of iustification by faith, but is it selfe onely an acknowledgement of sinne, no healing of our wound. The feeling of paine and sicknesse, causeth a man to seeke for remedie, but it is no remedie it selfe. Hunger and thirst make a man to desire and seeke for foode, but a man is not fed by being hungrie. [Page 490] By repentance we know our selues, we feele our sicknesse, we hunger and thirst after grace, but the hand which we stretch foorth to receiue it, is faith onely, without which repentance is nothing but darknesse and despaire. As for vs, we hold it a verie mad conclusion to say; Except ye repent ye shall perish, therefore we are iustified by repentance. We rather see by repentance, that we haue nothing in our selues whereby to be iustified, and therefore learne to relye wholly vpon Christ, that we may be iustified by faith in him. The next place that he alledgeth is a most notable falsification. We are translated, saith he, from death to life, because we loue the brethren, whereas the words of S. Iohn are;1. Ioh. 3.14. We know that we are translated from death to life, because we loue the brethren, making our loue of the brethren a signe whereby we know that we are translated from death to life, not the cause for which we are translated frō death to life. And in this sort doth S. Austin expoūd it;Aug. in epist. 1 Ioan. tract. 5. Nos scimus. Quid nos scimus? Quia trāsiuimus de mo [...]te ad vitam. Vnde scimus? Quiae d [...] ligimus fratres. We know. What do we know? That we haue passed from death to life? Whereby do we know it? Because we loue the brethren. Which is verie plaine also by comparing the tēses in which the Apostle expresseth the one & the other. For he nameth our translating from death to life in the [...], &c. preterperfect tense, as a thing before done, but our loue towardes the brethren in the [...]. present tense, as a thing which now we do. We know that we haue passed, or God hath translated vs from death to life, because we loue the brethren. But our louing the brethren now cannot be the cause of that that God hath done before. It is therfore a token onely whereby we are to know what God hath done; and to take it as M. Bishop doth, is the doctrine of Pelagius, that the grace of God is giuen vnto vs according to our merits, as before is shewed. The next place is of Baptisme, as he saith,Ioh. 3.5. Except a man be borne againe of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdome of God. But we can hardly yeeld that this place is precisely to be vnderstood of baptisme, because it is not true, that except a man be baptized, he shall not enter into the kingdome of God, but it is infallibly true which Christ saith, that except a man be borne againe of water and of the holy Ghost, he shal not enter into the kingdom of God. Verie wel is it obserued by Bernard, that our Sauiour saith,Bernard. epist. 77. Vide ne fortè ob hoc saluator cùm diceret, Qui credi [...]erit & baptiz [...]tus fuerit, salu [...]s erit, cautè & vig [...]antèr nō repet [...]erit, Qui verò baptiz [...]tus non fuerit, sed tantum, qui verò inquit, non crediderit c [...]ndemnabitur. He that beleeueth and is baptized, shall be saued; but doth not say, he that is not baptized, but onely, he that beleeueth not shall be damned. The thiefe was not baptized vpon the crosse, but yet Christ saith, [Page 491] Luk. 23.43. This day shalt thou be with me in paradise. Valentinian the Emperour was not baptized, and yet Ambrose saith,Ambr. de [...]bit. Valentin. Certè quia popos [...]it accepit. because he desired it, he receiued it. S. Austin acknowledgeth as touching them that are of elder yeares and do beleeue,Aug. de bapt. cont. Donat. lib 4 cap. 22. Tunc impletur inuisibilitèr cùm mysteriū baptismi non contemptus religionis sed articulu [...] necessitatis excludit. that baptisme is inuisibly fulfilled in them, when not any contempt of religion, but a point of necessitie excludeth the mysterie of it. Which dispensation we cannot cōceiue what warrant he had to giue to elder yeares that should not make the same good to infants also, when the faith of the parents by which they are interested to baptisme, craueth the same for them, and only by preuention inuincible they are depriued of their desire, it being deemed a thingBernard. epist. 77. Dignum est et ad Dei spectat benignitatem, vt quibus fidē ae [...]as denegat propriā, gratia prodesse concedat alienā. belonging to the mercifulnes of God, that grace should yeeld, that the faith of others should be auailable for them to whom years yet do not yeeld to beleeue themselues. But hereby it appeareth, that that speech of Christ is not simply to be vnderstood of baptisme, because then baptisme should be simply necessarie to saluation both in old and yong. Yet admitting it to be meant of baptisme, we say his argument is verie vaine, and to say, baptisme is necessarie to saluation, therefore we are not iustified by faith alone, is all one as if he should say, It is necessarie to saluation to be iustified by faith alone, therefore we are not iustified by faith alone. For baptisme as I said before, isRom. 4 11. the seale of the righteousnesse of faith, wherein God setteth before vs, and by which he giueth and sealeth and assureth vnto vs the washing away of our sinnes, and the accepting of vs for iust and righteous by the merit and bloudshedding of Iesus Christ, onely by faith in him. It is not then1. Pet. 3.21. the washing away of the filth of the flesh, that is, the outward ceremonie, for which baptisme is necessarie to saluation, but the spirituall grace, which is iustification by faith alone. This God offereth in baptisme, and we by faith receiue the same, but we shall do amisse to put baptisme it selfe in place of that that is offered thereby. We eate the meate out of the dishes and vessels wherein it is set before vs, but it is absurd thereupon to say, that we are fed by the dishes also and not onely by the meate. It is Christ onely who in the word and Sacraments is set forth vnto vs to be our righteousnesse, and by faith only we therein receiue him to be our righteousnesse and euerlasting life, but absurd it is hereupon to say, that the Sacraments thēselues are things wherein our righteousnesse doth consist. Now therefore except a man in baptisme be borne againe, becoming a member of Christ [Page 492] and the child of God through forgiuenesse of sinnes onely by faith in him, by vertue therof receiuing the spirit of adoption, and being thereby quickened to newnesse of life to walke therein, he cannot as Christ saith, enter into the kingdome of God. And hereby it appeareth, that his other place as touching walking in newnesse of life is impertinently alledged, the words importing no more then what we teach, that newnesse of life is alwayes and necessarily a consequent fruite of iustification, though neuer any precedent cause thereof. But the place of greatest moment for their part, was that that M. Perkins propounded for his obiectiō, We are saued by hope. As touching this place M. Bishop saith, that M. Perkins saith neither yea nor nay, but leaues the reader to thinke as it seemeth best vnto himselfe, whether hope be any cause of saluation, and yet M. Perkins words are plainely these, We are not saued by hope because it is any cause of our saluation. The meaning of S. Paul as he declareth is this, We are saued by hope; that is, we haue our saluation in hope, but not yet in act: we enioy it in expectation, but not yet in possession. In which sort he saith in another place, thatTit. 3.7. being iustified by the grace of God we are made heires as touching hope of eternall life. We haue not yet the fruition of eternal life, but yet in hope we are inheritors therof. And hence did S. Austin take the ground of that exception which many times he vseth by distinction of that that we are in hope, and that that we are indeed or in reall being. Whereof he speaketh directly to declare the meaning of these words of the Apostle,Aug. de pec. mer. & remis. l. 2 c. 8. Primittat sp. nunc habemus vnde iā filij Dei reipsa facta sumas: in cateris verò spe sicut salui sicut innouati, ita & filij Dei▪ re autem ipsa quia n [...]ndum salus, ideò non [...]um plenè innouati, nondum etiam filij Dei sed filij seculi. We haue now the first fruits of the spirit, whence we are (reipsa) indeed the sonnes of God, but for the rest, as (spe) in hope we are saued, as in hope we are renewed, so are we also the sonnes of God: but because (reipsa) indeed we are not yet saued, therefore we are not yet fully renewed; we are not yet the sonnes of God, but the children of this world. Againe he saith,Ibid cap. 10. Homo totus in spe iam, et iam in re ex parte in regeneratione spirituali renouatus A man wholly in hope, and partly also in act or in deed is renewed in spirituall regeneration. Of the Church being without spot or wrinkle; Epist. 57. Tunc perficietur in re, quò nunc proficiendo ambulatur in spe. Then shall that be performed indeed, to which now by profiting we walke in hope. Thus of Gods raising vs vp together with Christ, and setting vs together with him in heauenly places, De bapt. cont. Donat. lib. 1. c 4. Nondum in re sed in spe. He hath not yet done it really, but in hope. In Psal. 37. Re sumus adhuc filij irae, spe non sumus. Really we are yet the children of wrath, saith he, but in hope we are not so. Jbid. Gaude te redemptum corpore, sed nondum re▪ spe securus esto. Reioyce that in body thou art redeemed, not yet in deed or in reall effect, but in hope we are out of doubt. By all which it is plaine, that the Apostle named not hope as a cause of the saluation [Page 493] that we hope for, but onely to signifie the not hauing as yet really of the thing whereof the hope we haue embraced. And it hath no sence, that hope should be made a cause of the thing hoped for, because the verie name of hope importeth some former ground or cause from whence we conceiue our hope, and by vertue whereof we expect that which we hope for, and do not therefore hope to obtaine it, because we hope. Thus M. Bishop hath neither S. Paule nor anie other testimonie of Scripture, whereby to giue warrant, that either hope or any other vertue, hath any part in the worke of iustification, but onely faith. As touching the nature of hope f before hath bene spoken, and it hath bene shewed,Cap. 3. sec [...]. 20. that as the Scripture vnderstandeth it, it is nothing else but a patient and constant expectation of that which we by faith in the promise of God do assuredly beleeue shall come vnto vs.
26. W. BISHOP.
To these authorities and reasons, taken out of the holy Scripture, let vs ioyne here some testimonies out of the auncient Church, reseruing the rest vnto that place, wherein Maister Perkins citeth some for him. the most auncient and most valiant Martyr Saint Ignatius, of our iustification writeth thus: The beginning of life is faith,Epist. ad Philip. but the end of it is charitie, but both vnited and ioyned together, do make the man of God perfect.
Clement Patriarch of Alexandria saith. Faith goeth before,Lib. 2. Strom. but feare doth build, and charitie bringeth to perfection.
Saint Iohn Chrysostome Patriarch of Constantinople, hath these words: Hom. 70. in Mat. Least the faithfull should trust that by faith alone they might be saued, he disputeth of the punishment of euill men, and so doth he both exhort the Infidels to faith, and the faithfull to liue well.
S. Augustine crieth out as it were to our Protestants, & saith: Lib. 3. Hypognos. Heare ô foolish heretike, and enemy to the true faith. Good works, which (that they may be done, are by grace prepared, and not of the merits of free will) we condemne not: because by them, or such like, men of God haue bene iustified, are iustified, and shall be iustified. And, De side & oper. cap. 14. Now let vs see that which is to be shaken out of the hearts of the faithfull: Least by euill securitie they lose their saluation, if they shall thinke faith alone to be sufficient to obtaine it.
Now the doctrine which M. Perkins teacheth is cleane contrarie. [Page 494] For (saith he) A sinner is iustified by faith alone, that is, nothing that man can do by nature or grace, concurreth thereto as any kinde of cause, but faith alone. Farther he saith, That faith it selfe is no principall, but rather an instrumentall cause, whereby we apprehend and apply Christ and his righteousnesse for our iustification. So that in fine we haue, that faith so much by thē magnified, and called the onely and whole cause of our iustification, is in the end become no true cause at all, Cenditio sine qua non. but a bare condition, without which we cannot be iustified. If it be an instrumentall cause, let him then declare what is the principall cause, whose instrument faith is? and chuse whether he had leifer to haue charitie, or the soule of man without any helpe of grace.
R. ABBOT.
Of his fiue proofes there is but onely one that maketh any mention of iustification by works. The two first were surely put in but onely to fil vp a roome; for there is not so much as any shew of any thing against vs. For although we defend, that a man is iustified by faith onely, yet do we not make faith onely the full perfection of a iustified man. In the naturall bodie the heart onely is the seate and fountaine of life, and yet a man consisteth not onely of a heart, nor is a perfect man by hauing a heart, but many other members and parts are required, some for substance, some for ornament, which make vp the perfection of a man, whereof if anie be wanting, it is an imperfection, so thatAug. de ciuit. Dei. lib. 11. ca. 22 Si vnum radatur supercilium, quàm propemo du [...] nihil corpori & quàm multū detrahitur pulchritudini? if but one ey-brow be shauen, as S. Austine saith, though in a maner nothing be taken from the bodie, yet it causeth a great blemish vnto it. Euen so is it in the iustified man; faith onely is the seat and fountaine of spirituall life, because as the quickening facultie & power of the liuing soule dwelleth in the heart, so Christ who is our life dwelleth in our faith, or in our hearts by faith, but yet we consist not spiritually of faith onely, but many other vertues and graces are required to make vp the perfection of a Christian man, to which as to the other members from the heart, so from faith life is imparted and communicated, that in them we may be aliue to God. Thus then Ignatius saith not purposely of iustification, but by occasion of commending faith and loue, thatIgnat. epist ad Ephes. for which M. Bishop following his maister Bellarmine, misquoteth, Ep. ad Philipp [...]nses. faith is the beginning of life, &c. Which maketh for vs altogether against him. For if faith be the beginning of life, then by faith we [Page 495] first liue. By faith therfore we are iustified; for to be iustified, as M. Bishop confessed in the former section, is to be translated from death. Now as naturall birth draweth not only guilt but also corruption, as hath bene before shewed, so faith wherein is our new birth, giueth not onely forgiuenesse of sinnes to iustification, but also sanctification to holinesse and newnesse of life, the summe whereof is charitie, because charitie is the epitome and briefe of the whole law, and herein further is accomplished our perfection towards God; so as that faith and loue vnited and ioyned together, do make perfect the man of God. The place of Clemens Alexandrinus is the same, and needeth no further answer. With Chrysostome we say, that faith alone sufficeth not absolutely, though faith alone suffice to iustification. Charitie and good workes are necessarie to the perfection of a iustified man, but he is not by them made a iustified man. Therfore the same Chrysostome saith of Abraham, Chrys. ad Rom. hom. 8. Fide saluarieum qui opera non habet, nihil fortasse fue rit insolentiae; e [...] verò qui rectè factis se conspicuum secerit, non ex ipsis sed ex fide iustum fieri, hoc scilicet admirabile est & quod maximè fidei potentiam manifestat. That a man that is without workes should he saued by faith, it should be no strange matter, but that he that hath made himselfe renowmed by his good works should yet not be iustified thereby but by faith, this is wonderfull, and doth greatly set forth the power of faith. S. Austin in the place by him alledged, if it were S. Austin, auoucheth good workes to iustifie thē that are iustified, that is, to approue them iust; but condemneth the auouching of any workes whereby to obtaine iustification, and purposely in that place disputeth against it.August. Hypognost. lib. 3. Ex operibus nō iustificabitur omnis caro coram illoc quia iustitia Dei praeuentu misericordiae per fidem Iesu apparuit super omnes qui crediderunt. Ideò & subiungens, inquit, Iustificatè gratu per gratiā Dei. Noli [...]i praeponere opera propria, ne [...] ex [...]ē gloriari▪ qu [...] ex operibus non, &c. By workes no flesh shall be iustified in the sight of God, because the righteousnesse of God by his preuenting mercy, through the faith of Iesus Christ, is apparent vpon all that do beleeue. Therefore the Apostle saith, we are iustified freely by the grace of God. Put not thine owne workes before it, nor glorie thereof, because by workes no flesh shall be iustified before him. If no workes go before iustification, then M. Bishops cause, as too weake, must go to the wals, because then we cannot be said to be iustified by workes; for being iustified before, we cannot be sayd properly to be iustified by workes that follow after, and if neither by works before nor after, then not at all. It followeth therefore, that when S. Austine saith in that place, that men of God are iustified by good workes, he must needes meane as Thomas Aquinas saith S. Iames doth,Thom. Aquin. in Gal. cap. 3. lect. 4. quantum ad manifestationem iustitiae, by way of manifesting and declaring that a man is iustified, so as that contrarie to M. Bishops assertion, they are only signes and tokens of a iustified man, not any [Page 496] causes of iustification. Therefore S. Austin saith againe anon after,Aug. vt supr. Iustificatio per fidē Iesu Christi data est, datur, dabitur cr [...]dent [...]bus. Iustification hath bene giuen, is giuen, and shall be giuen to them that beleeue, by the faith of Iesus Christ. Now that which he saith in the words cited by M. Bishop, he saith it not as to the Protestant, but to the Pelagian heretike the brother of the Papist, for affirming good works of mans free wil before the iustifying grace of God, for which the iustifying grace of God is bestowed vpon him. Which opinion S. Austin hauing confuted, bringeth in the heretike obiecting thus,Ibid. Ergò inquies damnas opera liberi arbitrij bona, quia dicis iustitiam ex operibus non deberi? &c. Thou wilt say, Doest thou then condemne the good workes of free will, in that thou sayest that righteousnesse is not due by workes? If so, why then doth the Apostle command vs to abound in good workes? To which he answereth:Audi haeretice stulte & inimice fidei veritatis. Operae liberi arbitrij bona quae vt fiant praeparātur per gratiae prae [...]entum nullo lib. arbitrij merito et ipso faciente, gubernante & perficiente vt abundent in libero arbitrio non damna m [...], quia ex his homines Dei iustificati sunt, iustificantur & iustifi [...]abuntur in Christo. Damnamus verò authoritate diuina opera liberi arbitrij quae gratiae praeponuntur, & ex his tanqu [...]m meritis in Christo iustificari extolluntur. Hearken thou foolish heretike and enemy of the true faith. We condemne not the good works of free will, which that they may be done, are prepared by the preuenting of grace vpon no merite of free will, and the same preuenting grace causing, directing and effecting that they do abound in free wil, because by such, men of God haue bin, are, and shalbe iustified in Christ. But by diuine authoritie we condemne the workes of free will which are put before grace, and are extolled for vs by these as it were merits to be iustified in Christ. Where verie plainly by the name of the workes of free will, he excludeth all workes before the grace of iustification, from being any causes thereof, and onely in men of God, who are first iustified that they may be mē of God, affirmeth a iustification by works in that sence as S. Iames speaketh thereof, which as I haue said, is nothing else but a declaration and testimonie of their being formerly iustified by the faith of Iesus Christ. In what sence he speaketh of free will, it hath bene shewed before in the question of that matter, and that he acknowledgeth no free will to righteousnesse, but onely that that we do, which is made free by the grace of God. To the last place of S. Austin we willingly subscribe, condemning themDe fide & oper. cap. 14. Si ad eam (salutem) obtinen dam sufficere solam fidem putanerint; benè autē viuere & bonis operibus v [...]ā Dei tenere neglexerint. who thinke that onely faith is sufficient to obtaine saluation, and do neglect to liue well, and by good workes to keepe the way of God; which last words seruing plainely to open S. Austins meaning▪ M. Bishop verie honestly hath left out. We teach no such faith as S. Austin there speaketh of. We teach onely such a faith as iustifieth it selfe alone, but is neuer found alone in the iustified man, neuer but accompanied with holinesse and care of godly life, and therefore condemne those as spirits of Satan, which teach a faith sufficient to obtaine saluation without any regard of [Page 497] liuing well. The summe of our doctrine S. Austin himselfe setteth downe in the very same Chapter, that good workesIbid. Sequ [...]tur iustificatum; non praecedunt iust [...]f [...] candum. follow a man being iustified, but are not precedent to iustification. Now therfore in all these speeches there is hitherto nothing to crosse that which M. Perkins hath affirmed, that nothing that man can do either by nature or grace concurreth to the act of iustification as any cause, but faith alone. Of works of nature there is lesse question, but of works of grace, of workes of beleeuers the Apostle specially determineth the questiō, that we are not iustified therby, as shal appeare. M. Perkins further saith, that faith is but the instrumentall cause of iustification, as whereby we apprehend Christ to be our righteousnesse, and neuer doth any of vs make faith the onely and whole cause of iustification in anie other sence. We make not the verie act of faith any part of our righteousnesse, but onely the merit and obedience of Christ, apprehended and receiued by faith. But by this meanes M. Bishop saith, that faith is become no true cause at all, but a bare condition without which we cannot be iustified. But that is but his shallow and idle conceipt; for the necessarie instrument, especially the liuely instrument, is amongst the number of true causes, not being causa sine qua non, a cause without which the thing is not done, but a cause whereby it is done. Causa sine qua non is termed causa stolida & otiosa, a foolish and idle cause, because it is onely present in the action, and doth nothing therein. It is not so with faith, but as the eye is an actiue instrument for seeing, and the eare for hearing, &c. so is faith also for iustifying; and M. Bishops head was scant wise, to make a principall instrument a foolish and idle cause. But he asketh then, whose instrument faith is? and maketh his diuision, that either it must be charitie, or the soule of man without any helpe of grace. We answer him, that it is the instrument of the soule wrought therein by grace, beingEphes. 2.8. the gift of God, andAugust. de praedest. sanct. cap. 7. the first gift, as before we haue heard out of Austin, whereby we obtaine the rest, and therefore whereby we obtaine charitie also, so that his diuision goeth lame, and neither is faith the instrument of charitie, nor yet of the soule without grace, but of the soule therein and therby endued with the grace of God.
R. ABBOT.
But to come to his reasons. The first is taken out of these words: As Moses lift vp the serpent in the desart, so must the sonne of man [Page 498] be lift vp, that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, shall not perish, but haue life euerlasting. True, if he liue accordingly, and as his faith teacheth him: but what is this to iustification by onely faith? Marrie M. Perkins drawes it in after this fashion. As nothing was required of them who were stong by serpents, but that they should looke vpon the brazen serpent: so nothing is required of a sinner, to deliuer him from sinne, but that he cast his eyes of faith vpon Christs righteousnesse, and apply that to himselfe in particular. But this application of the similitude is onely mans foolish inuention, without any ground in the text. Similitudes be not in all points alike, neither must be stretched beyond the verie poynt wherein the similitude lieth, which in this matter is, that like as the Israelites in the wildernesse stong with serpents, were cured by looking vpon the brazen serpent: so men infected with sin, haue no other remedy, then to embrace the faith of Christ Iesus: All this we confesse, but to say that nothing else is necessary, that is quite besides the text, & as easily reiected by vs, as it is by him obtruded without any authoritie or probabilitie.
R. ABBOT.
Similitudes M. Bishop saith, must not be stretched beyond the verie point wherein the similitude lieth, but Christ himselfe here directeth vs to conceiue wherein the similitude lyeth. Christ himselfe expresseth, that in their looking vpon the Serpent was figured our beleeuing in him. What shall we then conceiue, but as they onely by looking were cured of the sting, so we onely by beleeuing are cured of sinne. So S. Austin saith;Aug. in Joan. tract. 12. Quomodo qui intuebantur serpētem illum sanabantur à mo [...]sibus serpē tum, si [...] qui intuētur fide mortē Christi sanatur à morsibus peccato rum. Attenditur serpe [...]s vt nihil v [...]leat serpens; attenditur mors vt nihil valcat mors As they that beheld that Serpent, were healed of the stinging of the Serpents, so they who by faith behold the death of Christ, are healed of the sting of sinne. And againe, A Serpent is looked vnto that a Serpent may not preuaile, and a death is looked vnto that death may not preuaile. In like sort doth Chrysostome expresse the similitude:Chrys. in Ioan. hom. 26. Illi [...] corporeis oculis suscipientes corporis s [...]lutem: hic incorporeis peccatorum omnium remissionem consecuti sunt. There by bodily eyes men receiued the health of the body; here by spirituall eyes they obtaine forgiuenesse of all their sinnes. So saith Cyril, Cyril. id Ioan. lib. 2. cap. 20. Respicientibus in eū fide sincera aeternae salutis largitor ostenditur. He is shewed (hereby) to be the giuer of eternall saluation to them that by true faith do looke vnto him. Theophyl. in Joan. cap. 3. Multo magis ad crucifixum respicientes & credentes animae mortē effugituros. He teacheth (sayth Theophylact) that sith the Iewes beholding the image of the brazen Serpent did escape death, much more we looking vnto him crucified and beleeuing, shall escape the death of the soule. Thus they simply tooke the words of Christ, and made the cure to consist as on the one side [Page 499] in looking, so on the other side in beleeuing. M. Bishop saith, that the meaning is, that men infected with sinne, haue no other remedy then to imbrace the faith of Christ Iesus. Well then: if no other remedy, then that is the onely remedy. If that be the onely remedy, then for remedy there is nothing necessary, but onely that. And if any thing else be necessary, then the cure is not performed by that, not to be ascribed vnto it; for a cure cannot be said to be done by one thing, when that doth not cure without another. But as the [...]e to looking, so here the cure is ascribed to beleeuing. It is therefore to be ascribed, to nothing but faith onely. As for that which he further requireth by his corrections & exceptions, it is but a part of the cure which is performed by faith onely. For whatsoeuer is necessary in vs to eternall life, followeth of true and liuely faith, and is ministred vnto vs in Christ Iesus, when by faith we haue imbraced him.Acts. 15.9. Our hearts are purified by faith; Gal. 3.14. by faith we receiue the promise of the spirit, andRom. 8.2. the law of the spirit of life which is in Christ Iesus deliuereth vs from the law of sinne and of death, that it may neither preuaile against vs to condemnation, nor any further reigne ouer vs in conuersation, which being the gift of God, is not to be alledged to impeach the free bestowing of the grace of God.
28. W. BISHOP.
His 2. reason is collected of exclusiue speeches (as he speaketh) vsed in Scriptures. As we are iustified freely, not of the law, not by the law,Gal. 2.16. Luk. 8.50. not of works, not of our selues, not of the works of the law, but by faith: all boasting excluded: onely beleeue. These distinctions, whereby works and the law, are excluded in the worke of iustification, include thus much, that faith alone doth iustifie.
It doth not so: for these exclusiue speeches do not exclude feare, hope, and charity, more then they exclude faith it selfe. Which may be called a worke of the law, as well as any other vertue, being as much required by the law as any other. But S. Pauls meaning in those places is, to exclude all such workes, as either Iew or Gentile did, or could bragge of, as done of themselues, and so thought that by them, they deserued to be made Christians. For he truly saith, that all were concluded in sinne, and needed the grace of God, which they were to receiue of his free mercy, through the merits of Christ, and not of any desart of their owne: And [Page 500] that to obtaine this grace through Christ, it was not needfull, nay rather hurtfull to obserue the ceremonies of Moyses law, as Circumcision, the obseruation of any of their feasts, or fasts, nor any such like worke of the law, which the Iewes reputed so necessary. Againe, that all morall works of the Gentiles could not deserue this grace, which workes not proceeding from charity, were nothing worth in Gods sight. And so all workes, both of Iew and Gentile, are excluded from being any meritorious cause of iustification, and consequently, all their boasting of their owne forces, their first iustification being freely bestowed vpon them. Yet all this notwithstanding, a certaine vertuous disposition is required in the Iew and Gentile, whereby his soule is prepared to receiue that great grace of iustification: that say we, is faith, feare, hope, loue, and repentance, that (say the Protestants) is faith onely. Wherefore say we, as the excluding of works, and boasting exclude not faith, no more do they exclude the rest, faith being as well our worke, and a worke of the law as any of the rest, and all the rest being of grace, as well as faith, and as farre from boasting of, as faith it selfe. Now that out of S. Luke, beleeue onely, is nothing to the purpose. For he was bid beleeue the raising of his daughter to life, and not that Christs righteousnesse was his: and faith alone may be a sufficient disposition to obtaine a myracle, but not to obtaine iustification, of which the question onely is.
Consider now good Reader, whether of our interpretations agree better with the circumstance of the text, and the iudgement of the auncient Fathers. The texts see thou in the Testament. Take for a tast, of the Fathers iudgement, S. Augustines exposition of those places of S. Paul, of one of the chiefest of which, De gra. & lib. arb. cap. 7. thus he speaketh: Men not vnderstanding that which the Apostle saith, We esteeme a man to be iustified without the law, thought him to say, that faith sufficed a man although he liued euill, and had no good works: which God forbid, that the vessell of election should thinke. And againe.
De praedest. sanct. cap. 7.Therefore the Apostle saith, that a man is iustified by faith, and not of works, because faith is first giuen, and by it the rest (which are properly called workes, and in which we liue iustly) are by petition obtained.
By which it is manifest, that S. Paul excluding the workes of the law, and the workes done by our owne onely forces, doth not meane to exclude good works, which proceede from the helpe of Gods grace.
R. ABBOT.
If iustification be affirmed of faith, & denied to all other things, it should seeme likely that the meaning of the Scripture is, that by faith onely we are iustified. M. Bishop answereth, that those exclusiue speeches of the law, and works of the law, do no more exclude feare, hope, charity, then they exclude faith it selfe, because it is a worke of the law as well as any other vertue. But yet the Apostle teacheth vs, that the promise isRom. 4.16. therefore of faith, that it may be of grace, andCap. 11.6. if it be of grace, it is not of works, and therefore expresly seuereth faith from workes, as elsewhere he maketh a distinction betwixtCap. 3.27. the law of workes, and the law of faith, so that M. Bishop in confounding faith with the works of the law, speaketh flatly contrary to the Apostle. For the faith of Christ, though it be accidentally reduced to the law, yet is not originally intended in the law, because Christ who is the obiect of our faith, is in order of nature consequent to the law. For life is first propounded in the law; which when it cannot be obtained there, Christ is consequently giuen and offered vnto vs, that we may haue life in him. But we further tell him as before, that we attribute not our iustification to faith for it selfe, or as it is an act or worke, as if it were any part of our iustice or righteousnesse, but as the heart giueth life to the body, not by the substance of it selfe, which is but flesh as the rest of the body is, but by the vitall and quickning power of the soule that is seated therein, and as the hand feedeth the body, not as being it selfe the foode of the body, but by receiuing and ministring vnto it the meat wherewith it is sustained, euen so faith iustifieth and giueth life, by receiuing Christ to be our righteousnesse and life, in himAct. 26.18. receiuing forgiuenesse of sinnes, and inheritance amongst them that are sanctified vnto eternall life. But M. Bishop telleth vs, that the Apostles meaning in those places is, to exclude all such works as either Iew or Gentile did or could bragge of, as done of thēselues, & so thought, that by thē they had deserued to be made Christians. A goodly toy. Forsooth after they had bene Christians a long time, they began to dispute & reason the matter, whether it were for the works that before they had don, that they were made Christiās? whether they had deserued by their works to be made Christians, whē Ephe. 2.3. they had their cōuersation in the lusts of the flesh, in fulfilling the wil of the flesh, & of the mind, walking according to the course of this world, [Page 502] and after the Prince that ruleth in the aire, the spirit that worketh in the children of disobedience, as the Apostle describeth the condition both of Iewes and Gentiles, before they were partakers of the grace of Christ. Were the Christians then of so slender vnderstanding as that they should make question of their deserts in that estate. Was that the thing so much laboured by the false Apostles, to perswade men that for their former deserts they were become Christians, and had the Apostle so much businesse to weane them, and withhold them from the conceipt and opinion of such deserts? What should a man spend time and labour to refute so ridiculous, so senslesse and absurd deuices? Who would thinke that M. Bishop, a Doctor of Diuinitie by title, should be so simple a man, as that his Maister Bellarmine could gull him, and gudgeon him with so vaine a tale? The matter is plaine. After that men had accepted the faith of Christ, and were becomeAct. 15.1.10. brethren and disciples, there came vnto them the false Apostles, and preached vnto them,Ver. 2. Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saued. They sought to perswade men, that to the faith of Christ they must adde the obseruation of Moses law. Here was no question, whether by any deserts they were become Christians, but being now Christians, what it was wherein they should repose themselues for iustification and saluation. The Galathians were amongst others intangled by those false Apostles, and hauing beforeGal 1.9. receiued the Gospell, Cap. 4.27. hauing bene baptized into Christ, Cap. 3.2. hauing receiued the spirit, yea andIbid. Ver. 4. hauing suffered many things for the Gospell, yet were brought to the adioining of circumcision and the law to the faith of Iesus Christ, to be iustified thereby. This the Apostle inueyeth against, and reducing the state of the question from the ceremonies of the law to the whole law, determineth not concerning the Popish first iustification, but concerning iustification wholy, concerning men beleeuing alreadie, and in the state of grace, that they must beRo. 3.20.28. Gal. 3.11. iustified by faith, and not by the works of the law, yea without the workes of the law; yea, and saith,Gal. 2.16. we haue beleeued in Christ, that we might be iustified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law. The Papist saith, we beleeue in Christ, that we may be iustified by the works of the law; but the Apostle saith, we beleeued in Christ, that we might be iustified by the faith of Iesus Christ, and not by the works of the law, & giueth a reason, why we that beleeue in Christ [Page 503] cannot be iustified by the works of the law,Jbid. because by the works of the law, no flesh shall be iustified. And whereas the Papist againe saith, that by Christ and by his grace we are enabled to fulfill the law to be iustified thereby, the Apostle peremptorily denounceth,Cap. 5.4. Ye are abolished from Christ; ye are fallen from grace whosoeuer are iustified by the law. And that we may vnderstand what law he meaneth, S. Hierome hauing mentioned those words, that by the workes of the law, no flesh shall be iustified, saith thereof,Hieron. ad Ctesiphont Quod ne de lege Moys [...] tantum dictum pu [...]es, & non de omnibus mandatis quae vno legis nomine ontinentur, idē Apostolus scribit, dicens, cōsentio legi, &c. Which that thou maiest not thinke to be spoken onely of the law of Moses (that is, the ceremoniall law) but of all the commaundements which are contained vnder the one name of the law, the same Apostle writeth, saying, I consent to the law (or delight in the law) of God, as touching the inner man. But of that before in the third section. Hereby then it appeareth, that being members of Christ, and baptized into him, our iustification still consisteth not in workes, but onely in the faith of Iesus Christ. But M. Bishop by a new qualification, telleth vs, that all works both of Iew and Gentile, are excluded from being any meritorious cause of iustification. Not then from being any cause, but onely from being any meritorious cause. For he hathSect. 21. before told vs, that that vertuous disposition of which he here speaketh, is the cause of iustification. But if they be causes, how then is it true that he saith here, that the first iustification is freely bestowed. ForRhem. Testam. explication of words in the end. Gratis. freely, as the Rhemists tell vs, is as much to say, as for nothing; and if it be bestowed for this vertuous dispositions sake, then it is not bestowed for nothing, but for hope, for charity, &c. Thus they turne and winde this way and that way, and can finde nothing whereupon to stand. Saint Austine giueth it for a rule, thatAugust cont. Pelag. & Celest. li. 2. ca. 24. Non enim gratia Dei gratia erit vllo modo nisi fueri [...] gratuita omnimodo. the grace of God shall not be grace in any sort, except it be free in euery respect. And how is it free in euery respect, if our workes of preparation or disposition be properly the causes for which it is bestowed vpon vs? And what is it but a mockery, to say that the Apostle so often absolutely determining against iustification by workes, should meane notwithstanding that workes are the very causes of iustification, onely that they are not meritorious causes. Yet we haue heard, how Bellarmine maketh themDe iustificat. lib. 2. cap. 17. quodam modo, in some sort meritorious also, and that their Schooles haue commonly receiued them so to be, so that in this respect also, they do but dally with the Apostle. But tell vs M. Bishop, are those vertuous dispositions of yours the workes of grace, or onely of free will? [Page 504] If they be of grace, as you commonly foist in the name of grace in speaking of them, what hindereth them from being meritorious, seeing it is grace you say that addeth merit vnto workes? If they be of free will, then all workes of our owne forces be not excluded from iustification, which before you say the Apostle intendeth. If he say that free will is helped by grace, let him tell vs, what he meaneth therein by grace, and we shall finde him a meere Pelagian heretike, as before is said. He goeth on further, and saith, that as the excluding of workes and boasting excludeth not faith, no more doth it exclude the rest. How so? Marry faith is as well our worke, and a worke of the law as any of the rest. But that is false as we haue already seene; and againe, faith with vs doth not iustifie as a worke, as both faith, hope, and charity do with them, but onely as the instrument of our iustification to be apprehended and applied thereby. All the rest, saith he, are of grace as well as faith. But being before iustification, how should they be of grace, seeing before iustification there is no infused grace; and why are they not meritorious, as hath bene said? Againe, he saith, that the rest are as farre from boasting of as faith. But therein he flatly contradicteth the Apostle, who affirmeth, thatRom. 3.27. boasting is not excluded by the law of workes, but by the law of faith. And the thing is plaine; for he hath somewhat to boast of, who doth any thing, for which the grace of God is bestowed vpon him, but in faith there is nothing to boast of, because the act of faith is, to beleeue that God doth all through Christ onely for his mercies sake; it is it selfe wholy the gift of God, and attributeth nothing to it selfe or to vs, but all wholy vnto God. But M. Bishop cannot be said to exclude boasting, in as much as he must confesse, as hath bene before said, that his workes of preparation are intrinsecally the works onely of free will, and doth make the free will of man in all the worke of iustification concurrent with the grace of God, yea so farre as that man hath to glory, that by his free will the grace of God taketh his due effect, it being in his power either to accept, or to refuse the same. Whereas he excepteth against the place of S. Luke, Luk. 8.50. onely beleeue, as nothing to the purpose, he sheweth that he hath not learned rightly to conceiue thereof. Let S. Austine teach him, thatAug. de verb. Dom. ser. 18. Nouerimus omnia miracula quae corporalitèr fecit valere ad admonitionem nostram vt percipiamus ab eo quod nō est transiturū ne (que) in fine abiturū: & post. Per ista tē poralia quae videbantur aedificauit fidem ad illa quae non videbantur. all the miracles which Christ did corporally, do serue for our instruction, that we may receiue of him that that shall not passe away, nor go from vs in the end: that by these temporall things which were seene, he [Page 505] edified and builded faith to the things which were not seene. Christ therfore yeelding here to faith onely a miracle for the recouery of bodily life, doth instruct vs, that to faith onely he also yeeldeth the work of his power, for the raising of vs vp to the spirituall life of grace. The man indeede was bid, as M. Bishop saith, to beleeue the raising of his daughter to life, but therein he was bid also to beleeue, that it is Christ by whom we are spiritually raised vp from death to life, in being reconciled vnto God by the not imputing of our sinnes, through the righteousnesse and merit of the same Iesus Christ imputed vnto vs. He saith, that faith might be sufficient to obtaine a miracle, but I answer him, that that miracle was a benefit importing a further benefit, and all the benefits of Christ are obtained in like sort, so that our Sauiour Christ still referring them that seeke vnto him to faith, for the obtaining of bodily health, doth also referre vs to faith, for the obtaining of soules health. Now how his interpretation here deliuered agreeth with the text of Scripture, the Reader I hope can well consider by that that hath bene said. As for the places of Austin, if his sight had not failed him, I suppose he would not haue alledged them, the one of them being nothing at all against vs, and the other directly against himselfe. We say,August. de grat. & lib. [...] bit. cap. 3. God forbid that the Apostle should thinke, that faith sufficeth a man although he liue euill, and haue no good workes. Nay, we say further, God forbid that he should thinke that there is any true faith in them that liue euill, and haue no good workes. We haue often enough said, that a true iustifying faith is neuer separated from godly life, and that faith that is without good workes, is onelie called faith with men, but indeede and with God it is not so. In the other place Saint Austine bringeth in the Apostle, saying,De praedest. sanct. cap. 7. that a man is iustified by faith, and not of workes. But how accordeth this with that that Maister Bishop saith, that a man is iustified by his workes, as well as by his faith. By faith and not by works, saith Saint Austine out of the Apostle, both by faith and works, saith M. Bishop out of his owne braines. S. Austine giueth the reason,Ibid. Quia ipsa prima datur ex qua impetrē tur caetera qua propriè opera nū cupantur in quibus iustè viuitur. Because faith is first giuen by which the rest are obtained, which are properly called works, in which a man liueth righteously. Wherby he importeth that faith is first giuen, that thereby we may be iustified, and thence follow good works, in which we liue well; according to his rules before deliuered;De fide et operib. cap. 14. Sequntur iustificatum, non praec [...] dunt iustificandum. They follow a man being iustified, they go not [Page 506] before to iustification: Epist. 120. cap. 30. Ex hoc incipiunt bona opera ex quo iustifica mur, nō quia praecesserunt iustificamur. then they begin when we are iustified, we are not iustified for them going before. Then plainly it appeareth by S. Austines iudgement, that iustification is the beginning of good works; and if iustification be the beginning of good workes, then by no meanes can it be said, that good workes are any cause of iustification. He excludeth not then good workes, which proceede from Gods grace, as M. Bishop saith, but he denieth that there are any good workes before iustification, because he knoweth no grace but iustifying grace, and therefore directly crosseth Maister Bishops assertion of good workes before iustification, which are the causes for which we are iustified.
29. W. BISHOP.
Maister Perkins third argument. Very reason may teach vs thus much: that no gift in man is apt as a spirituall hand, to receiue and apply Christ and his righteousnesse vnto a sinner, sauing faith loue, hope, feare, repentance, haue their seuerall vses, but none of them serue for this end of apprehending, but faith onely.
Answer. Mans reason is but a blinde mistris in matters of faith, and he that hath no better an instructor in such high mysteries, must needes know little. But what if that also faile you in this point? then euery man cannot but see how naked you are of all kinde of probability. I say then, that reason rather teacheth the contrary. For in common sence, no man apprehendeth and entreth into the possession of any thing, by beleeuing that he hath it. For if a man should beleeue that he is rich, of honour, wise, or vertuous: doth he thereby become presently such a one? nothing lesse. His faith and perswasion is no fit instrument to apply and draw these things to himselfe, as all the world sees. How then doth reason teach me, that by beleeuing Christes righteousnesse to be mine owne, I lay hand on it, and make it mine? Againe Christs righteousnesse (according to their owne opinion) is not receiued into vs at all, but is ours onely by Gods imputation: what neede we then faith, as a spirituall hand to receiue it? If they say (as M. Perkins doth) that faith is as it were a condition required in vs, which when God seeth in vs, he presently imputeth Christs righteousnesse to vs, and maketh it ours, then will I be bold to say, that any other vertue is as proper as faith, to haue Christ applied vnto vs: there being no other aptnesse requisite in the condition it [Page 507] selfe, but onely the will and ordinance of God: then euery thing that it shall please him to appoint, is alike apt: and so M. Perkins had small reason to say, that faith was the onely apt instrument to apply to vs Christs righteousnesse.
Moreouer, true diuine reason teacheth me, that both hope and charitie, do much more apply vnto Christians all Christes merits, and make them ours, thē faith: For what faith assureth me of in generall, that hope applieth vnto me in particular: by faith I beleeue Christ to be the Sauiour of all mankind: by hope I trust to be made partaker of that saluation in him. But charity doth yet giue me a greater confidence of saluation: for by the rule of true charity, as I dedicate and imploy my life, labours, and all that I haue to the seruice of God, so all that God hath is made mine, so farre forth as it can be made mine, according vnto that sacred law of friendship: A micorum omnia sunt communia. And therefore in true reason, neither by faith, nor any other vertues, we take such hold on Christes merits, nor haue such interest in his inestimable treasures, as by charity: which S. Augustine vnderstood well, when he made it the modell, and measure of iustification: saying, De nat. & gra. cap. vlt. That Charity beginning, was Iustice beginning: Charitie encreased, was Iustice encreased: great Charitie, was great Iustice: and perfect Charity, was perfect Iustice.
R. ABBOT.
M. Perkins alledgeth, that very reason may teach vs, that faith onely iustifieth, because there is no gift in man that hath the property of apprehending and receiuing, but faith onely. To this M. Bishop answereth, that mans reason is a blind mistresse in matters of faith. Wherein he saith truly, and indeede is the cause why he himselfe writeth so blindly as he doth, and measureth high mysteries by carnall and base conceipts. And surely it seemeth that his reason was very blinde, who gaue so blinde a reason against that which Maister Perkins saith, being spoken not out of the reason of man, but as the reason of a faithfull man, may esteeme by direction of the word of God. No man entreth into the possession of any thing, saith he, by beleeuing that he hath it; for if a man beleeue that he is rich, doth he thereby become rich? I answer him, no: but though a man by beleeuing himselfe to be rich, do not become rich, yet if to a poore begger a great man say, If thou wilt take [Page 508] my word, and referre thy selfe to me, and depend vpon my fauour and good will, I will make thee rich; doth he not by giuing credit to his word commit himselfe to him, entertaine his fauour, accept his offer, and become owner of that that is promised vnto him? What is it whereby we accept of promise, but onely beliefe? Now all that our question is of, consisteth of promise, & in all the benefits of God we areGal. 4.28. the children of promise, Cap. 3 29. heires by promise; Heb. 6.17. heires of promise, expecting all things by the gracious promise of God;2. Pet. 1.4. by promise to be partakers of the diuine nature, Gal. 3.14.16. the blessing by promise, Ephe 1 13. the spirit by promise, Gal. 3.18. the inheritance by promise, Tit. 1.2. life eternall by promise, 2. Pet. 3.13. by promise a new heauen and a new earth, wherein righteousnesse dwelleth, all which2. Cor. 1.20. promises in Christ are, yea and in him Amen, for his sake first made, and for his sake to be performed also. Now seeing God hath taught vs, thatHeb. 11.33. by faith we obtaine the promises, thatGal. 3.14. we receiue the promise of the spirit through faith; thatIbid. ver. 22. the promise (of blessing) is giuen by the faith of Iesus Christ to them that beleeue, thatMat. 8.13. as we beleeue, so it shall be vnto vs, thatMat. 11.24. whatsoeuer we desire when we pray, if we beleeue that we shall haue it, it shall be accordingly vnto vs, why is it strange to M. Bishop, that in beleeuing according to the word and promise of God, to be partakers of those things which he hath promised, we should be said to become partakers thereof? In those mad presumptions fondly alledged by him, there is no beleeuing, because there is no ground whereupon to beleeue, but when God promiseth, and tieth the effect of his promise to the beleeuing of it, not to beleeue that in the beleeuing of it we are partakers of that which we beleeue, is to make God a liar, and to frustrate that which he hath promised. Sith then God hath promised Christ vnto vs, to beIerem. 23.6. our righteousnesse, and thatRom. 3.22. by the faith of Iesus Christ, that is, by beleeuing him to be that vnto vs which God hath promised, surely in beleeuing him to be our righteousnesse he is our righteousnesse, and2. Cor. 5.21. we are made the righteousnesse of God in him. And this is indeede not by receiuing Christes righteousnesse really into vs, but by hauing righteousnesse imputed vnto vs for his sake. For we receiue the righteousnesse of Christ euen as we receiue himselfe, who so becommeth ours, as thatIohn. 6.56. we abide in him and he in vs; Ephe. 5.30. we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones, we are really and truly by the power of his spirit, one with him and he with vs, and yet he is not personally & bodily brought [Page 509] vnto vs. Faith seeketh Christ, and findeth him, and holdeth him in the virgins wombe, in the maunger, in the garden, vpon the crosse, in the graue, in his resurrection and ascension vnto heauen, and in his now sitting at the right hand of God to make intercession for vs. Euery where faith imbraceth him, and in euery of these seeth him to be ours, as hauing vndertaken and atchieued all these things for our sakes. Euen so the righteousnesse & merit of Christ is spiritually, but really ours within and without, in spirit & soule and body, to clense and sanctifie vs vnto God. But, saith he, if it be ours by Gods imputation, what neede we then faith as a spirituall hand to receiue it? A foolish and idle question; as if he should say, If I giue food to a hungry man, what neede hath he either of a hand to take it, or a mouth to eate it? He himselfe saw that the answer is ready, euen the same that Ambrose deliuereth;Ambros. in Rom ca. 4. Sic decretum a Deo: hoc sāxit Deus. Et in 1. Cor. cap. 1. Hoc constitutū est, &c. God hath so decreed: it is thus appointed of God; God requireth faith, to which he will impute the righteousnesse of Christ. Where we may wonder at the absurd boldnesse of this blind baiard, who telleth vs hereupon, that he will be bold to say, that any other vertue is as proper as faith, to haue Christ applied vnto vs. What M. Bishop, wil you be bold to say, that any other vertue is as proper to apply Christ vnto vs, as that which God himselfe hath appointed for that vse? Is not the will and ordinance of God sufficient to restraine your presumption and boldnesse, & to shut your mouth from running ouer in this sort? He saith, that there is no other aptnesse requisite in the cōdition it selfe, but only the wil and ordinance of God. But shal we be so impious, as to think that the wil & ordinance of God without cause appointeth one cōdition, whē as wel it might appoint another, or appointeth anything to be don, which is not more fitly done that way that he appointeth, then any other way? The Apostle telleth vs,Rom. 4.16. Therfore it is by faith, that it may be of grace, importing that faith is appointed as the fittest meanes, wherby to set forth the grace of God. Again, he addeth for another reason,Ibid. That the promise might be sure to all the seed. For no otherwise can we rest assured of the promise of God, but as it is of grace, who in our works can find nothing whereupon to assure our selues. By faith therfore we beleeue it to be of grace, that with cōfortable assurāce we may firmly expect the blessing which God hath promised vnto vs. Another reasō with S. Paul, why faith is specially appointed, isCap. 3.27. to exclude boasting. So saith Ambrose; Ambros. in Psal. 43. Maluit Deus vt salus homini fide potius quàm operib. quaereretur, nequis gloriaretur in suis factis. God hath made choise [Page 510] that saluation should be gotten rather by faith then by workes, that no man should glory in his owne doings. It is therefore for the speciall aptnesse of faith, that God hath appointed it to be the instrument for applying vnto vs the whole benefit of Christ. Yet M. Bishop telleth vs, that true diuine reason teacheth him, that both hope and charity do much more apply Christes merits vnto vs then faith doth. But it is indeede a dreaming and vnreasonable fancie, and not anie true diuine reason that hath taught him so. For whereas he saith, that hope applieth in particular what faith beleeueth in generall, it hath bene before shewed, that the office of true faith, is to make this particular applicatiō. And indeed there can be no true hope in any man, where there is not first a faith to apply the benefit of Christ particularly to himselfe. For though I beleeue that Iesus is a Sauiour, yet what ground haue I thereby to hope for saluation, vnlesse I beleeue that he hath saued me; thatGal. 2.20. he hath loued me and giuen himselfe for me? Surely vnlesse I beleeue for my selfe, I cannot hope for any thing for my selfe, saue onely at vncertaine aduenture, and without ground. Now M. Bishops hope being no other, how can he be said thereby to apply that to himselfe, whereof he is still to stand in feare, whether it be his or not? But to come neerer to the point, the question here is of applying the merits of Christ vnto vs. Now the merit of Christ is that that Christ hath already done for vs. But hope respecteth that onely that is futurely to be done. Hope therefore can in no sort be the instrument to apply vnto vs the merit of Christ. Neither can charitie serue vs for that vse, because I cannot presume of that that is anothers, vpon any conscience of my loue towards him, but vpon confidence onely of his loue towards me. Howsoeuer I seeme to employ my selfe to the seruice of God, yet it giueth me nothing whereof to presume with him, vnlesse I beleeue that of his loue he doth accept my seruice, and will reward the same. Be it as Maister Bishop saith, that all things are common amongst friends, but before we can build thereupon, wee must haue it resolued vnto vs, that God taketh vs for his friends, which can be no otherwise but by faith onely,Rom. 3.25. God hauing set foorth Christ to be an attonement (to make vs friends with God) through faith in his bloud. Faith then must first applie vnto vs the merite of the bloud of Christ, before there can be anie friendshippe [Page 511] betwixt God and as. And although being now in friendship with Christ, our loue may giue vs encouragement and comfort, to make vse to our selues of that that is his, yet it is not by our loue, that we take it to make vse therof. For the art of loue is done only extramittendo, by issue and passage from vs to Christ, and therefore it must be somwhat else whereby we receiue and apply from Christ to vs. To be short, we wonder what application M. Bishop can make by charity, whoChap. 3. Sect. 6. & 11. plainly professeth that he cannot tell whether he loue God or God loue him; who saith that hope and charity are seated in the darke corners of the will, and a man hath but onely coniectures, and a probable opinion of the being thereof in himselfe. What shall he then make bold of in name of friendship with Christ, who knoweth not whether he be a friend to Christ, or Christ to him? As for the saying of Austine, why he alledgeth it I know not; vnlesse it be that he were onely desirous to say somewhat out of Austine. S. Austine noteth, that inherent iustice consisteth in charity, which is the summe of the law, which is the rule of iustice. According therefore to the measure of our charity greater or lesse, so is the measure of our righteousnesse. We say the same, but what is this to shew that charity is the fittest instrument to apply vnto vs the merit of Christ? But that he may not dreame of iustification before God, by any perfection of charity here, let him remember what Saint Austine hath said thereof, thatAugust. epist. 29. Supra. cap. 2. sect. 8. perfect charity is in no man so long as he liueth here; that the lesnesse thereof to that that it ought to be, is by reason of a default or corruption in vs, by reason whereof, no man liuing shall be iustified in the sight of God.
30 W. BISHOP.
M. Perkins fourth Reason is taken from the iudgement of the auncient Church: They are blessed,Ambros. in Rom. 4. to whom without any labour or worke done, iniquities are remitted. So no workes or repentance is required of them, but onely that they beleeue. To these and such like words, I answer.
First, that it is very vncertaine, whether these Commentaries be Saint Ambroses.
Secondly, that that Author excludeth not repentance, but onely the [Page 512] workes of Moses law, which the Iewes held to be necessary: as circumcision, and such like, see the place, and conferre with it that which he hath written in the same worke, vpon the fourth to the Hebrewes, where he hath these words: Faith is a great thing, and without it, it is not possible to be saued, but faith alone doth not suffice: but it is necessary, that faith worke by charity, and conuerse worthy of God.
De verb. Ap. ser. 40.M. Perkins next authority is gathered out of S. Augustine. There is one propitiation for all sinners, to beleeue in Christ; True, but where is it, that we neede nothing else, but to beleeue?
Leuit. li. 1. ca. 2.3. Hesichius saith, Grace which is of mercy, is apprehended by faith alone, and not of works: that is, we do not merit by our works done before grace, any thing at Gods hand, but of his mercy receiue both faith and iustification.
Sup. Cāt. ser. 22.4. Bernard hath: Whosoeuer thirsteth after righteousnesse, let him beleeue in thee: that being iustified by faith alone, he may haue peace with God.
Answer. By faith alone, he excludeth all other meanes, that either Iew or Gentile required, but not charity, which his very words include: for how can we abhorre sinne, and thirst after iustice, without charity? and in the same worke he declareth plainly, Serm. 24. that he comprehendeth alwaies charity, when he speakes of a iustifying faith: saying, A right faith doth not make a man righteous, if it worke not by charity. And againe: Neither works without faith, nor faith without works is sufficient to make the soule righteous.
Gal. 3.5. Chrysostome, they said, he who rested on faith alone, was accursed: but Paul sheweth, that he is blessed who rested on faith alone. Answer. He speakes of the Iewes who held Christians accursed, because resting on the faith in Christ, would not obserue withall Moses law: Gal. 5. the Apostle contrariwise denounceth them accursed, who would ioyne the ceremonies of Moses law with Christian religion, and so faith alone there excludeth onely the old law, not the workes of charity: so he mangleth pittifully a sentence of S. Basils saying: De Humil. Let man acknowledge himselfe to want true iustice, and that he is iustified onlie by faith in Christ: If a man know himselfe iustified by faith in Christ, how can he acknowledge that he wants true iustice? His words truly repeated are these: Let man acknowledge that he is vnworthie of true iustice: and that his iustification comes not of his desert, but of the meere mercy of God through Christ. So that by faith alone [Page 513] Saint Basil treating of humility, excludes all merit of our owne, but no necessarie good disposition, as you may see in his Sermon de Fide, where he proues by many texts of holy Scripture, that charitie is as necessarie as faith.
M. Perkins last testimonie is out of Origen:Rom. 3. Who proues (as M. Perkins said) that onely beleeuing without workes iustifieth, by the example of the Theefe on the Crosse, of whose good workes there is no mention.
Answer. Origen excludeth no good disposition in vs to iustification, but saith, that a man may be saued, without doing outwardly any good workes, if he want time and place: as the Theefe did, who presently vpon his conuersion was put to death, which is good Catholike doctrine: but that you may perceiue how necessary the good dispositions before mentioned, be to iustification, you shall finde if you consider well all circumstances, not one of them to haue bene wanting in that good Theefes conuersion. First, that he stood in feare of Gods iust iudgement, appeares by these his words, to his fellow, Doest thou not feare God, &c. He had hope to be saued by Christ, out of which he said: O Lord remember me, when thou commest into thy Kingdome: By both which speeches is shewed also his faith both in God, that he is the gouernour and iust iudge of the world, and in Christ, that he was the Redeemer of mankind. His repentance and confession of his fault, is laid downe in this: And we truly suffer worthily: His charity towards God and his neigbour, in reprehending his fellowes blasphemie, in defending Christs innocencie: and in the middest of his greatest disgraces, and raging enemies, to confesse him to be King of the world to come: out of all which we may gather also, that he had a full purpose to amend his life, and to haue taken such order for his recouery, as it should please Christ his Sauiour to appoint. So that he lacked not any one of those dispositions, which the Catholike Church requires to iustification. Now that, that great Doctor Origen meant not to exclude any of these good qualities out of the companie of faith; is apparant: by that which he hath written on the next Chapter: where he saith: That faith cannot be imputed to iustice,Rom. 4. to such as beleeue in Christ, vnlesse they do withall put off the old man, and a little before more plainly saying: I thinke that faith is the first beginning of saluation, hope is proceeding in the building, but the top and perfection of the whole worke is charity.
R. ABBOT.
To set downe the places alledged out of Ambrose, is sufficient to discouer the bad and euill conscience of M. Bishop in the answering of them, and to shew what a one he is indeede in all the rest of his answers. First,Ambros. in Rom. ca. 3. Iustificati sunt gratis quia nihil operā tes ne (que) vicem reddentes sola fide iustificati sunt dono Dei. they are iustified freely, saith he, because working nothing, nor making any requitall, they are iustified by faith alone through the gift of God. The second is this;Jbid cap. 4 Manifestè beati sunt quibus sine labore vel opere aliquo remittuntur iniquitates & peccata tegu [...]tur, nulla ab h [...] requisita poenitentiae opera nisi tantùm vt credant. They are blessed to whom without any labour or worke their iniquities are forgiuen and sinnes couered, no worke of penitencie being required of them, but onely to beleeue. Thirdly, he saith,Idem. in 1. Cor. cap. 1. Hoc constitutū est à Deo vt qui credit in Christum saluus sit sine opere, sola fide gratu accipiens remissionē peccatorum. This is appointed of God, that he that beleeueth in Christ, shall be saued without works freely, by faith alone, receiuing forgiuenesse of sinnes. I pray thee now gentle Reader to marke well his answer to these allegations: First, he saith, that it is very vncertaine whether these Commentaries be Ambroses. It is true indeede, that some make question of the Prefaces that are inserted to the seuerall Epistles, but of the Commentaries themselues, saue onely vpon the epistle to the Hebrewes, I know no man that doubteth. TheirSixt. Senens. biblioth. sanct. lib 4. Sixtus Senensis reckoneth them for the workes of Ambrose for their part, and ourCent [...]r. Magdeburg. lib. 4. cap. 10. Centuristes for our part, and on both sides they are alwaies cited in his name. There is no doubt but they are the workes of a very auncient writer, if they were not his, and therefore that can make little to acquit Maister Bishop of crossing the auncient Church, vnlesse he can giue vs a better answer. But that we shall haue, namely that that Author excludeth not repentance, but onely the workes of Moses law, which the Iewes held to be necessarie, as circumcision and such like. Short and sweete: this he hath told vs, and if we will fare better, we must take the paines to go further. But let him remember that the point in question is of being iustified by faith alone, which Saint Ambrose there directly and fully affirmeth, by faith onely, by faith onely, it is required onely to beleeue. Now though the ceremoniall workes of Moses law be excluded from iustification▪ yet if we be iustified by any other workes, we are not iustified by faith onely or alone. He excludeth not repentance, saith he, but let vs request him to turne vs these words into English: Nulla ab his requisita paenitentiae opera nisi tantùm vt credant. We take it to be this, there being required of thē no labour or worke of penitency or repentance, but onely to [Page 515] beleeue. He meaneth indeed by penitencie, that which publikely was don, & for which men were called poenitentes, penitents as afterward appeareth, but by excluding such works of penitencie, it appeareth that it was not his meaning to exclude only circumcision and such other ceremonies of Moses law, and therefore that M. Bishops answer is a verie absurd and broken shift. Marke the words gentle Reader, Working nothing, not making any requitall, without any labour or worke, no worke of penitencie required, without workes, and freely, and by faith alone, all sounding thatAmbros. in Psal. 43. Non facta sua vnumquenque iustificant, sed fides prompta. a mans works do not iustifie him, but his prompt faith, as the same S. Ambrose speaketh in another place. As for the words which he bringeth to crosse the other, they are no way contrarie to vs. We say as he saith, that faith alone sufficeth not, and yet we say as he also saith, that faith sufficeth to iustification. For it is one thing to say what sufficeth to iustification, another thing to say what sufficeth to the perfection of a Christian and iustified man. The place alledged out of Austin inferreth our assertion, though it expresse it not. If it be our propitiation, that is, our iustification to beleeue in Christ, then onely to beleeue in Christ doth iustifie. If not, then it cannot be said to be our iustification to beleeue in Christ. For where the effect belongeth to many causes alike, there it cannot be singularly attributed to anie one. His answer to the words of Hesychius is impertinent; for Hesychius beside that he saith, that grace is not merited because it is of mercie, telleth vs also what it is whereby the same is apprehended, and that he saith is faith alone. Hesych. in Leuit. lib. 4 cap. 14. Gratia ex misericordia & compassione probatur, & fide comprehendiur sola, non ex operibus. Grace which is of mercy is apprehended by faith alone and not of workes. If grace be not apprehended by works as Hesychius saith, why doth M. Bishop tel vs that it is apprehended by workes? If it be apprehended by faith alone, why doth he tell vs that it is not apprehended by faith alone? Be it that our workes before grace doe not merit our iustification, yet if by workes we be iustified as well as by faith, then it is not true which this Father saith, that the grace of iustification is apprehended by faith, and not by workes. The words of Saint Bernard are plainely spoken of the imputed righteousnes of Iesus Christ, by occasion of the Apostles words, that Christ is1. Cor. 1 30. made vnto vs of God wisedome, righteousnesse, sanctification and redemption. Bernard. in Cant. ser. 22. Iustitia in absolutione peccatorū. Righteousnes, saith he, by forgiuenesse of sinnes, & for prosecuting therof saith of Christ,Iustitiae tuae tanta vbi (que) fragrātia spargitur, vt non solum iustus sed & ipsa dicaris iustitia, et iustitia iustificans. Tā validus denique es ad iustificandum, quā multus ad ignos [...]endū. Quamobrem quisquis pro peccatis compunctus esurit et sitit iustitiā credat in te qui iustificas impium, & solam iustificatus per fidem pacem habebit ad Deum. so sweete a sauour of thy righteousnes is euery where spred abroad, as that thou art not only [Page 516] called righteous, but also righteousnesse it selfe, and a iustifying righteousnesse. As strong thou art to iustifie, as thou art readie to forgiue. Whosoeuer therefore being pricked with his sinnes hungreth and thirsteth after righteousnesse, let him beleeue in thee who iustifiest the vngodly, and being iustified by faith onely he shall haue peace with God. M. Bishop telleth vs, that S. Bernard by faith alone excluded all other meanes that either Iew or Gentile required, but not charitie. Vaine man, what had S. Bernard here to do either with Iewes or Gentiles? He spake to Christian and faithfull brethren, to whom he had no occasion to giue any caueat either against Iewes or Gentiles, but instructeth them what to do being pricked and grieued with sinne, euen to hunger and thirst after righteousnesse, not meaning by righteousnesse inherent righteousnesse, as M. Bishop doth, but that righteousnesse which consisteth as he had before expounded it, in the forgiuenesse of sinnes. Therfore he teacheth to beleeue in Christ, who is our righteousnesse,Justitia donās delecta. sub finē. a righteousnesse as he speaketh againe, that forgiueth sinnes; the forme of which righteousnesse he expresseth thus;Delicta iuuē tutu meae & ignorantias meas ne memineris & [...]stus sum. Remember not the offences of my youth and my ignorances, and I am righteous or iust. Thus S. Bernard saith, that a man is iustified by faith alone, and shall we be so mad as to thinke, that in saying a man is iustified by faith alone, his meaning was as M. Bishop affirmeth, that a man is iustified by faith and charitie, that is to say, not iustified by faith alone? And did S. Bernard thinke that a man hath charitie before he haue charitie? For seeing as M. Bishop telleth vs, the gift of charitie is infused and powred into vs in iustification, surely to say that by charitie a man is iustified, is to say, that by charitie the gift of charitie is powred into him. Which if it be absurd, then let him be content that S. Bernards meaning be, as indeed it is, that a man is iustified by faith alone, & let him take charitie for a gift of the iustified, & not for any fore-running cause of iustification. Now that the righteousnes there spokē of is not meant of inherent righteousnesse it is very plaine, in that S. Bernard in the words following treateth seuerally therof vnder the name of sanctificatiō. His counter-places are impertinent. What S. Bernard therein saith we say:In Cant. ser. 24 Non facit hominem rectum fides etiam rectae quae nō [...]peratur ex dilectione. A mans beleeuing aright, except it worke by loue, doth not set him right or straight; and againe,Nec fides fine operibus nec opera sine fide sufficiunt ad animi rectitudinem. Neither faith without workes, nor workes without faith, do suffice to the rectitude or straightnesse of the mind. True it is, as I haue often said, that to the full rectifying and [Page 517] perfecting of a man, belongeth not onely iustification by the forgiuenesse of sinnes, but also sanctification to charitie and good workes, but what doth this hinder, but that notwithstanding both the worke of iustification and the obtaining also of sanctification, may be performed by faith alone? Chrysostomes words are,Chrysost. ad Gal. ca. 3. Illi dicebant, qui sola fide nititur execrabilis est: hic contra demonstrat qui sola fide nititur eum benedictum esse. They sayd, he who rested on faith alone is accursed, but Paul saith, that he is blessed that resteth vpon faith alone. M. Bishops answer, that faith alone there excludeth onely the ceromonies of Moses law, is alreadie shewed to be vaine. But here it further appeareth, in that Chrysostome noteth, that the Apostle maketh speciall choice of Abraham, who was so long before the Law, for an example of being iustified without workes, and thatIbid. Abrahā producit in medium declarans hunc quoque sic fuisse iustificatiō. Quod si is ante gratiam ex fide iustificatus est, id (que) quum & operibus bonis floreret, multo magis vos. Et in Ep. ad Rom. hom. 8. supra sect. 26. when as he abounded in good workes. For if he in that case were not iustified by his workes but by his faith, then it is manifest that not onely the ceremoniall workes of Moses law, but all other workes are excepted from that iustification that is described to be by faith alone. We are to be iustified as Abraham was. Abraham though he abounded in good workes, yet was not iustified thereby. Therefore we also though we haue good workes, yet are not iustified thereby, but by faith alone. The sentence of Basil he saith is pitifully mangled by M. Perkins, when as by himselfe it is altogether marred. His words, saith he, truly repeated are these, Let no man acknowledge, &c. putting in a sentence of his owne making vnder the name of Basils wordes truly repeated. What a shamelesse man is he, thus to mocke his Reader, thus grosly and palpably to forge a matter, and yet to pretend truth? Basil hauing mentioned the wordes of S. Paul, that1. Cor. 1.30. Christ is made vnto vs of God wisedome, righteousnesse, sanctification and redemption, saith hereupon thus:Basil. ser. de humilit. [...] Latinè apud Bellarm. de Iustif. lib. 1. c. 25 Haec est perfecta & integra gloriatio in Deo. quando neque ob iustitiam suam quis se iactat, sed nouit quidem seipsum verae iustitiae indigum, sola autem fide in Christum iustif [...]catum. for that is perfect and full of reioycing in God, when a man is not lifted vp because of his owne righteousnes, but knoweth that he himselfe is destitute of true righteousnes, and is iustified by faith onely which is in Christ. Thus he spake to a Christian auditorie, and instructed them to acknowledge themselues to be void, wanting, destitute of true righteousnes, & to be iustified only by faith in Christ. M. Bishop saith that he excludes all merits of our owne, but no necessary good disposition; but he should remēber I say, that Basil spake to them that were past dispositions and preparations, it being a Sermon, not ad Catechumenos, such as were yet to be baptized, but ad fideles, to the faithfull, as they were tearmed after Baptisme, and [Page 518] them doth he teach to acknowledge themselues to be iustified by faith alone. But whosoeuer they had bene, how crossely doth M. Bishops bad disposition carry him to Basils words. Basil saith: Let a man acknowledge himselfe destitute of true righteousnesse, and to be iustified onely by faith in Christ. M. Bishop saith, a man is not destitute of true righteousnesse, but hath vertuous good dispositions and preparations, by which he is to be iustified, and not by faith alone. But no maruell that they crosse others, who are so tangled with the truth, as that they know not how to speake, but to crosse themselues, still blowing both hot and cold; freely, and yet for workes; for nothing, and yet for something; no merit, and yet in some sort merit; of meere mercie, and yet somewhat to moue God beside his mercie. But to giue some colour to that that he saith, he telleth vs, that Basil in his Sermon de Fide, proueth by many texts of Scripture, that charitie is as necessarie as faith. Be it so, yet he doth not say, that we are iustified by charity. We say, as he there saith, thatBasil. ser. de fide Character & insigne Christianorum. loue is the badge and cognizance of Christian men; much commended vnto vs by our Sauior, as a marke whereby he will haue vs to be knowne to be his disciples. We say further, that it is as necessarie as faith, to the full perfection of a Christian man, and yet we say it hath nothing to do in the act of iustification. To his question as touching the words alledged, If a man know himselfe iustified by faith in Christ, how can he acknowledge, that he wants true iustice? I answer him, that a man acknowledgeth himselfe to want in himselfe true inherent iustice, confessing himselfe to be sinfull and corrupt, when yet he wanteth not that iustice or righteousnesse of which S. Paule saith:Rom. 4.5. To him that worketh not (that is,Oecumen. in Rom. 4. Ei qui ab operibus fiduciā non habet. who hath no confidence by workes) but beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly, his faith is reputed for righteousnesse, and so as Basil saith, he is iustified by faith alone, Bern. in Cant. ser. 23. Charitas patris ipsorū cooperit multitudinem peccatorum. Et ser. 61. Iustitia tua in me operit multitudinem peccatorum. the loue of the Father, and the righteousnesse of Christ the Sonne couering the multitude of his sinnes: so that they are as if they had neuer bin, and he as if he had offended nothing, as before hath bene declared. Origens testimonie which is the last of all, declareth plainly the same that Basils doth, thatOrig. in Rom. cap. 3. Dicit sufficere solius fidei iustificationem, ita vt credēs tan tummodo quis iustificetur etiāsi nihil ab eo operis fueri [...] expletum. the iustification of faith alone is sufficient, so that a man onely beleeuing is iustified, though there haue bene no good worke performed by him. For example hereof he alledgeth the Thiefe on the crosse, Pro sola fide a [...] ei Iesus, Amē d [...]cot t [...]bi, &c. to whom for faith alone Christ said, This day shalt thou be with me in paradise. M. Bishop answereth againe, that Origen excludes no [Page 519] good disposition in vs to iustification. A strange matter, that these Fathers should haue so little discretion still to be vrging faith alone, faith alone, and yet should meane to leaue a place to M. Bishops good dispositions, whereby faith alone is ouerthrowne. But he addeth out of his maister Bellarmine, that faith is opposed to outward workes, so that Origens meaning is, that a man may be saued without doing outwardly any good workes, if he want time and place. And what are those outward workes? Forsooth Bellarmine nameth to fast, and to giue almes. Absurd Friar, as if there were no outward good workes to be done, but onely fasting and giuing of almes. M. Bishop here vnder the name of dispositions, setteth forth vnto vs many good works of the theefe in that short time of his being vpon the crosse, the feare of God, hope, faith, repentance, confession of sinnes, loue towards God and his neighbor, in reprehending his fellowes blasphemie, and defending Christs innocencie, and yet of him Origen affirmeth the same that Chrysostome did before of Abraham, that not for any workes, but he was iustified by faith alone.Super hoc non requisiuit Dominus quid priùs oporatus esset, nec expectauit quid operis cùm credidisset, explesset, sed sola confessione iustificatum comitem sibi Paradisum in gressurus assumpsit. Christ did not enquire concerning him, saith he, what he had wrought before nor did looke what worke he performed when he had beleeued: but being to go into Paradice, tooke him to accompany him, being iustified onely by his confession, that is, by his faith which he vttered and shewed by his confession of Christ. The other example there alledged by Origen, maketh the matter as plaine, which is of the woman in the Gospell, that washed Christs feet with her teares, and wiped them with the haires of her head, whose good workes M. Bishop hath noted alsoSect. 21. before: to whome notwithstandingOrigen. ibid. Ex nullo legis opere, sed pro sola fide. not for any worke of the law, but for faith only, saith Origen, Iesus said, Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee: and againe, Thy faith hath saued thee. Yea but Origen faith,Idem in ca. 4. that faith cannot be imputed to iustice, to such as beleeue in Christ, vnlesse they do withall put off the old man. And we say no lesse, that iustification cannot be separated from sanctification; but where the one is, there is the other also: and yet it is distinctly to be considered what belongeth to the one, and what belongeth to the other. He correcteth the opinion of them, who thinke profession of faith to be faith, and thereupon saith as we do, that to such their faith, because indeed it is no true faith, cannot be reputed for righteousnesse. Therefore of faith he said before:Jbid Ne putes quòd si quis habeat talem fidem ex qua iustificatus habeat gloriā apud Deum, possit simul cum ea habere & iniustitiam: si enim qu [...] credit quòd Iesus est Christus ex Deo natus est, & qui natus est ex Deo non peccat, manifestū est, quia qui credit Jesu Christo non peccat: quòd si peccat, certum est quia non creditet, &c Certum est eum qui verè credit, opus fidei & iustitiae operari & totius bonitatis. Do not thinke, that he that hath such a faith, as whereby being iustified, he hath to reioyce with God, can together therewith haue [Page 520] vnrighteousnesse. For if he that beleeueth that Iesus is Christ, be borne of God; and he that is borne of God sinneth not, it is manifest, that he that beleeueth in Iesus Christ, sinneth not; and if he do sinne, (that is, giue himselfe to sinne) it is certaine that he beleeueth not. Certaine it is, that he that truly beleeueth, doth worke the worke of faith and righteousnesse, and of all goodnesse. Thus he saith as we do, that true faith cannot be separated from godly life: so that a man cannot haue fellowship with Christ by iustification, who by sanctification also hath not fellowship with him. But the roote of all is faith, by which alone we are iustified, and so the barre of sinne is taken away, that diuided before betwixt God and vs, that so the sanctifying spirit of God may haue accesse vnto vs, to worke in vs the good worke of God, and so to prepare vs to that inheritance, to the hope wherof he hath called vs. As for the other place that he citeth, it is the same in effect with that of Ignatius Sect. 26. before alledged, and containeth nothing but what we also teach, as hath bene declared there.
31. W. BISHOP.
The third Difference of Iustification, is howe farre foorth good workes are required thereto.
Pag. 91. Master Perkins saith, That after the doctrine of the Church of Rome there be two kinds of Iustification: the first, when of a sinner one is made iust: the which is of the meere mercie of God through Christ, without any merit of man, onely some certaine good deuotions of the soule, (as the acts of Faith, Feare, Hope, Charitie, Repentance,) go before, to prepare (as it were) the way, and to make it more fit to receiue that high grace of Iustification.
The second Iustification is, when a iust man by the exercise of vertues, is made more iust: as a child new borne, doth by nouriture grow day by day bigger: of this increase of grace, Catholikes hold good workes to be the meritorious cause.
M. Perkins first granteth, that good workes do please God, and haue a temporall reward.
2. That they are necessarie to saluation, not as the cause therof, but either as markes in a way to direct vs towards saluation: or as fruites [Page 521] and signes of righteousnes, to declare one to be iust before men: all which he shuffleth in, rather to delude our arguments, then for that they esteem much of good workes, which they hold to be no better then deadly sinnes.
The maine difference then betweene vs consisteth in this: whether good workes be the true cause indeed of the increase of our righteousnes, which we call the second iustification: or whether they be onely fruites, signes or markes of it.
R. ABBOT.
Here M. Bishop, it seemeth, did not well like that M. Perkins should do the Church of Rome that wrong, to make her better then indeed she is: for whereas he had said, that they exclude all workes from the first iustification, and confesse it to be wholly of grace, M. Bishop reformeth his error by adding, that certaine good deuotions of the soule, (as the acts of faith, feare, hope, charitie, repentance,) go before to prepare the way to iustification, all which it hath bene his drift hitherto to proue to be properly and truly the causes thereof. Now as touching the point in hand M. Perkins obserueth three things accorded vnto by vs, in the recitall whereof M. Bishop vseth his wonted guise of deceit and fraud. First, we graunt, that good workes do please God, and are approued of him, and therefore haue reward: which we intend both temporall and eternall, but he mentioneth it as if we affirmed no other, but only temporall reward. Secondly, we say that they are necessarie to saluation, not as causes either conseruant, adiuuant, or procreant, but either as consequent fruites of that faith which is necessarie to saluation, or as markes in a way, or rather the way it selfe leading to saluation. Thirdly we say, that the righteous man is in some sort iustified by workes, as S. Iames saith that Abraham was iustified by workes, that is, declared and made manifest to be iust. And this he acknowledgeth to be in some sort also before God, for that it pleaseth God by our workes to take the sight and knowledge of our faith; albeit we forbeare so to speake, both for auoiding confusion in this disputation of iustification, properly vnderstood in the sight of God, and also for that the same phrase in the Apostles writing of that point, sounds another way. This last M. Bishop here cōcealeth, fearing lest [Page 522] it should preuent him of some of his cauils, but that which he doth alledge, he saith is shuffled in rather to delude their arguments, then that we esteeme much of good workes, which (he saith) we hold to be no better then deadly sinnes. Thus the glozing sycophant still playeth his part, still peruerting sometimes our saying, sometimes our meaning. Where he cannot oppugne that which we teach, he will make his Reader beleeue, that we meane not as we say. We see no such difference betwixt them and vs, betwixt their liues and ours, but that we may well be thought to esteeme good workes, as much as they do. We would be ashamed to be such as their stories haue described their Popes, and Cardinals, and Bishops, nay, as M. Bishop and his fellowes haue described the Iesuites to be. Whereas he saith, that we account good workes no better then deadly sinnes, he very impudently falsifieth that which we say. We affirme the good workes of the faithfull to be glorious and acceptable in Gods sight for Christs sake, being done in his name, and offered vpon the altar of faith in him. The imperfection thereof is accidentall, and taketh not away the nature of a good worke, but onely maketh it an vnperfect good worke: which imperfection notwithstanding were sufficient to cause the worke to be reiected, if in rigor and extremity God should weigh the same; which he doth not, but mercifully pardoneth it for Christs sake. Seeing then the blemish set aside, we acknowledge it to remaine intirely a good worke, being the worke of the grace of God, to be accepted and rewarded of God, with what conscience doth this brabler say, that of good workes we make no better then deadly sinnes? As touching the question propounded by him, it consisteth of two parts: the one, of the increase of righteousnesse: the other, of the cause of that increase. We say, that the righteousnesse whereby we are to be iustified before God, admitteth no increase, because it must be perfect righteousnesse: for perfect righteousnesse consisteth in indiuisibili, if any thing be taken from it, it is not perfect; and if it be not perfect, it cannot iustifie before God. Now by M. Bishop it appeareth, that the inherent righteousnesse which they say is infused into a man in his first iustification, is vnperfect, because it remaineth afterwards to be increased. Of the same inherent iustice we also make no question, but that there is an increase thereof to be expected and laboured for, and that we are therein to thriue and grow from day to day: but [Page 523] hence we argue, that it is not that that can make a man iust in the sight of God: for the defect that is thereof, is not by a meere priuation, but by admixtion of the contrarie:August. Epist. 29. ex vitio est, it is by reason of some corruption, as S. Austin saith. Yea,Idem de perf. iustit. Peccatum est cùm non est charitas quae esse debet, vel minor est quàm debet. there is sinne, as he againe saith, when charitie (that is inhernt iustice) is lesse then it ought to be. But where sinne is, a man cannot be said to be iust in the sight of God. Therefore by the Popish imagined first iustification, a man cannot be iustified in the sight of God: no, nor by their second iustification, because it neuer groweth to that, but that it is still capable of increase. It remaineth therefore, that we are iust in the sight of God onely by the righteousnes of Christ, which is without increase, being fully absolute and perfect, according to the prescript forme of the law, the same being vndertaken for our sakes, and performed in our name. But whereas we acknowledge the increase of inherent righteousnesse, there groweth a question of the cause of this increase. The Romish doctrine is, that the grace of God isCoster. Enchir. cap. 5. Est haec gratia in arbitrio voluntatis, quemadmodum baculus in manu conualescentis, cuius auxilio si velit vtetur; si [...] minùs poterit eam remouere. like vnto a staffe put into a mans hand to stay him, and that it is left to his free will either to vse this staffe to keepe him vp, or to leaue it and so to fall. Free will then (say they) vsing well the grace that it hath receiued, deserueth thereby an increase of iustice and righteousnesse. Thus they still hang all vpon the merit and free will of man: they thinke scorne to haue any thing of gift, but one way or other will deserue all. But the doctrine of truth teacheth vs to conceiue all to be of grace, both the first gift of sanctification, and all the succeeding increase thereof. For although it be true, that God to the thankfull receiuing and vsing of his gifts, doth adde greater measure thereof, according to that of our Sauior:Mat. 25.29. To him that hath shall be giuen, that is, saith S. Austin, Aug. de doct. Christ. lib. 1. ca. 1. Dabitur habentibus, id est, cum benignitate vtentibus eo quod acceper [...]it. To them that vse well that which they haue receiued, yet that which is added, is butJoh. 1.16. grace for grace, andFulgent. ad Monim. lib. 1. Dona sua donis suis reddit. the rendring of one gift to another gift, God himselfe giuing himselfe occasion by one gift, of the bestowing of another. As he giueth faith, and to faith giueth that for which we beleeue: as he giueth vs to pray, and to our prayer giueth that for which we pray: so in all the rest he giueth grace, and giueth to vse well the grace that he hath giuen; and to the well vsing thereof giueth also further measure and increase of grace, that both in the gift and in the increase all prayse and glorie may redound to him. The means in vs whereby this increase is wrought vnto vs, is our faith; which, [Page 524] as it first receiueth the spirit, so receiueth also the increase of it, whilest by the growth thereof we grow more into Christ, and thereby are more and more partakers of his life.Ambros. in Luc. ca 11 li. 10. Mihi fide mea Sol ille coelestis, vel minuttur vel [...]ugetur. That heauenly Sunne, saith Ambrose, is increased or diminished vnto me according to my faith. Now thē to determine the point wherupon we are here to insist, it is not, whether inherent righteousnesse may be increased, for that we denie not; nor whether good workes be meritorious causes of the increase of it, for that beōgeth properly to the question of merits: but the question is, whether in the increase of righteousnes, which they tearme second iustification, we grow to any such perfection, as that thereby we may be found perfectly iust in the sight of God, by vertue and force thereof to be accepted vnto euerlasting life.
32. W. BISHOP.
M. Perkins pretends to proue, that they are no cause of the increase of our iustice: and yet frames not one argument directly to that purpose, but repeates those obiections, and proposeth them now at large, which we made before against the first iustification: the which although impertinent to this place, yet I will solue them first, and then set downe our owne.
We conclude that a man is iustified by faith, without the works of the law.
Answer. The Apostle there speaketh of the iustification of a sinner: for he saith before, that he hath proued, both Iew and Greeke, to be vnder sinne; and that all haue sinned, and need the glorie of God: wherefore this place appertaines not vnto the second iustification, and excludes only either works of the law, as not necessary vnto the first iustification of a sinner: against the Iewes who thought and taught them to be necessarie, or else against the Gentils any worke of ours, from being any meritorious cause of that first iustification: for we acknowledge very willingly (as you haue heard often before) that euery sinner is iustified freely of the meere grace of God, through the merit of Christ onely, and without any merit of the sinner himselfe: and yet is not a sinner (being of years of discretion) meerly passiue in that his iustificatiō, as M. Perkins very absurdly saith: for in their owne opinion he must beleeue (which is an action,) and in ours not only beleeue, but also Hope, Loue, and Repent: and this kind of iustification excludeth all boasting in our soules as well as theirs. For as they must graunt, that they may not bragge of their faith, although it be an act [Page 525] of theirs so necessarily required at their iustification, that without it they could not be iustified: euen so let them thinke of the rest of those good preparations, which we hold to be necessarie, that we cannot truly boast of them,, as though they came of our selues: but we confesse all these good inspirations, as all other good, to descend from the bounteous liberalitie of the Father of lights: and for the yeelding of our consent to them, we can no more vaunt, then of consenting vnto faith: all which is no more, then if a man be mired in a lake, and vnable of himselfe to get out, would be content that another of his goodnesse should helpe him out of it. Yet obserue by the way, that S. Paule forbiddeth not all glorying or boasting: Rom. 5. For he glorieth in the hope of glory of the Sonne of God,2. Cor. 10. and in his tribulations. Againe: He defineth that we may glorie in measure, and that he might glory in his power,2. Cor. 12. and that he was constrained to glory in his visions and reuelations. So that a good Christian may glory in our Lord, and in his heauenly gifts, so it be in measure & due season, acknowledging them from whence they come. But to boast and say, that either God needed vs, or that our good parts were cause that God called vs first to his seruice, is both false and vtterly vnlawfull. Ephes. 2.
So that by grace ye are saued through faith, and that not of our selues, it is the gift of God: not of workes lest any man should boast himselfe, is nothing against our doctrine of iustification, Lib. 83 q. 76. but too too ignorantly or malitiously cited against it: and not also with S. Augustin, that faith is there mentioned, to exclude all merits of our works, which went before and might seeme to the simple to haue bene some cause, why God bestowed his first grace vpon vs: but no vertuous dispositions requisite for the better preparation to the same grace: and therefore very fondly doth M. Perkins inferre, that in that sentence S. Paule speaketh of workes of grace, because in the text following he mentioned good workes. Whereas the Apostle putteth an euident distinction betweene those two kind of workes, signifying the first, to be of our selues: the second, to proceede from vs as Gods workmanship, created in Christ Iesus, and the first, he calleth Works simply: the second, Good workes, prepared of God for vs to walke in after our first iustification. What grosse ignorance then was it, to take these two so distinct manner of workes for the same, and to ground himselfe so boldly vpon it?
R. ABBOT.
The question intended by M. Perkins is expresly propounded, how [Page 526] farre foorth good workes are required to iustification: namely, before God, which he determineth thus, that they are required, not as causes for which we are iustified, either in the beginning of grace, or in the proceeding thereof, but onely as effects and fruites of iustification. Which although it be implyed in that that before hath bene said, of being iustified by faith alone, yet neither as touching first nor second iustification, is directly handled by M. Perkins, but only in this place. Here therefore he disputeth wholy as touching iustification before God, that good workes concurre not as any causes thereof, and bringeth his arguments directly to that point. First, the Apostle saith,Rom. 3.28. We conclude that a man is iustified by faith without the works of the law. M. Bishop excepteth against this place, as meant of the first iustification of a sinner, not appertaining to the second iustification. But we find but one iustification spoken of by S. Paule, both beginning and continuing in faith: for being still sinners, so long as here we liue it must needes be, that that which the Apostle saith of the iustification of a sinner must stil appertaine vnto vs, and therfore that both firstly and lastly we are iustified by faith without the workes of the law And if there were any second iustification, that which the Apostle saith must necessarily be taken to belong to it. For he writeth these things to the Romaines, to the Galathians, which long before had beleeued and bene baptized, and yet now still informeth them, that their iustification is by faith without the works of the law: still he saith,Gal. 2.21. If righteousnesse be by the law, Christ dyed in vaine: yea he proueth by the Prophets words, not that the sinner onely, butCap. 3.11. the iust shall liue by faith, as Hierome mentioning out of the vulgar Latin translation of the Psalmes these words:Psal. 55.7. vulg. Lat. Pro nihilo saluos faciet eos. He will saue them for nothing, addeth,Hieron. aduer. Pelag. lib 2. Haud dubium quin iustos qui non proprio merito, sed Dei sal [...]ātur clementia. No doubt but he meaneth the iust, who are not saued by their owne merit, but by the mercie of God. But it is further to be noted, that he bringeth in Abraham for an example of this iustification, euen then when he had long bene the seruant of God, and shewed singular deuotion and obedience vnto him. He bringeth for another example the Prophet Dauid, a man according to Gods owne hart, who from his childhood had bene called of God, yet now still acknowledging his blessednes to consist in theRom. 4.6. Lords imputing of righteousnesse without workes. It is euident therefore that M. Bishops exception is vnsufficient, and that not only at a mans first entrāce into the state of grace, which he calleth the first iustificatiō, [Page 527] but afterwards also a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the law, and therfore works can be no meritorious cause of any second iustification. His acknowledgement, that a sinner is iustified freely of the meere grace of God, through the merit of Christ only, without any merit of the sinner himselfe, is a meere collusion and mockerie. For if a man be iustified by workes, then it is not by meere grace. He saithSect. 21. before of the woman that washed the feet of Christ, that her loue and other vertuous dispositions were causes why she was iustified, and determineth still, that hope, feare, repentance, charitie, concurre as causes thereof. Yea but (saith he) they are no meritorious causes; there is the merit of Christ onely, and no merit of the sinner himselfe. So then iustification is by workes, but not by merits. But we see the Apostle resolueth against workes, of merits he saith nothing: he speaketh of that that is, not of that that cannot be; workes there may be, but merit there can be none, as is afterwards to be declared. See then the madnesse of these men: the Apostle saith,Gal. 2.16. Ephes. 2.9. Not by workes; yes, say they, it is by works, but it is not by merits: the Apostle saith,Rom. 11.6. If it be of grace, it is not of workes; yes, say they, it is both by grace and by workes, but it is not by merits. Thus impudently they confront the Apostle, and seek to tye vpon him a flat contradiction to that he saith. They will seeme to vphold grace, by excluding merit, when as the Apostle testifieth, they plainely ouerthrow it by affirming workes, because (as hath bene before alledged out of Austin) grace is not grace in any respect, except it be free in euery respect. Yea neither do they wholly exclude merit, but affirme the sameBellar. de iust. lib. 1. cap. 17. in some sort, euen in their first iustificatiō, as I haue before diuers times obserued out of Bellarmine. Thus they play fast and loose, and wold faine say, but cannot well tell what to say. With Pelagius they are ashamed to omit the grace of God, and yet they so teach it, as that they make it of no effect. Now because our iustification is meerely by the gift of God, therefore M. Perkins saith, that the sinner in his iustification is meerely passiue, meaning, that we do nothing at all, wherein consisteth any part of our righteousnesse with God. M. Bishop saith, that this is absurd, because a man must beleeue, and to beleeue is an action. But it is absurd onely to an absurd and ignorant man, who vnderstandeth not what he readeth. To beleeue is an action, but he hath had occasion enough to know and vnderstand, if ignorance had not blinded him, that we place no part of [Page 528] righteousnesse in the very act of faith, but in the thing receiued thereby. Christ onely is our righteousnesse, and him we receiue by faith. God iustifieth, we are iustified. God imputeth righteousnesse, to vs it is imputed: God then is the agent, we the subiect whereon he worketh, patients, receiuers, and no way workers of that which is our righteousnesse before God. And to this his vnderstanding should leade him in that iustification which they maintaine. For although they say that by faith, hope, charitie, repentance, which are actions, they obtaine iustification, yet the very habite of iustice is with them a thing meerely infused of God, and not the act of man himselfe. Therfore as touching the very habite of iustice a man must be onely passiue, not actiue, in the same sence as M. Perkins speaketh, onely a receiuer, and not at all a worker thereof. But now he telleth vs, that the iustification which they so teach, wrought and procured by hope, feare, loue, &c. excludeth all boasting as well as ours. But that cannot be: for the Apostle telleth vs, thatRom. 3.27. boasting or reioycing is not excluded by the law of workes, but by the law of faith. So long as any thing is attributed to our workes in this behalfe, we haue somewhat to glorie in, as that by our workes, and for our workes sake we haue obtained that which we haue. The Apostle saith, thatRom. 4.2. if Abraham were iustified by workes, he had whereof to glorie or reioyce, and therefore it is not true, that iustification being attributed to workes, we haue nothing whereof to reioyce or boast our selues. Neither doth M. Bishops explanation helpe the matter at all, that we cannot boast of those preparations, as though they came of our selues: because we see the Pharisee in the Gospell to glorie of that, which notwithstanding he confesseth to be the gift of God:Luc. 18.11. August. in Psal. 31. Cùm dicebat gratias tibi▪ fatebatur ab illo se [...]cepisse quod habebat. Hieron. aduer. Pelag li. 3 Jlle gratias agit Deo, quia ipsius misericordia non sit, sicut caeteri homines, &c. O God I thanke thee, saith he, that I am not as other men are. But by his words of these good inspirations descending frō the Father of lights he doth but abuse his Reader, dealing onely colourably, as Pelagius the hereticke was wont to do. For they make God the occasion only, and not the true cause of them. They make him externally an assistant to them, but the internall producing and proper originall of them, is of the Free will of man, which is the cause why they affirme these works that go before iustificatiō not to be meritorious, as they say those are that follow after. For if they made them essentially the workes of grace, they could haue no colour to attribute merit to the one, and to deny it to the other. Yea M. Bishop himselfe [Page 529] apparantly excludeth them from being the works of grace, in that presently after he calleth the grace of iustification, the first grace, as being ignorant of the language of their owne schools, wheras these workes are said to go before, to prepare vs for the receiuing of iustifying grace. In these works of preparation therfore there is apparantly somwhat attributed to man, wherof he hath to glorie in himselfe: for that howsoeuer being helped of God, yet he doth somewhat himselfe, for which God bestoweth vpon him the gift of iustification. Yea M. Bishop plainly ascribeth to him somewhat wherof to reioyce, in that he ascribeth it to him to consent to the grace of God. Yea but a man, saith he, can no more vaunt of consent to these workes, then of consent to faith: true, and therefore if either way he haue any thing of himselfe, he hath somewhat whereof to boast. M. Bishop therefore buildeth vp his owne glorie in both, so acknowledging the grace of God both in faith and workes, as that all is nothing, but by the free wil of man. Now we on the other side, together with the auncient Church,Fulgen. ad Monim. lib. 1. Nullatenus sinimus, immo sal [...] briter prohibemus tam in nostra fide quàm in nostr [...] opere tanquam nostrum nobis aliquid vindicare. suffer not, nay, we vtterly forbid, that either in our faith, or in our worke, we challenge to our selues any thing as our owne. But in the iustification of faith boasting or reioycing is excluded, not onely for that faith and all consent of faith is wholly the gift of God, but also for that to faith nothing at all is ascribed for it selfe, but onely to Christ who is receiued thereby, and is it selfe a meere acknowledgement, that we haue all that we haue of the soueraigne bountie and mercy of God, only for his owne sake, & not for any thing that is in vs. Now therfore we hence argue against M. Bishops iustification, that that is the onely true doctrine of iustification, by which mans boasting or reioycing is excluded. By the doctrine of iustification by workes, mans boasting is not excluded. Therfore the doctrine of iustification by works, is not the true doctrine of iustification. As for his comparison of a man mired in a lake, and content that another should helpe him out, it sauoureth very strongly of the stinke of the Pelagians, leauing in a man both will and power for the helping of himselfe, whereas the Scripture affirming vs to beEphe. 2.1. dead in trespasses and sinnes, bereaueth vs altogether of all, either will or power, whereby we should yeeld any furtherance to the sauing of our selues. But the same is also otherwise vnfit, because the conuersion of a man is an acceptance of a seruice and an entrance into it, wherein he is to bestow his labour and [Page 530] paines to deserue well, as M. Bishop saith, at his hands whose seruant he is, and by couenant to merit heauen. Hereto he worketh partly by grace, as he saith, and partly by free will, and therefore hauing merited and deserued, he hath somewhat in respect of himselfe wherein to glorie and reioyce: whereas the course that God taketh is,Bernard Cant. Ser. 50. Vt s [...]iam [...] in d [...]e illa, quia non ex operibus iustitiae quae fe [...]imus nos, sed pro misericordia sua saluos nos fecit. that we may know at that day, as S. Bernard saith, that not for the workes of righteousnesse which we haue done, but of his owne mercie he hath saued vs. For this cause albeit he could haue perfected vs at once, and euen at the first haue reformed vs to full and vnspotted righteousnesse to serue him accordingly, yet hath he thought good to leaue vs groning vnder a burden of sinne, and vnder many infirmities and imperfections in the seruice that we do vnto him, that the sight of our foule feet may still pull downe our Peacockes tayle, and we may alwaies fully know, that we are to giue all the honour and glorie of our saluation to God alone. But M. Bishop telleth vs, that all glorying and boasting is not forbidden, and we acknowledge the same, for else the Apostle wold not haue said,1. Cor. 1.31. He that glorieth, let him glorie in the Lord. Our glorying or reioycing must be with the acknowledgement of his goodnesse, and to the magnifying of him, and not of our selues. He that exalteth himselfe as the Pharisee did, in that which he confesseth to be the gift of God, reioyceth against God. But M. Bishop offendeth both wayes: he attributeth not all vnto God, but somewhat at least to the free will of man. Againe, it is not entirely the glorie of God that he respecteth, butSest. 2. the bringing of dignity vnto men, as he hath before expressed. Therfore albeit he will not haue a man boast and say, that his good parts were the cause that God called him first to his seruice, yet he maketh no exception, but that a man may boast of the good workes that he hath performed in seruing him, and may glory that his good parts therin are the cause why God adiudgeth heauē vnto him as iustly deserued, which is that against which the Scripture wholy driueth, teaching vs to confesse that which Austin doth, thatAug Hypog. lib 3. Intell [...]ge, in miseratione & misericordiae, non in factione meritorum animam coronari. not for performance of merits, but in mercy and louing kindnesse the soule of man is crowned: and to say with Hilary, Hilar in Psal. 135. Quòd sumus qui non fuimus, quòd erimus quòd non sumus, causam [...]am non habet, nisi misericordiae Dei. That we are what we were not; that we shall be, what we are not, it hath no other cause at all, but onely the mercie of God. Againe, he will not haue vs boast and say, that God needed vs for our selues, but we must needes say with Tertullian: Tertul. aduer. Hermog. Nemo non eget eo de cuius vtitur. There is none but needeth him, of [Page 531] whose he vseth any thing. Their doctrine of free will maketh God to stand in neede of vs, because by it God bringeth not the worke of our saluation to passe, but at our will. It is in the power of our free will, either to helpe it or hinder it, either by admitting or reiecting the grace of God. For the performance therefore of his purpose and promise, God must stand in neede of our will, to consent to his worke, or else it succeedeth not. For the auoiding of which absurdity, we must confesse, that God vseth nothing in vs, for the effecting of our saluation, but what he himselfe graciously worketh in vs. Our consenting, our beleeuing, our willing, our working, all is of God, and nothing is there therein that we can call ours. Now therefore it is plaine, that M. Perkins did not ignorantly and maliciously as this ignorant wrangler speaketh, but iudiciously and truly apply against them the place to the Ephesians,Ephe. 2.8. By grace ye are saued through faith; not of your selues, it is the gift of God; not of workes, least any man should boast. Where the Apostle ascribing all to grace through faith in Christ, taketh exception generally against works, and giueth to vnderstand, that they are effects, not causes of saluation, because God hauing first by faith put vs in the state of saluation, doth consequently create vs anew in Christ Iesus, vnto good workes. M. Bishops exception is, that the Apostle there excludeth onely the workes that be of our selues, before we be iustified. But that his exception is very vaine, appeareth plainly by that the Apostle for reason of that that he saith, Not of workes, least any man should boast, addeth in the next words, For we are his workmanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good workes, which God hath prepared for vs to walke in. Where one way to vnderstand works in the one sentence which is to be proued, and another way to vnderstand good workes in the other sentence which is the proofe, is to make the Apostle to vtter as reasonlesse reasons as M. Bishops idle head is wont to do. For what sence were it to say, we are not saued by workes that are of our selues before we be iustified, because we are Gods creation and workmanship in the good workes that we do after our iustification? But the Apostles meaning is very euident, we are not saued by any good workes that we do; for our good workes are none of ours, but they are his workmanship in vs, by whom we are saued, who hauing by his calling entitled vs to saluation, hath prepared good workes as the way for vs to walke in, to the same [Page 532] saluation. It was not then M. Perkins ignorance, to take two distinct manner of workes for the same, but M. Bishops absurd shifting, to make a distinction of workes there where the sequell of the text plainly conuinceth, that there is no difference at all. But we would gladly know of him, to which manner of workes he referreth his vertuous dispositions? To the latter he cannot, because they proceede from vs as Gods workmanship created in Christ Iesus, which we are not till we be iustified, and they are for vs to walke in after our iustification. If to the former, then we see they are by the Apostle excluded from iustification. So in neither place doth he say any thing of them, and because he knew them not, he hath wholy left them out. He was vndoubtedly to blame, to conceiue so little vertue in Maister Bishops vertuous dispositions, as not to think them worth the speaking of. But it is woorth the noting, to what fashion he by this deuice hath hewed the words of the Apostle: Not by workes, least any man should boast; that is, not by workes that are of our selues, but yet by vertuous good dispositions and workes of preparation, which are partly of God, and partly of our selues; and yet as I haue before said, they make the essentiall production of these workes of preparation, to be onely of our selues, because as yet there isCoster. Enchirid. ca. 5. Hominis liberum arbitriū auxilio Dei necdum inhabitantis, sed mouē tis & adiuuantis se praparas ad iustificationem, nō solum patiendo sed operando & agendo. no infused or inhabitant grace, whence they should proceede, and therefore out of their owne grounds it must follow, that the same workes of preparation are here excluded by the Apostle. But see the singular impudencie of this man, who maketh S. Austin a witnesse of his vertuous dispositions, who hath not in the place alledged by him, so much as any sēblance or shew for proofe thereof. Note with S. Austin, saith he, that faith excludeth all merits of our works, but no vertuous dispositions for preparatiō to grace. Lewd Sophister, where is that note found in S. Austine? in what words is it set downe? What? still lye, and nothing but lye? S. Austine forsooth maketh the Apostle to exclude all merits of our workes which went before, and might seeme to the simple to haue bene some cause why God bestowed his first grace vpon vs, but not all workes; for there are workes of preparation, which Doctor Bishop, no simple man I warrant you, defendeth to be the cause why God bestoweth vpon vs his first grace. Will he make S. Austine the author of so absurd and impious a glose? S. Austine vnder the name of merits wholy excludeth workes, vnderstanding by merits any thing [Page 533] going before iustification, that should be vnto God a motiue or cause to bestow his grace vpon vs, as I haue shewedSect. 21. before. Therefore he doth not direct the words of S. Paul, onely against merits, but simply against works, that he affirmethAugust. li. 83. quaest. 76. Vt nemo meritu priorum bonorū operū arbitrotur se ad donum iustificationis peruenisse. Dicit posse hominē sine operibus praecedentibus iustificari per fidē Dicit de operibus quae fidem praecedunt. a man to be iustified without workes precedent or going before, that he teacheth that not for any good worke past, a man attaineth to the iustification of faith; that a man is not iustified by workes that go before faith, meaning by faith not a faith which is before iustification, but the faith in which our iustification is begun, as appeareth very plainly by that that he saith in another place,Jdem de verb. Apost. ser. 16. Si iustitiae nihil habemus, nec fidem habemus. Si fidē habemus iam aliquid habemus iustitiae. If we haue no righteousnesse, we haue no faith: but if we haue faith, we haue also some part of righteousnesse alreadie. And thus perpetually he excludeth all workes going before iustification, from being any causes thereof, and still maketh iustification the beginning of all good workes, so as thatIdem epist. 46. Sine illa cogitare aliquid vel agere secundū. Deum vlla ratione omninò nō possumus. without the grace of God (which with him is no other but the graceEpist. 105. Istam gratiam commendat Apostolus qua iustificati sumus vt homines iusti essemus. whereby we are iustified) we can in no sort thinke or do any thing according vnto God. Of M. Bishops vertuous dispositions before iustification, he neuer speaketh word, nor euer giueth intimation of any such, nay he condemneth the Pelagians for affirming the same, as we haue seene in the question ofSect. 5. Free will.
33. W. BISHOP.
Now to his second reason. If you be circumcised,Gal. 5. you are bound to the whole law. Hence thus he argueth: If a m [...]n will be iustified by workes, he is bound to fulfill the whole law, according to the rigour of it. That is Paules ground: But no man can fulfill the law, according vnto the rigour of it: ergo. No man can be iustified by workes. He that can apply the text prefixed vnto any part of the argument, Erit mihi magnus Apollo: Saint Paul onely saith in these words: That if you be circumcised, yee are bound to keepe the whole law of Moses. Maister Perkins, That if a man will be iustified by workes, he must fulfill the rigour of the law: Which are as iust as Germains lips, as they say: But M. Perkins sayes, that it is Saint Paules ground: but he is much deceiued, for the Apostles ground is this: That circumcision is as it were a profession of Iudaisme, and therefore he that would be circumcized, did make himselfe subiect vnto the whole law of the Iewes. Of the possibilities of fulfilling [Page 534] the law, because M. Perkins toucheth so often that string, shall be treated in a distinct question, as soone as I haue dispatched this.
R. ABBOT.
The force of the sentence alledged, thatGal. 5.3. he that is circumcised is bound to keepe the whole law, dependeth vpon the verse going before, and that that followeth after. He saith before,Ver. 2. If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing, by one particular giuing to vnderstand what was to be conceiued of the rest, thatAugust. cont. Faust Man. lib. 19. cap. 17. Certa pernicies si in huiusmodi legis operibus putarēt suam spem salutem (que) continer [...]. it was certaine destruction for them to thinke, that their hope and saluation was contained in such workes of the law, because thereby they were secluded from hauing any benefit in Christ. Which as he hath namely spoken of circumcision, as being a speciall matter then spoken of, so he saith it in the verse after of the whole law;Ver. 4. Ye are abolished from Christ, whosoeuer are iustified by the law, ye are fallen from grace. If then in any part of the law a man seeke to be iustified, he is thereby voided of the grace of Christ. Being abandoned from Christ and his grace, he hath no meanes of iustification and saluation, but by the law. He cannot be iustified by the law, but by perfect obseruing of it, because it is said,Cap. 3.10. Cursed is euery man that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law to do them. What then is said of circumcision, belongeth to all the workes of the law. He that seeketh to be iustified by the workes of the law, he is bound fully and perfectly to obserue the same, and if he be any where a trespasser, he cannot be iustified by the law. And rightly doth M. Perkins say, that this is the ground of that which the Apostle saith of circumcision, as he shall well perceiue, that obserueth how through the whole Epistle he disputeth generally against iustificatiō by the law, to disprooue the doctrine of the false Apostles, vrging for iustification circumcision and other ceremonies of the law. Therefore in the words alledged, this argument is implied; He that wil be iustified by the law, is bound to fulfill the whole law: He that seeketh to be iustified by circumcision, seeketh to be iustified by the law: he is therefore bound to the perfect obseruation of the whole law. As for that which M. Bishop saith, that circumcision is as it were a profession of Iudaisme, it is a very idle and sleeuelesse answer. For what is Iudaisme, but a profession of iustification [Page 535] by the law, the IewesRom. 932. seeking righteousnesse not by faith, but as it were by the workes of the l [...]w. Circumcision therefore is a profession of iustification by the law; against which the Apostles ground is, as hath bene said, that he that professeth to be iustified by the law, doth tie himselfe to obserue it without any breach, being by the law guilty of death, if he be found to transgresse in any sort. Now that there is no ablenesse in vs to fulfill the law, so as to be iustified thereby, it shall appeare God willing, in the place where Maister Bishop promiseth to treate thereof.
34. W. BISHOP.
M. Perkins third argument. Election to saluation is of grace without workes: wherefore the iustification of a sinner is of grace alone without workes: because election is the cause of iustification.
Answer. That election is of grace without workes, done of our owne simple forces, or without the workes of Moses law: but not without prouision of good works issuing out of faith, and the helpe of Gods grace, as shall be handled more largely in the question of merits.
R. ABBOT.
Here M. Bishop, to answer the argument, auoucheth a plaine point of Pelagianisme, that Gods election is vpon foresight of our good workes, directly contrary to that which the Apostle defineth in the example of Iacob; Rom. 9.11. Before the children were borne, and when they had done neither good nor euill, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not by works, but by him that calleth, it was said, the elder shall serue the younger, as it is written, I haue loued Iacob, and haue hated Esau. August. Ench. cap. 98. Qua in re si futura opera vel bona huius vel mala illius, quae Deus vti (que) praesciebat vellet intelligi, nequaquam diceret, non ex operibus, sed di [...]ret ex futuris operibus, eoque modo istam solueret quastionem, &c. Where, saith S. Austine, if the Apostle would that either the good workes of the one, or the euill workes of the other that were to come should be vnderstood, he would not haue said, Not of works, but would haue said, for the workes that were to come, and so would haue put the matter out of question. Idē epist. 105. Ideo, inquiunt Pelagiani, nondum natorum alium oderat, alium diligebat quia futura eorum opera praetudebat. Quit istum a [...]utissimum sensum Apostolo defuisse non miretur? The Pelagians said, as he obserueth, that of them being not yet borne, God therefore hated the one, and loued [Page 536] the other, because he did foresee their workes to come. Who would not wonder, saith he, that this wittie conceipt should be wanting to the Apostle? But his resolution euery where is, that Gods election is the cause of our good workes, not the foresight of our good workes the cause why God elected vs. To that purpose he alledgeth the words of the Apostle,Ephe. 1.4. He hath chosen vs in him before the foundations of the world, that we should be holy, and without blame before him through loue; De praedest. sanct. ca. 8. Non quia futuri eramu [...] sed vt essemus. Et cap. 19. Non quia futures tales nos esse praesciuit, sed vt essemus tales per ipsam electionem gratiae, &c. not saith he, because we would be, but that we should be; not because he foreknew that we would be so, but that we might be so by his election of grace. The like he obserueth of the same Apostles words concerning himselfe,1. Cor. 7.25. Aug. epist. 105. I haue obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithfull, not for that the Lord did foresee that he would be faithfull, but by his mercy made him so to be. It were too long to alledge all that might be alledged out of Austine as touching this point, but Maister Bishop hauing very nicely touched it, deferreth the rest to the question of merits, where he saith nothing directly to it. It seemeth he was ielous of the matter, and therefore was loth to wade too farre, least it should too plainly appeare, that Pelagius and he are both fallen into one pit.
35. W. BISHOP.
The fourth argument. A man must be fully iustified, before he can do a good worke: and therefore good workes cannot go before iustification. True, not before the first iustification of a sinner. But good Sir, you hauing made in the beginning of this last Article, a distinction betweene the first and second iustification; and hauing before discussed the first, and the second now remaining, and expecting you, why did you not say one word of it, the matter being ample and well worthie the handling? Albeit you will not willingly confesse any second iustification as you say: yet had it bene your part at least to haue disprooued such arguments, as we bring to proue a second iustification: Yee acknowledge that there be degrees of sanctification; but these degrees must be made downward of euill, worser and worst: for if all our sanctification and best workes be like vnto defiled cloutes, and no better then deadly sinnes as you hold, Pag. 76. else-where, let any wise man iudge what degrees of goodnesse can be lodged in it. Againe, how absurd is that position, that there is but one iustification, whereby they take fast hold on Christs righteousnesse, [Page 537] which can neuer after be either loosed or increased. Why then do you with your brother Iouinian maintaine, that all men are equally righteous? If it so be, let him that desireth to see you well coursed, read S. Hierome, S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, S. Gregory.Lib. 2. con. Iouin. Epist. 81. Epist. 57. Hom. 15. in Ezech. At least we must needes vphold, that a man is as iust and righteous at his first conuersion, as at his death, how godly a life soeuer he lead: against which I will put downe these reasons following.
R. ABBOT.
If there can be no good workes before the first iustification of a sinner, what shall we thinke of M. Bishops vertuous dispositions and works of preparation? What? are they vertuous, and yet are they not good? Nay, he hath called themSect. 30. & 32. before good qualities, good dispositions, good preparations, and what? were they good then, and now are they not good? Tell vs, M. Bishop, your mind: are your works of preparation good workes, or are they not good? If they be not good, then you haue spoken vntruly before in calling them good. If they be good, then it is vntruth that you say here, that no good workes go before the first iustification of a sinner. Either in the one or in the other you must needes confesse, that you haue said amisse. Now here he quarelleth with Maister Perkins, as if he had said nothing to the matter in hand, which is as he saith of the second iustification, whereas Maister Perkins, though noting their distinction of first and second iustification, yet hath in hand wholy to exclude workes from iustification, whence it must follow, that they haue no place in any second iustification. And the argument here propounded, directly ouerthroweth his second iustificatiō, though he would not see so much. For if a man can do no perfect good works till he be fully iustified, thē can he do no perfect good works till the second iustification be fulfilled. For a man is not fully and perfectly iustified, till he haue attained to full and perfect iustice. Iustice is not full and perfect, so long as any thing remaineth to be added vnto it. There is still something to be added in their second iustification, till it come to his full terme. Therefore till then a man is not fully iustified. Now the iustice that is not perfect, if it be respected in it selfe, cannot be pleasing vnto God. It can therefore bring forth no good workes to merit at Gods hands. [Page 538] There can therefore be no good workes, whereby a man should merit their second iustification. M. Bishop after his manner briefly reciteth the argument, and hauing so done, very scholerlike answereth to the conclusion, graunting it in one sort, when the premisses inferre it in another, and yet braueth and faceth, as if the matter were wholly cleare for him. Iustification, as M. Perkins saith, we make but one, but yet we make degrees of sanctification, not euill, worse and worst, as this cauiller fondly dreameth, but good, and better and best, according to the measure of Gods spirit bestowed vpon vs, but yet so, as that to the good, & better, and best that is in this life, there cleaueth a blemish and staine, which would cause the worke to be condemned, but that it is graciously accepted, and the imperfection thereof mercifully pardoned for Christes sake, as shall appeare in the handling of that matter. He calleth the affirming of one iustification perfect at first, and not after to be lost, an absurd position; but it is not absurd, but to absurd men, to whom the truth it selfe is absurd. There is in the sight of God but one iustification onely by faith in Christ, vnder the couerture whereof we stand thenceforth acceptable vnto God, both in our persons, and in our workes of obedience vnto euerlasting life. In that sence as to present vs iust before God, there is no other iustification. That that is further, is but declaratiua, a iustification so called, whereby we are iustified and declared to be iustified men. The true iustification properly so called, cannot be lost, becauseRom. 8.30. whom God iustifieth he also glorifieth, nor increased, because the righteousnesse of Christ is alwaies vniforme and alike. By this righteousnesse being the same to all, all are equally righteous, but by the different grace of sanctification in inherent righteousnesse, some are more righteous & some lesse, and if Iouinian maintained the contrary, he erred, and therefore those Fathers whom M. Bishop citeth, do not course vs at all, but say the same that we do, and we that they, neither is it any other but his grosse ignorance, so absurdly to mistake one thing for another. We say, that there is equality of righteousnesse in one respect▪ and he bringeth the Fathers affirming against Iouinian what we cō fesse, that there is difference of righteousnesse in another respect, According to that former righteousnesse by imputation of the merit and obedience of Christ, a man is as righteous the first day of his conuersion, as he is in the end of his life, howsoeuer as touching [Page 539] sanctification and inherent righteousnesse, he grow much, and therin be renewed from day to day.
36. W. BISHOP.
First, that of the Reuelations: Let him that is iust be yet iustified: or as your text hath it: He that is righteous,Cap. 22. let him be more righteous: and that of, feare not to be iustified euen vntill death:Eccles. 18. do conuince, that there are more iustifications then one, and that a man may increase in iustification and righteousnesse vntill death. Which is confirmed where it is said: That the path of a iust man proceedeth,Prou. 4. as the light doth vntill it be perfect day: which is degrees more and more. And S. Paule teacheth the same, where he saith to men that giue almes plentifully: That God will multiply their seed,2. Cor. 9. and augment the increases of the fruites of their iustice. Further, S. Iames doth most effectually proue this increase of righteousnesse, and the second iustification, in these words: Abraham our father, was he not iustified by workes,Cap. 2. offering Isaac his sonne vpon the altar. That he speaketh of the second iustification is euident: for Abraham was iustified before Isaac was borne, as it is most manifest by the Scripture it selfe: and by that heroicall act, of not sparing his onely and intirely beloued Sonne, his iustice was much augmented. Gen. 15. Rom. 4. And the Apostle himselfe seemeth to haue foreseene all our aduersaries cauillation, and to haue so long before preuented them. First, that common shift of theirs (that this worke was a signe, or the fruite onely of his faith, and no companion of it, in the matter of iustification) is formally confuted: for the holy Ghost speaking distinctly of both his faith and worke, and ioyning them both in this act of iustification, attributeth the better part of it vnto his worke, thus: Seest thou that faith did worke with his workes; and by the workes the faith was consummate and made perfect. Which he doth after fitly declare by a similitude, comparing faith to the body, and good works to the soule: which giue life and lustre to faith, otherwise faith is of litle value and estimation with God. Which S. Paule also teacheth at large, among other speeches including this: That if he should haue all faith,1. Cor. 13. and wanted charitie, he were nothing. And comparing faith and charitie together, defineth expresly, that charitie is the greater vertue, which charitie is the fountaine of all good workes. And so by this preferring these works of charity before faith, he doth stop the other starting hole of the [Page 540] Protestants, that Abraham forsooth was iustified before God, by onely faith: but was declared iust before men by his works: For if God esteeme more of charity, then of our faith, a man is more iustified before God by charity, then by faith. Againe, in the very place where this noble fact is recorded, to shew how acceptable it was to God himselfe, it is said in the person of God: Gen. 22. Now I know that thou louest me: and to conuince all obstinate cauilling, is it not said that his faith did in this very fact cooperate with his workes, and that the worke made his faith perfect: which coniunction of both of them together, doth demonstrate that he speaketh of his iustification before God: adding also, That he was therefore called the friend of God: which could not haue bene, if thereby he had bene onely declared iust before men: and thus doth S. Augustine reconcile the two places of the Apostles, S. Paul and S. Iames, which seeme contrary. S. Paul saying that a man is iustified by faith without workes, and S. Iames, that a man is iustified by workes and not by faith onely. That S. Paul speaketh of works which go before faith, such as we of our owne forces, without the helpe of grace are able to do: and such he saith not to deserue our first iustification. But S. Iames disputeth of workes, which follow faith, and issue out of our soules, now garnished will grace, and such he holdeth vs to be iustified by,Lib. 83. Quest. q. 76. Ser. 16. de verb. Apost. that is, made more and more iust: See the place. He saith directly, that we are iustified, and that this iustice doth increase, whiles it doth proceede and profit.
R. ABBOT.
The exhortation of S. Iohn is, that he that hath walked in righteousnesse and innocencie, and thereby approoued his profession of the faith of Christ, should still continue his course, and go forward to iustifie and approoue himselfe to the consciences of all men, by the same vertuous and godly life. The words haue their reference to outward conuersation, & iustification is to be vnderstood of the same that S. Iames speaketh of, and that is before men, and in example of outward life. To inward holinesse and purity the other part of the sentence is to be referred, He that is holy, let him be sanctified still, that is, let him adde to his sanctification, let him be more and more renewed, let him still beEphe. 4.22.24. putting off the old man, and putting on the new; let him still2. Cor. 7.1. clense himselfe from all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit, and finish (or perfect) his sanctification in the feare of God. [Page 541] S. Iohn would not by both those speeches import one thing, & therfore seeing the latter without doubt importeth inward righteousnesse, the other must needs be applied to outward workes. As for that of Ecclesiasticus it is nothing to vs, who admit no canonicall authority of that booke; yet it prooueth nothing for M. Bishop nor against vs, the words truly translated being these:Eccles. 18.21. deferre not till death to be iustified; that is, put not off till death to repent & to seeke forgiuenesse of thy sinnes, according to that which in the former verse he hath said;Ver. 20. Humble thy self before thou be sicke, & whilest thou maiest yet sinne, shew thy conuersion. Here is nothing at all to prooue two iustifications in that sence that we here speake of, as whereby a man being first iust, becōmeth more iust before the iudgement seat of God. Increase & growth of inherent righteousnesse we ackowledge and require in all faithfull Christians, and his paines is idlely bestowed in the proofe thereof. We know what our Sauiour saith,Iohn. 15.2. Euery one that beareth fruit in me the Father purgeth, that he may bring forth more fruit; what S. Peter exhorteth,2. Per. 3.18. to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Sauiour Iesus Christ. We teach men to say with S. Paul: Phil. 3.12. Not as though I had already attained or were already perfect, but one thing I do; I forget that which is behind, & endeauour my selfe to that which is before, and follow hard towards the mark. &c. We teach with S. Bernard; Bernard. in Purif. ser. 3. In viae vitae non progredi est regredi. In the way of life not to go forward, is to go backward, and againe,Epist. 123. Nolle proficere est deficere. not to increase is to decrease; Epist. 91. Vbi incipis no [...]e fieri melior. [...] eti [...]m d [...]sinis esse i [...]us. where a man beginneth not to care to be better, there he giueth ouer being good at all. He need not therefore to prooue this matter vnto vs, who teach it much more faithfully & carefully then they do. The place of Iames prooueth no other iustification but what we confesse, that is an approouing & declaring of his faith and iustification. His works are a testimony that the Scripture hath truly & rightly said of him,Iam. 2.23. Abraham beleeued God, and it was imputed vnto him for righteousnes. Now M. Bishop should haue told vs in what other meaning it can be taken, that S. Iames saith, that in his workes the Scripture was fulfilled, that saith, Abraham beleeued God, and it was imputed vnto him for righteousnesse. For if his workes were but the fulfilling of that Scripture, how absurdly doth Maister Bishop go about to prooue in his workes an augmentation of that which by that Scripture is imported formerly to be done? If his workes were but the fulfilling of that that was said of his iustification before, how doth he [Page 542] thereby seeke to proue a second iustification? Now the former testimonie of his iustification is to be considered, which was long after Gods first calling of him,Gen. 12. & seq. when he had shewed his singular faith and obedience vnto God, in going out of his owne country at the word of God, when he had long called vpon the name of the Lord, built many altars vnto him, done him much seruice: when he had long trauelled from place to place vnder his protection. For after all this, yet was he not iustified by his workes, but onely of hisGen. 15.6. beleeuing the Lord, it is testified, that it was imputed vnto him for righteousnesse. We would haue M. Bishop to tell vs, whether Abraham before the time that this testimonie was giuen him, were a iustified man or not? he cannot deny it, because Abraham had done many good works: and he hath before said, that there can be no good workes before the first iustification. If he were iustified before, then it appeareth, that to a man already iustified, not his workes, but his faith is counted for righteousnes▪ and because it cannot be thought that by one meanes he was iustified before, and by another now, it must needes be, that as before to be iustified, so now still being iustified, his faith is counted to him for righteousnesse, according as it is written:Hab. 2.4. The iust shall liue by faith. Now if after he were iustified, he did continue stil to be iustified by faith, then to speake properly as we do of iustification in the sight of God, there is one onely iustification whereby a mansRom. 4 5. faith is imputed to him for righteousnesse, as the Apostle speaketh. It must needes therefore follow that S. Iames speaketh of iustification in some other meaning then the Apostle S. Paule doth: what that meaning is let him learne, not of vs, but of the auncient Church:Phot. apud Oecum. in Rom. cap. 4. Non habuit Abrah [...]m opera? absit. Opera siquidem habuit, vt si cum hominibus qui simul cum eo versabantur fuisset in iudicio constitutus facilè iustificatus fuisset, illis (que) antepositus: verum vt coram Deo ex suis operibus iustificaretur tanquam dignus & aequalis sese praebens dignitatis cum ea quae inde praebebatur beneficentia & dono, nequaquam fuisset illam assecutus Vnde ergo b [...] dignus est habitu [...] ex sola fide, &c. Solutio patet ex bu quomodo hi [...] quidem (Paulus) ex fide ait iustificatum fuisse Abraham, diuus autem Ia [...]obus ex operibus. Had Abraham no workes? (saith Photius) God forbid. Ʋerily he had workes, so as that if he had bene brought in iudgement with the men with whom he liued, he had easily bene iustified, and preferred before them: but that by his workes he should be iustified before God, as worthie of the dignitie, kindnesse, and gift that was yeelded vnto him, he would neuer haue attained to it, but he had it by faith onely. Hereby, saith he, the resolution is manifest, how Saint Paule saith, that Abraham was iustified by faith, and Saint Iames, that he was iustified by workes. Here is a plaine distinction and difference deliuered, that Saint Paule saith, that by faith only a man is iustified before God: but that it is before men, & with men that S. Iames meaneth a man is iustified by workes. And this [Page 543] distinction is very plainly intimated by S. Paul, when he saith,Rom. 4.2. If Abraham were iustified by workes, he had to reioice but not with God. He denieth not but Abraham was iustified by workes, and that he had wherein to glory, and to stand vpon his iustification, but yet not with God. He might do it in respect of men, but with God he could not do it. So saith Origen vpon those words, hauing first put difference betwixt iustification by faith seene onely to God, and iustification by works which may be approoued of men: Origen. in Rom. ca. 4. Abraham si ex operibus iustificatus est, habet quidem gloriam ex operibus venientem, sed non illam quae apud Deum est. If Abraham were iustified by workes, he hath the glory which commeth by works, but not that which is with God. And this distinction is apparant also by S. Austine, who speaking as touching inherent iustice and righteousnesse of workes, saith,Aug. de Temp. ser. 49. Quamdiu viuitur in hac vita nemo iustificatus est, sed, In conspectu Dei. Nō frustrae addidit, In conspectu tuo: nisi quia potest esse iustificatus in cō spectu hominū. Referet in conspectu Dei: Non iustificabitur in conspectu tuo omnis viuens. So long as we liue in this life, no man is iustified; but in the sight of God. Not without cause was it that Dauid added, In thy sight: For it may be that a man may be iustified in the sight of men; but let him speake as touching Gods sight, and no man liuing shall be iustified in thy sight. Where sith S. Austine as touching iustification by workes, denieth that any man in this life is iustified in the sight of God, it must necessarily follow that that iustification which is by workes, must not be vnderstood in the sight of God, but onely in the sight of men. Now then to speake of iustification before men, as S. Iames doth, it is true that both faith and workes do concurre and ioine in the act of iustification. The faith that inwardly in the heart iustifieth to God, and is outwardly professed with the mouth to men, is not sufficient to approoue a man outwardly to men, and to the Church of God, to the sight and conscience whereof, euery faithfull man is bound to acquit and cleare himselfe, vnlesse it be accompanied and adorned with vertuous and vpright conuersation. In this respect therefore it may be said, that the better part in some sort is attributed to workes, that faith is made perfect by workes; that faith is as the body and good workes as the soule, and that faith without workes is dead, euen as the body is dead without the soule. Men specially haue an eie to workes, and thereto attribute more then to words. He is taken for a halting and halfe Christian, that maketh shew of faith, and liueth not accordingly. Men account him as a carion, a dead carkasse, lothsome, & detestable; he is euery mans byword, as I said before, and his name continually carieth reproch with it. Hereby it appeareth also, that faith though haply it be in the heart, yet is here respected [Page 544] onely as it is professed to men. For it cannot be that the worke of the hand should giue life to the faith of the heart, but rather receiueth life from it. Yea, M. Bishop himselfe telleth vs, that charity within is the life of faith within, and therefore workes which are without cannot be said to be the life of faith, but as faith it selfe also is without. There may be workes whereby a man outwardly mayLuk. 16.15. iustifie himselfe to men, as the Pharisees did, which yet are dead workes, because there is neither faith nor charity to giue them life from the heart. Now S. Iames must so be vnderstood, as that not charity which is habitually and inuisibly within, but works which are outward and apparent, must be the life of faith. He speaketh therefore of faith, as it is outwardly professed, which hath it life, and grace, and honour amongst men by the outward fruites of good workes correspondent to it selfe. Very guilefully therefore doth M. Bishop turne his speech from workes whereof S. Iames speaketh, to charity, there being here so different a consideration to be had of the one and of the other; yea, he himselfe naming charity the fountaine of good workes, and thereby importing that charity as the fountaine differeth from the good workes that issue therefrom. The place that he alledgeth to the Corinthians,1. Cor. 13.2. Though I haue all faith. &c. is nothing to this purpose, because we speake here of a faith that is common to all the faithfull, but the Apostle there speaketh of a faith that is peculiar onely to some, whereof he hath said the chapter going before,Cap. 12.9.10. To one is giuen the word of wisedome, to another the word of knowledge, to another is giuen faith, meaning the faith whereby miracles are wrought, as he himselfe addeth, Though I haue all faith, so that I could remooue mountaines, &c. His purpose is to teach men not to be proud of speciall gifts of the spirit, but to respect the end and vse thereof, which is performed by loue, without which they are onely idle shewes. As touching the comparison of faith and charity, there hath bene enough saidSect. 22. before. For our present state faith hath the preferment, and all in all hangeth vpon our faith, which is the heart and life of whatsoeuer else is in vs towards God. It is faith that giueth God his glory, that acknowledgeth him to be that that he is; that so setteth him before vs, as to draw all our affections vnto him, our loue, our feare our hope, our delight, our selues wholy both body and soule. The promises of God in speciall manner are made to [Page 545] them that beleeue and trust in him. Therefore that God esteemeth more of our charity then of our faith, is not the Apostles assertion, but M. Bishops fond collection, and that which the whole course of Scripture doth gainsay. But supposing it to be so, the consequence that M. Bishop draweth therefrom is very ridiculous: If God esteeme more of charity then of our faith, a man is more iustified by charity, then by faith. As if he should say, A man esteemeth more of his eies then of his eares, therefore he heareth better with his eies then with his eares. A thing may simply & absolutely be preferred before another, and yet the other in some respect & vse may be preferred before it. Thus may it very well be said as touching this comparison of faith with charity as before is said. Further he alledgeth, that God to shew how acceptable Abrahams fact was to him saith, Now I know that thou louest me. The true text is,Gen. 22.12. Now I know that thou fearest me, but thus M. Bishop shufleth and shifteth the best he can, to gaine somewhat to charity against faith. But this is nothing to his purpose howsoeuer. It pleaseth God who knoweth the heart and whatsoeuer is within vs, yet to take vpon him the knowledge of our loue, faith, feare, &c. by the fruites thereof. Hereby he will try vs, he will approoue vs, and giue testimony & witnesse vnto vs, and so shall he do at the last day. But what will Bishop inferre hereof? If that that he would prooue be that that he saith, that it was acceptable vnto God, we will easily graunt him so much, and so send him backe againe as wise as he came. If he would prooue hereby that Abraham was iustified before God by his works, let him consider his argument well, God tooke knowledge of Abrahams fearing him by his works; therefore Abraham was iustified by works in the sight of God. But if we follow the construction that S. Austin often maketh of those words, this collection will appeare much more absurd.August. co [...] Maximin. lib. 3. cap. 19. God, as he saith, knoweth all things before they come to passe. It was not now that God first knew that Abraham feared him. Therefore asGemere dicitur spiritus qu [...] nos gemere facit, sicut dixit Deus, Nunc cognoui, quando cognoscere hominem fecit. the spirit is said to pray and groane, because he maketh vs to pray and groane, so he saith, that God is said to know, when as he maketh vs to know. Jbid. lib. 1. Nunc cognovi id est, nunc cognoscere te feci. & de Genes. ad lit. lib 4. cap. 9. feci vt cognosceretur. Now I know then is as much as if he had said, Now I haue made thee to know, or I haue made it to be knowne that thou fearest me. M. Bishops argument then is come to this, God made Abraham to know by his worke in offering his sonne Isaac, that he was one indeed that feared God; therfore Abraham was iustified by his works [Page 546] in the sight of God. But he will now conuince all obstinate cauilling, and to that end saith, that it is said, that Abrahams faith in this fact did cooperate with his workes, and that the worke made his faith perfect. And what of that? This coniunction of them both together, doth demonstrate that he speaketh of his iustification before God. This is as he said before, iust as Germaines lips, nine mile asunder. He ioineth faith and workes together, therefore he speaketh of iustification before God. The argument much better serueth vs; If he had spoken of iustification before God, as S. Paul doth, he would haue spoken of faith onely as he doth: but because he ioineth faith and works together, it plainly appeareth, that he speaketh not of the same iustification, whereof S. Paul speaketh, and therefore must be vnderstood of iustification before men. Well, his friends are beholding to him for his good will, but he is able to stand them in little steede. Yet to helpe the matter, it is added, saith he, and he was called the friend of God. But why did he not alledge the whole text, Abraham beleeued God, and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse, and he was called the friend of God, and so conclude thereof, therefore he was iustified by his workes in the sight of God? He might as well inferre it of the one as of the other; and if the one part of the sentence be against his purpose, what sence was there in him to seeke for it in the other? The meaning is euident & plain, that it appeared by Abrahams obedience and workes, that it was not without cause said of him, Abraham beleeued God, and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse, and that he was called the friend of God. Mat. 12.33. The tree is knowne by his fruites, and Abraham by his fruites is iustified, and prooued to be a good tree. Now it is not hereby onely declared, that he was iust before men, as this wrangler cauilleth, but it is hereby declared vnto men, that he truly beleeued, and by his faith was iustified before God. To be short, in the text there is not so much as one word, or peece of word, whereby Maister Bishop can make it good, that Saint Iames speaketh of iustification in the sight of God. But because the text will not, Saint Austine is brought to prooue it, who speaketh neuer a word to that effect. M. Bishop very lewdly falsifieth his words, and maketh him to say that which he doth not say, nor euer meant to say. He speaketh the idle dreames of his owne head, and propoundeth them to his Reader vnder Saint Austines name. [Page 547] The very words of Austin are these:August. lib. 83. quaest. 76. Non sunt sibi contrariae duorum Apostolorum sententiae Pauli & Iacobi, cùm dicit vnus iustificari hominem per fidem absque operibus; & alius dicit manem esse fidem sine operibus, quia ille dicit de operibus quae fidem praecedunt, hic de ijs quae fidē sequuntur. The sentences of the two Apostles Paule and Iames, are not contrarie one to the other, when the one saith, that a man is iustified by faith without workes, and the other saith, that faith without workes is vaine, because the one speaketh of workes that go before faith, the other of workes which follow faith. Here is no mention of first or second iustification, not so much as the name of iustification by workes, much lesse any expounding of the meaning of it; not a syllable in all that Chapter, whence he should deriue that meaning of iustification, which he setteth downe for Austins, to be made more and more iust. Nay, I remember not in my reading, that Austin any where in any meaning affirmeth iustification by works, but onely in his Hypognosticon, the wordes whereof are before handled: which worke though we commonly cite vnder Austins name, yet there is no man much conuersant in Austin, but will easily conceiue by the phrase and style, that it is none of his, to say nothing, that in his Retractations he maketh no mention of it. The wordes that here he speaketh out of S. Iames are, that faith is vaine without workes, hereby willing it to be vnderstood, that though faith do iustifie without any workes going before, yet where it iustifieth, it hath alwaies good workes thencefoorh accompanying it, and that that faith which is not thus accompanied with good workes, is notAugust. de fide & oper. cap. 14. Salubris illa planc (que) Euangelica. that healthfull or sauing health which the Gospell commendeth, nor doth iustifie him in whom it is:Lib. 83. quaest. vt suprà. Nam iustificatus per fidem non potest, nisi iustè deinceps operari, quamuis nihil anteà operatus iustè ad iustificationem peruenerit. For he that is iustified by faith, saith he, cannot but thencefoorth worke righteously, though he attaine to iustification without hauing wrought any thing righteously before. The intent that S. Iames had alledging the example Abraham, he noteth to be this,Fidem eius bonae opera consecuta esse demonstrat. to shew that good works ensued or followed his faith. The drift of his speech is against them, whoQui sic acceperunt dictum (per fidem sine operibus) vt putarent, cùm semel in Christum credi dissent, etiamsi malè operarentur & flagitiosè ac facinorosè viuerent saluos se esse posse per fidem. so tooke it to be said, (by faith without workes) as that they thought, that when once they had beleeued in Christ, albeit they wrought euill, and liued wickedly and leudly, yet they might be saued by faith. The error of these men he reformeth thus:Non ita intelligendum est vt accepta fide, si vixerit, dicamus eum iustum etiamsi walè vixerit. It is not so to be vnderstood, (that a man is iustified by faith without workes) as that hauing receiued the faith, if he liue, we should call him iust, although he liue amisse. By which phrase of receiuing the faith it appeareth, that there is onely that faith here meant which consisteth in outward profession and receiuing of baptisme, which is farre from that faith to which the holy Scripture attributeth iustification and saluation. In all which speech S. Austin saith [Page 548] nothing against vs, nothing which we auouch not as well as he, but onely that vnder the name of iustification, he containeth not onely forgiuenesse of sinnes, wherin iustification properly consisteth, but that also which we distinctly call sanctification, consisting in the inward renewing of vs to holines and righteousnesse, which the Scripture plainly distinguisheth as we do. In the other place alledged, he notably oppugneth that which M. Bishop would faine maintaine. He toucheth three things appertaining to our saluatiō, which towards it, we haue alreadie attained; Predestination, vocation, iustification. Of this last he saith,Aug. de ver. Apost. Ser 16. Quid est, iustificari? Audemus dicere, [...]am hoc tertium habere nos? Et erit quisquaem nostrúm qui audeat dicere, Iustus sum? Puto enim hoc esse, Justus sum, quod est, Peccator non sum, si audes hoc dicere, occurrit tibi Ioannes, si dixerimus, &c. Quid ergo? Nihil habemus de iustitia, an habemus? sed non totum habemus. Hoc ergo quaramus, &c. What is meant by being iustified? Dare we say, that we haue this third thing alreadie? And is there any man that dares say, I am iust? for I thinke it to be all one to say, I am iust, as to say, I am no sinner. If thou be bold so to say, S. Iohn meeteth with thee, saying, If we say we haue no sinne, we deceiue our selues, &c. What then? haue we nothing of righteousnesse, or haue we? But yet we haue not all. Let vs then seeke after this: for if we haue some part, and some part we haue not, let that increase which we haue, and that shall be supplied which we haue not. He plainely confesseth, that by that iustification which he speaketh of, we haue but somewhat of inherent righteousnes, and that we haue still somewhat of sinne, and therefore that we are not as yet so iust by that iustification, as that thereby we may stand for iust in the sight of God, because we cannot stand for iust in his sight before whom perforce we must confesse our selues to be sinners. But M. Bishop teacheth farre otherwise, as we haue seene before, that a man by baptisme is made as void of sinne as Adam was in the state of innocencie, and therefore hath no need greatly to feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge. Now of that righteousnesse that we haue, S. Austin saith, that it is to grow and increase, that weIbid. Grati simus ex eo quod habemus, vt addatur quod non habemus▪ are to be thankefull for that we haue, that that may be added which we haue not, &c. We teach in the like sort, but yet withall we teach as he doth, that it neuer so farre increaseth in this life, but that it leaueth vs still to confesse our selues sinners, and therefore that it neuer bringeth vs to that, as that we can thereby be iustified in the sight of God. This is the point. Increase of inward and inherent righteousnesse we say there ought to be, and is: no man doubteth, no man maketh question of it, but we deny that we merit any iustification by our workes, or grow by our owne righteousnesse, to be reputed iust before the iudgement seate of God, neither doth [Page 549] Saint Austine euer affirme the same.
37 W. BISHOP.
Nothing then is more certaine and cleare, then that our iustification may daily be augmented: and it seemeth to me, that this also be granted in their opinion. For they holding faith to be the onely instrument of iustification, cannot deny, but that there are many degrees of faith, it is so plainely taught in the word: O ye of litle faith!Mat. 8. Luc. 19. And then a litle after, I haue not found so great faith in Israel: and, O Lord increase our faith, and many such like, where many different degrees of faith are mentioned. How then can the iustification which depends vpon that faith not be correspondent vnto that diuersitie of faith, but all one? Againe, Master Perkins deliuereth plainely, Pag. 54. That men at the first are not so well assured of their saluation, as they are afterward: if then in the certaintie of their saluation, which is the prime effect of their iustification, they put degrees, they must perforce allow them in the iustification it selfe. And thus much of this question. The obiections which Master Perkins makes for vs in this Article, Pag. 201. do belong either to the question of merits, or of the possibilitie of fulfilling the law, or to the perfection of our iustice: and therefore I remit them to those places: and will handle the two latter points, before I come to that of merits.
R. ABBOT.
That inherent righteousnesse may be increased we confesse, but we deny that our iustification before God consisteth therein, but onely in the merit and obedience of Christ, which needeth no increase, because it is fully absolute and perfect in euery respect in it selfe. But Master Bishop according to his opinion, muffled in the mists of ignorance, telleth vs, that there must needes be diuers degrees of iustification in our meaning, because there are diuers degrees of faith, and diuers degrees of assurance of saluation. But we answer him, that that necessarily followeth not, because although the instrument whereby we receiue, is in some stronger, and in some weaker, yet the thing receiued is one and the same to both. The price of redemption in the shedding of the bloud of Christ, is one and alike to all and euery faithfull man, but yet it [Page 550] is not alike apprehended by euery one. There is perfect righteousnes required of vs, and the same is yeelded vnto vs in Christ. There may be a difference in vs, but Christ cannot be diuided, neither is there in him any difference from himselfe. Where he goeth, he goeth whole; and therefore what he is to the strong, the same is he to the faint and feeble soule. There is greater assurance and lesse assurance, but the matter wherof each doth take assurance, is the whole mercie of God in Christ.
38. W. BISHOP.
Whether it be possible for a man in grace, to fulfill Gods law.
Pag. 95.MAster Perkins argueth, that it is vnpossible: first, for that Paule tooke it for his ground, that the law could not be fulfilled. Admit it were so. Gal. 5. I then wold answer, that he meant, that a man helped onely with the knowledge of the lawe, cannot fulfill the law: but by the ayde of Gods grace,Rom. 8. he might be able to do it. Which I gather out of S. Paule, where he saith, that that which was vnpossible to the lawe, is made by the grace of Christ possible.
2 Obiect. The liues and workes of most righteous men, are imperfect and stayned with sinne; ergo quid? Of this, there shall be a seuerall Article.
3 Obiect. Our knowledge is imperfect, and therefore our faith, repentance, and sanctification is answerable. I would to God all our workes were answerable to our knowledge, then would they be much more perfect then they are, but this argument is also impertinent, and doth rather proue it possible to fulfill the law, because it is possible to know all the law. Then if our workes be answerable to our knowledge, we may also fulfill it.
4 Obiect. A man regenerate, is partly flesh, and partly spirit, and therefore his best workes are partly from the flesh.Rom. 8.13. Not so, if we mortifie the deedes of the flesh by the spirit, as the Apostle exhorteth.
R. ABBOT.
The deniall of the possibility of keeping Gods commandement, or of fulfilling the law is not absolutely meant. God forbid, that we should say, that God hath commanded any thing vnpossible to [Page 551] be done. We beleeue that Adam was created in state to fulfill all the righteousnesse of the law. We beleeue that Christ in our nature hath fulfilled the same for vs, and that we by Christ in the end shall fully be restored to the perfection thereof. In the meane time also we keepe the commandements of God, and frame our liues according to the line and rule thereof, and herein we labour and trauell to grow and increase from day to day: but we attaine not to perfection here; that which we do is more in will then in worke; more in desire then in deede. In the midst of our righteousnesse we condemne our selues of sin; we carry our vncleannesse in our hands, and thereby do yeeld confession thereof to the Lord: if we will say that we fulfill the law, our owne mouth shall condemne vs, who accordingly as we are taught do daily aske forgiuenes for our transgressions of the lawe. There is no man so long as he liueth, but must confesse, that he is too weake to the bearing of that burthen, and cometh much short euery manner of way of that, that is required by the law. And this S. Paule tooke indeed for the ground of his whole disputation against iustification by the law. For rightly he saith:Gal. 3.21. If there had bene a lawe giuen which could haue giuen life, then righteousnes shold haue bene by the law. He taketh it for granted, that the law could not giue life, not because it was defectiue in it selfe, but because by our defect we were not capable of the life that was offered thereby; euen as the Sunne cannot giue light to the blind, not for any want that is in it, but because the blind hath not meanes to make benefit and vse of the light that most clearely shineth from the Sunne. Which reason the Apostle more plainely declareth otherwhere, when he saith, thatRom. 8.3. it was impossible for the law (namely, to iustifie and saue vs) because it was weakened by the flesh. Wherby he signifieth, that the default resteth vpon our weaknesse and the corruption of our sinfull flesh, whereby we are vnable in any sort to attaine to that righteousnesse, and perfect integritie and innocencie that the law requireth of vs. Now if flesh do hinder the law from being able to iustifie vs, then so long as flesh continueth, there must needes be still a weaknesse of the law in that behalfe. But so long as here we liue there is stillGal. 5.17. the flesh lusting against the spirit, andRom. 7.23. rebelling against the law of the mind. We can neuer therefore whilest we liue attaine to the fulfilling of the law to be iustified thereby. This remainder of flesh doth argue, that we haue yet receiued [Page 552] the grace of God, but onely in part. It hath begun to heale vs, but a great part of our disease and weaknesse continueth still. We are therefore as yet but in part onely enabled thereby to fulfill the law, and if we keepe it but in part, we keepe it not so as to be iustified by the law, because by the sentence of the law, [...]al. 3.10. cursed is euery man that continueth not in all things that are written therin. This meaning the Apostle plainely deliuereth, neither doth M. Bishop gather any other meaning from him, but by the corrupting of his words; alledging him, as if he had said: That that was impossible to the law, is made by the grace of Christ possible. But why doth he put in that vnder the Apostles name, which the Apostle doth not say? he neither saith, nor meant to say, that to fulfill the law, is made possible by the grace of Christ, but rather that in Christ, that iustification is supplied vnto vs, which it is vnpossible should be yeelded vnto vs by the law. And how could he gather that meaning from him, when he could not but know, that notwithstanding the grace of Christ, he affirmeth still in part a remainder of that impediment by which it was vnpossible before to fulfill the lawe. But of this text there will be further occasion to speake in the three and fortieth section. The second reason alledged by M. Perkins against the opinion of fulfilling the law, is that the liues and workes of the most righteous men are vnperfect and stained with sinne. M. Bishop very quipperly demandeth, Ergo quid? he knew the ergo well inough, Ergo no man can fulfill the law. For if the most righteous faile in that behalfe, then it followeth, that generally all are excluded from that power. If all must confesse themselues to be vnperfect, if all must acknowledge themselues to be sinners, then all must confesse, as I said before, that they faile of the performance of the law. The connexion would haue bene considered here, but M. Bishop pretily passeth it ouer vnder pretence of a seuerall article, for the handling of the proposition: what he saith of that we shal see anone. M. Perkins third reason is taken from the imperfection of our knowledge: for it cannot be but our faith, our loue, our repentance, our sanctification must be vnperfect, so long as we haue but vnperfect knowledge to direct vs in all these things. M. Bishops answer to this consisteth of two parts: the one whereof is an acknowledgement against himselfe, the other, an assertion of apparent and manifest vntruth. I would to God, (saith he) our workes were answerable to our knowledge, [Page 553] then would they be much more perfect then they be. He confesseth then, that our workes are not perfect, according to that that we do know; and if they be vnperfect to that knowledge that we haue, and our knowledge come farre short of that concerneth vs by the lawe, then must our workes be very farre from perfection, and we farre from being truly said to fulfill the law. But M. Bishop according to his skill denieth in the second part of his answer, that our knowledge is vnperfect, expresly contrarie to that which the Apostle saith:1. Cor 13.9.12 We know in part, we prophecie in part, we see through a glasse darkely. We find it and know it, that there are many ignorances and errors in the best.August. de spir. & lit. ca. 36. In multis offendimus omnes, dū putamus Deo quem diligimus pl [...]e [...]re vel non displicere quod facimus, & postea cùm didicerimus, quòd non placeat poenitendo deprecamur vt ignoscat. We all (saith S. Austine) offend in many things, whilest we thinke that that which we do either pleaseth God, or doth not displease him, when as afterwards we learne, that it is not pleasing vnto him, and do repent thereof. Idem soliloq. cap. 1. Quisquic cognoscit te, amat te plusquā se, relinquit se & venit ad te, vt gaudeat de te. Hinc est, Domine, quòd non tantùm diligo quantum debeo, quia non plenè cognosco te. Quia parùm cognosco, parum diligo, & quia parum te diligo. parum gaudeo in te. He that knoweth thee, (saith he in another place) loueth thee more then himselfe, and leaueth himselfe to come vnto thee, that he may reioyce in thee. Hence is it, Lord, that I loue thee not so much as I ought to do, because I do not fully know thee: because I know thee but a little I loue thee but a little, and therefore do but a little reioyce in thee. There is no man in this life that knoweth himselfe, but knoweth well that he hath cause to pray still with the Prophet Dauid: Psal. 119.12. Teach me thy statutes; Ver. 33. teach me O Lord the way of thy statutes: Ver. 73. giue me vnderstanding that I may learne thy commandements: Ver. 127. grant me vnderstanding, that I may know thy testimonies. If so great a Prophet were still to be taught, were still to learne, were still begging of God the vnderstanding and knowledge of his commandements, how vaine a man is M. Bishop to make it so possible a matter for a man being yet couered in part with the veile of flesh, to attaine to the full and perfect knowledge of the lawe. Of this argument he saith, that it is impe [...]tinent, but giueth no reason why he so saith. Saint Austine against the assertion of perfection in this lifeAugust. de spir. & lit. cap. 36. produceth imperfection of knowledge, as an impediment thereof: and Hierome saith,Hier. ad Pela. lib 1. Nullus sanctorum in isto corpus [...]ulo cunctas potest habere virtutes, quia ex parte cognoscimus, &c. that no man in this body can haue all vertues, because we know but in part, and prophecie but in part, and if imperfection of knowledge do hinder vertue, and the perfect fulfilling of the law, how doth he make it an argument impertinent to say, Our knowledge is yet vnperfect, therefore we are yet vnperfect to the fulfilling of the law. But we must pardō his vnperfect knowledge, which if it had bin according to his [Page 554] will, vndoubtedly we should haue seene some more skill in his answers then now we do. M. Perkins fourth and last reason is taken from that that before hath bin said, that the regenerate man in this life is still partly flesh, and not wholly spirituall, and therefore his best workes sauor partly of the flesh. Not so, saith M. Bishop, if we mortifie the deedes of the flesh by the spirit. But I answer him, Yes euen so, because though by the spirit we mortifie the deedes of the flesh, yet we do not thereby put off the flesh, nor so subdue it, but that itGal. 5.17. lusteth against the spirit, so as that we cannot do the things that we would, and therefore cannot fulfill the law. Now if we attaine not to that that we would, our will also being yet vnperfect, so that we will not so perfectly as we should, how farre must we needes thinke our selues to be from that integritie and vprightnesse, which we shold performe according to the perfect rule of righteousnesse that is laid before vs in the law? But of this further when we come to the point as touching the perfection, and purity of our workes.
39. W. BISHOP.
But these trifling arguments belong rather vnto the next question. I will helpe M. Perkins to some better, that the matter may be more throughly examined. Act. 1.15. Why go ye about to put a yoke vpon the Disciples necks, which neither we, nor our Fathers were able to beare? these words were spoken of the lawe of Moyses, therefore we were not able to fulfill it.
I answer first, that that law could not be fulfilled by the onely helpe of the same law, without the further ayde of Gods grace.
Secondly, that it was so burdensome and cumberous, by reason of the multitude of their sacrifices, sacraments, and ceremonies, that it could hardly be kept with the helpe of ordinary grace: and in that sence, it is said to be such a yoke, as we were not able to beare. Because things very hard to be done, Ios. 11. 3. Reg. 14. Act. 13. 4. Reg. 23. Luk. 1. are now and then called impossible. Now that Iosue, Dauid, Iosias, Zachary, Elizabeth, and many others, did fulfill all the law, is recorded in holy Scripture: wherefore it is most manifest, that it might be kept.
R. ABBOT.
A more trifler then M. Bishop I thinke is seldome to be found. If [Page 555] M. Perkins arguments were as trifling as he hath giuen them answers, he might haue done well to haue spared his labor bestowed in the writing of that booke. Before he haue giuen any one good answer to the reasons onely by the way alledged by M. Perkins, he taketh vpon him to bring other of his owne indeed out of our books, that he may shew himselfe as wise in answering the one, as he hath done alreadie in the other. We are wont to alledge the words of S. Peter, thatAct. 15.10. the law was a yoke which (saith he) neither we nor our fathers were able to beare. Whence euen by the very words it must needs follow, that we are not able to fulfill the law. M. Bishops answer is, that that law could not be fulfilled by the onely helpe of the same law, without further ayde of Gods grace. As though they had not the grace of God, who notwithstanding complained of the law, as of a yoke too heauie for them to beare euen in that state of grace. Therefore we will say to M. Bishop, as Orosius did to the Pelagian hereticke:Oros. Apolog. de arbit. libert. Samuel, Elias, &c. Patres sine dubio nostri sunt e [...]neminem Patrum Petrus affirmat, sed neque semel ipsos, hoc est, Apostolos cū essent Judaei [...] nus legis ferre potuisse, sed fide Christi secundum spem gratiae fuisse saluatos. An fortè secundum te omnes isti sansti Patres Dei adiutorium non habebant? Samuel, Elias, Elizeus, Esay, Ieremie, Daniel, Zachary, all those holy ones either Iudges or Kings, or Prophets were vndoubtedly our Fathers, and Peter affirmeth, that none of the Fathers, no nor themselues, that is, the Apostles being Iewes, could beare the burden of the lawe, but were saued by the faith of Christ according to the help of grace. What, had not all these holy Fathers thinkest thou the hope of grace? Hauing then the helpe of the grace of God, yet they still acknowledged the law to be a heauier burthen, then that they were able to stand vnder the waight thereof. To this purpose he vrgeth the hereticke with that which is written in the law:Deut. 6.5. Thou shalt loue the Lord thy God with all thy heart, &c. Oros. ibid. Responde, non mihi sed Deo; non v [...] co sed conscientia, si ita ex toto corde Deum diligis, vt nullam vn quam in eo cogitationem quae absque timore & dilectione Dei intelligi possit admittas: ita in tota anima sequeris, vt suscepta semel cruce in nullam penitus oblectationem habita ad tempus i [...]cunditatu succedas, &c. Answer, saith he, not to me but to God, not with thy voyce, but with thy conscience, whether thou so loue God with all thy heart, as that thou neuer admit any thought therein, that may be conceiued to be without the feare and loue of God: whether thou so follow him with all thy soule, as that hauing once vndertaken the crosse, thou be neuer caried for the time to fall into any delight or contentment of pleasure, &c. Where as he sheweth how farre it is beyond our power to keep our selues within the lists & bounds of this commandement: so he taketh away M. Bishops second exception, that the law was thus called a yoke, &c. in respect of the sacrifices, sacraments, and ceremonies by the multitude, whereof he saith, that it was so burdensome and comberous, as that it could hardly be kept by the helpe of ordinary grace. For if the law be there vnderstood? [Page 556] which saith, Thou shalt loue the Lord thy God, &c. as Orosius declareth, then it is false which M. Bishop saith, that that speech is to be referred to the ceremonies of the law. But the reader is well to obserue the manner of his speech: It could hardly be kept. It could then or might be kept, though hardly be kept. No question then but some did keepe it if it might be kept. But the yoke of which S. Peter speaketh, is such as none was able to beare. It is not then to be vnderstood of the ceremonies of the law. And indeed there is no doubt, but that the ceremoniall law, by ordinary grace of God, as touching the outward practise thereof, might exactly be performed. The multitude of those obseruations is equalled in the Romish Church, and yet they haue nimble fellowes that can attaine to all. But out of M. Bishops words we will argue à minori ad maius; if the law of ceremonies were so heauie a yoke, which consisted only in outward obseruations, how much heauier is that that giueth law to the whole man, to all his thoughts, and words, and deedes, taking exception against any thing either inwardly or outwardly, whereby we step aside from the rule thereof? And yet he as a man void of sence & conscience, saith of the ceremonies, that they could very hardly be obserued: but of the rest of the commaundements, that they are very possible and easie to be kept, as we shall see anon. In the meane time to proue it, he bringeth exāple of diuers, who he saith did fulfill all the lawe: but he is preuented and bereaued of those examples by Cyprian, who saith of all those excellent men and Priests, and Prophets before Christ, thatCyprian. de Ieiun. & tent. Christi Fuerant & ante Christum viri insignes, Prophetae, Sacerdotes, sed in peccatis concepti & nati, nec originali nec personali caruere delicto, & inuenta est in omnibus vel ignorantia vel insufficientia, in quibus erronei peccauerunt & egu erunt misericor dia Dei. per quā edocti & restituti gratias egeru [...]t Deo, & ad plenitudinem iustitiae multùm sibi de esse confessi sunt, & sperantes in Deo nullam sibi soliditatem attri buere praesumpserunt. being conceiued and borne in sinnes, they were neither without originall nor personall, fault, and there was found in them all either ignorance or vnsufficiencie, by which going astray they sinned and stood in need of the mercy of God, by which being instructed and restored, they gaue thankes to God, and confessed that much was wanting vnto them to perfection of righteousnesse, and trusting in God presumed not to attribute any soundnesse to themselues. As touching them all, we must answer the same that Saint Austine answered the Pelagian hereticks:August. de pec. mer. & remiss. lib. 2. cap. 14. Scripturarum testimonijs quibus de illorum laudibus credimus, hoc etiam credimus, non iustificari in conspectu Dei omnem vinentem, & ideo rogari ne inire [...] in iudicium cum seruis suis. By the testimonies of the Scripture which we beleeue as touching their commendations, we beleeue this also, that no man liuing shall be found iust in the sight of God, and that therefore he is requested not to enter into iudgement with his seruants. [Page 557] Whereby what we meane when we request it, the same S. Austin sheweth:Jdem de Tem. Ser 49. Nestes micum in iudicio exigendo à me omnia quae praece pisti, & omnia quae iussisi [...]. Nā me inuenies reū, si in iudicium iniraueris mecū, &c. Stand not with me in iudgement, by exacting of me all that thou hast commanded, and all that thou hast charged vs. For thou shalt find me guiltie if thou enter into iudgement with me. This S. Austine maketh the common confession of all the seruants of God, that they do not fulfil all, and M. Bishop saith of them whom he nameth, that they did fulfill all. The Pelagians alledged amongst others, Zacharie and Elizabeth, as M. Bishop doth, because it is said of thē:Luk. 1.6. Both were iust before God, and walked in all the commandements and ordinances of the Lord without reproofe. S. Austin answereth them,Aug. contra Pelag. & Celest. lib. 1. cap 48. Dictum est quantū mihi videtur secundum quandā inter homines conuersationem probabilem atque laudabilem, quā nullus hominum iustè posset in accusationis & criminationis querelam vocare. Quam proptereà in conspectu Dei habu [...]sse referuntur, quia in ea homines nulla dissimulatione fallebant, sed vt apparebant homi nibus, ita noti erant oculis Dei. It is spoken as seemeth to me, as touching a commendable and prayseworthy conuersation amongst men, which no man could iustly ca [...] into quarrell of accusation or crime. Which therefore they are said to haue had before God, because they therein did not deceiue men by any dissimulation, but as they appeared to men, so they were knowne to the eyes of God. Therefore he maketh of that which was said of them, no more but that which the Apostle saith of himselfe,Phil. 3.6 As touching the righteousnesse of the law I was vnrebukable, when as yet he was not called to the grace of Christ.Aug. de pecca. mer. & remiss. lib. 2. cap. 13. Quid de illis laudabile dictū est, quod non in eo comprehendatur quod de se Apostolus cùm in Christum non dum credidisset professus est, &c. What commendable thing is spoken of thē, saith he, which is not comprehended in that which the Apostle professed of himselfe, when as yet he had not beleeued in Christ, that according to the righteousnesse that is in the law, he was without reproofe. Oros. Apolog. de arbit. libert. Sine crimine dici quenquam & sine querela non est perfectionis testimonium, sed conuersationis ezemplum. In being said in the Scripture to be without crime or reproofe, saith Orosius, is not imported a testimonie of perfection, but an example of conuersation. It is manifest therefore, that that which is written concerning them, is not to be drawne to the auouching of that fulfilling of the lawe which M. Bishop here defendeth for iustification before God. Yea, and it is further to be noted, that Zachary was a Priest, and the Priests manner was,Heb. 7.27. first to offer sacrifice for his owne sinnes, & then for the peoples. Zachary therefore offered sacrifice for his owne sins. But1. Ioh. 3.4. sinne is the transgression of the law: if Zachary then were a transgressor of the lawe, it is false that Master Bishop saith, that he fulfilled the whole lawe. Still therefore it standeth good against all subuerters of truth, as touching the morall lawe, that in respect of iustificatiō it is a yoke which neither Iosue, nor Dauid, nor Iosias, nor [Page 558] Zachary and Elizabeth, nor any of those others whom M. Bishop meaneth haue bene able to beare, and therefore we haue nothing to rest vpon, but onely the faith of Iesus Christ to be iustified in him.
40. W. BISHOP.
Rom. 7.To will is in me, but I find not how to performe: If S. Paule could not performe that which he would, how can others?
Answer. He speakes there of auoyding all euill motions and temptations, which he would willingly haue done, but he could not: marry he could well by the assistance of Gods grace, subdue those prouocations to sinne, and make them occasions of vertue: and consequently keepe all the commandements, not suffering those passions to leade him to the breach of any one of them. The like answer we make vnto that obiection, that one of the ten commandements forbids vs to couet our neighbors goods▪ his wife, or seruants, which (as they say) is vnpossible: but we hold, that it may be well done, vnderstanding the commandement rightly, which prohibiteth not to haue ill motions of couetousnesse and lecherie, but to yeeld our consent vnto them. Now it is so possible for a man by Gods grace to refraine his consent from such wicked temptations, that S. Augustine thinketh it may be done of a mortified vertuous man, Lib. 10. conf. cap. 7. euen when he is asleepe: and testifieth of himselfe, that waking he performed it.
R. ABBOT.
M. Bishop hath a good facility in propounding our arguments, but he hath very ill hap in answering of them. S. Paule would willingly haue auoyded all euill motions, saith he, but he could not. Therefore say we, he could not fulfill the lawe. He could subdue those prouocations to sinne, saith he, and not suffer them to lead him to the breach of any of the commandements. For what is it whereof the Apostle saith, as is alledged,Rom. 7 18. To will is present with me, but I find not how to performe that that is good? It is euen the commaundement, whereof he hath said before,Ver. 12. The commandement is holy, and iust, and good: for instance whereof and clearer euidence, he setteth downe the commandementVer. 7. Thou shalt no lust, which he still prosecuteth vnder the name of good. Paul then confesseth, that though [Page 559] he had a will to keepe and fulfill the law, and namely, the commandement, Thou shalt not lust, yet he could not find meanes to attain to that perfection, and why then doth M. Bishop attribute to him, the keeping of all the commandements, so as not to be led to the breach of any one of them. August. de nupt. & concup. lib. 1. cap. 27. Lex non vult vt concupiscam quae dicit, Non concupisces, & ego nolo cōcupiscere. Concupiscere nolebat, & tamen concupiscebat. The law would haue him not to lust in that it saith: Thou shalt not lust; and he was willing not to lust, but yet he did lust: how then should we say, that he did fulfill the law? If the law forbid euil motions and prouocations, and it is not possible for vs to auoid them, or to free our selues from them, it must follow, that it is not possible for vs to fulfill the law. But we forsooth do not vnderstand the commandement rightly, which M. Bishop telleth vs, doth not prohibit euill motions of couetousnesse and lecherie, but onely consent vnto them. So then the law saith, Thou shalt not lust, but M. Bishop saith, Yes, thou maist lust without any sinne, but thou maist not consent vnto thy lust. But farre otherwise S. Austin saith, thatIdem Epist. 200. In iustitia nondum consummata perseueranter proficientes ad eius consummationem quandoque veniemus vbi peccati concupiscentia non cohibenda atque fraenanda, sed nulla sit. Hoc enim posuit lex dicendo, Non cō cupisces. the law in saying, Thou shalt not lust, doth set downe that there shall be no concupiscence to be restrained and bridled. Therefore he saith:De Temp. Ser. 45. Plenitudo est virtutis, quòd lex dixit, Ne concupiscas. Hoc modo impleri non potest. The perfection of vertue is that which the law saith, Thou shalt not lust: this now (in this life) cannot be fulfilled. And againe,Ibid. Ser. 49. Hoc dicit legem implere, hoc est, non concupiscere. Quis ergo hoc, qui viuit potest? To fulfill the law, is not to iust: and who is there liuing that can so do? It is manifest then by S. Austin, that that commandement requireth a perfection, which in this world we neuer are able to attaine vnto, because it doth not onely forbid consent, but euen the very hauing of any euill motions or affections contrarie to the law. And by those motions we do not onely breake the commandement, Thou shalt not lust, but we faile of yeelding loue to God with all our heart, with all our soule, &c. because euil motions and lusts do occupie some part of the heart and soule, and withhold the same from God. Therefore S. Austin saith againe,Aug. de perf. iust. Cùm est aliquid concupiscē tiae carnalis, quod vel continendo fraenetur, non omnimodò ex tota anima diligitur Deus. Neque enim caro sine anima concupiscit, quamuis caro concupiscere dicatur, quia carnaliter anima concupiscit. so long as there is any part of carnall concupiscence by continencie to be bridled, God is not perfectly loued with all the soule: for the flesh lusteth not without the soule, although the flesh be said to lust, because the soule lusteth according to the flesh. Now therefore albeit it be true, that a man may resist such euill motions, and deny consent vnto them, yet is he not therby freed frō transgression of the law. But yet M. Bishop falsely alledgeth S. Austin to that purpose, who in the placeAugust. Confess. lib. 10 cap. 30. Saepe etiam in somnis resistimus, &c. Potens est manus tua abundantiore gratia tua lasciuos motus etiam mei sopotu extinguere▪ &c Lugens in eo quod incomsummatus sum, & sperans perfecturum te in me misericordias tuas vsque ad pacem plenariam quam habebunt tecum interiora & exteriora meacùm absorpta fuerit mors in victoriam. cited, [Page 560] not the seuenth as he quoteth, but the thirtieth Chapter, affirmeth indeed that somtimes men resist those concupiscences euen in their sleepe, that it is in Gods power to make him alwaies so to do. He signifieth his longing desire after that puritie and perfection, but his expectation of it onely then, when death shall be swallowed into victorie, howsoeuer God be able, if so it were his pleasure, to giue it euen now also in the meane time. And indeed there is no man liuing to whom can be attributed that perfection, to be altogether and wholy free from consent of sinfull lust. There is no man that fighteth so warily, but that sometimes, yea many times he receiueth grieuous wounds, and findeth cause to cry mournfully vnto God for the cure thereof. A man resisteth in one thing, and is ouertaken in another; at one time he checketh those corrupt desires, with which as nets he is strongly intangled at another. This is the state of all flesh, and of this we haue cause to complaine, so long as we liue here.
41 W. BISHOP.
Iac. 3.2. 1. Ioan. 1.We do offend in many things: and if we say, we haue no sinne, we deceiue our selues. But if we could obserue all the law, we should offend in nothing, nor haue any sinne, ergo.
Answer. I graunt that we offend in many things: not because it is not possible to keepe them, but for that we are fraile, and easily led by the craft of the diuell into many offences which we might auoyde, if we were so warie and watchfull as we ought to be: againe, although we cannot keepe our selues from veniall offences, yet may we fulfill the law, which is not transgressed and broken, vnlesse we commit some mortall sinnes. For veniall sinnes, either for the smalnesse of the matter, or want of consideration, are not so opposite to the law, as that they violate the reason, and purport of it, although they be somewhat disagreeing with it. But of this matter more fully in some other place.
R. ABBOT.
There is no doubt, but if all impediments were taken away, whereby we are hindered from keeping the commandements of God, it should be possible enough perfectly to fulfill the same. [Page 561] It is true which S. Austine saith, thatAugust. de sp [...] & lit, cap. 19. Non vitio suo non implebatur lex, sed vitio prudentiae carnis. it is not by any default of the lawe that we fulfill it not, but by default of the wisedome of the flesh, which as the Apostle saith, isRom. 8.7. enmitie against God, and is not subiect vnto the law of God, nor indeed can be. We are by our frailtie led into many offences, (saith M. Bishop) and we might auoyde the same, if we were so warie and watchfull as we ought to be. But so long as this frailtie hangeth vpon vs, and by the weaknesse and corruption of flesh, we are not so warie and watchfull as we ought to be, why doth he attribute vnto vs a power and ablenesse to fulfill the lawe? And what is that that he saith, but euen the deuice of the Pelagian Heretickes, who affirming,Hieron. Epist. ad Ctesiphont. Hominem posse esse sine peccato, si velit, &c. Cùm ab eis quaerimus, qui sint quos abs (que) pe [...]cato putent noua stropha eludere cupiunt veritatem se non eos dicere qui sint vel fuerint, sed qui esse possint. that a man may be without sinne if he will, and being demaunded who they were whom they tooke to be without sinne, by a wily shift answered, that they said not what men are, or what they haue bene, but what they may be. Euen thus M. Bishop being vrged by the confession of the Apostles themselues, that in many things we all offend and sinne, that is, do trespasse and breake the commandements of God, confesseth it to be true, but yet notwithstanding saith▪ that it is vnpossible to keepe them. But as Hierome answered the Pelagia [...]s, so we answer him,Jbid. Qua est argumentatio ista posse esse quod nunquam fuerit? Posse fieri quod nullum fecisse testeris? dare nescio cui quod in Patriarchis & Prophetis, & Apostolis fuisse nequeas approbare? What a reason is this, that that is possible to be which neuer was, and may be done, which thou bearest witnesse that neuer any man did, and to giue to euery man that which in the Patriarkes, and Prophets, and Apostles, thou art not able to make good? To be short, as it is not possible for a man being feeble, and weake, and sicke, to beare a burthen, which notwithstanding being recouered and fully cured, he can beare with ease: so it is not possible for vs, so long as we are compassed about with corruption and frailtie, to obserue and keep the law and righteousnesse thereof, which yet being deliuered from all bondage of corruption and sinne, we shall easily attaine vnto. His second shift is as absurd as the former, that though we cannot keepe our selues from veniall offences, yet we may fulfill the law, because it is not broken but by mortall sinnes. But the law it selfe saith,Gal. 3.10. Cursed is euery one that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law to do them. Therefore concerning all sinnes the sentence of the Apostle must stand good, thatRom. 6.23. the wages of sinne is death. So our Sauiour Christ testifieth,Mat. 5.19. He that breaketh one of the least of these commandements, and teacheth men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdome of heauen, that is, saith S. Austin, August. in Ioan. tract. 122. Consequens est, vt qui minimus est in regno coel [...]rum, non intr [...]t in regnum coel [...]rum. he shall not [Page 562] enter into the kingdome of heauen. But we will demand of M. Bishop, are those veniall sinnes forbidden by the law or not? If they be not forbidden, then they are no sinnes: forRom. 4 15. where there is no law, there is no trespasse, andAug. de pece. mer. & rem. lib. 2 cap. 16. Neque peccatum erit si quid erit, si non diuiuitùs [...]ubeatur vt non sit. sinne shall be no sinne, if God do not forbid the being of it. But if they be forbidden, how doth he say, that to do them is no transgression of the law? for what is it but a transgression of the law to do that which the law forbiddeth to be done? The Apostle saith, thatRom. 3.20. by the law cometh the knowledge of sinne. Veniall sinnes then by the law are knowne to be sinnes: how are they knowne to be sinnes by the law, but that they violate the reason and purport of the law. But let S. Iohn here stop M. Bishops mouth:1. Ioh. 3.4. Whosoeuer committeth sinne, transgresseth also the law; for sinne is the transgression of the law. Veniall sinne (as he tearmeth it) is sinne; therefore veniall sinne is the transgression of the law: he therefore that committeth onely those which he calleth veniall sinnes, cannot be said to fulfill the lawe.
42. W. BISHOP.
Lastly, it may be obiected, that the way to heauen is streight, and the gate narrow: which is so true, that it seemeth vnpossible to be kept by flesh and bloud: but that which is impossible to men of themselues, is made possible and easie too, by the grace of God: which made Saint Paule to say: Phil. 4. Psal. 118. I can do all things in him, that strengtheneth and comforteth me: and the Prophet Dauid, After thou (O Lord) hadst dilated my heart (and with thy grace set it at liberty) I did runne the wayes of thy commandements: that is, I did readily and willingly performe them. Of the louing of God with all our heart, &c. shall be treated in the question of the perfection of iustice.
R. ABBOT.
Here M. Bishop maketh the commandements of God, not only possible, but possible and easie too. But I answer him againe, as Hierome did the Pelagian hereticke:Hier. ad Ctefiphont. Facilia dicis Dei esse mandata, & tamen nullum proferre potes qui vniuersa compleuerit. Responde mihi, facilia sunt, an difficilia? si facilia, profer quis impleuerit, & cur Dominus in Euangelio, Intrate, inquit, per angustam portam? sin autem difficilia, cur ausus es dicere, facilia esse Dei mandata quae nullus impleuerit? Thou sayest, the commandements of God are easie, but yet thou bringest foorth no man that hath fulfilled them all. Tell me, saith he, are they easie, or are they hard to be done? If [Page 563] they be easie, shew vs who hath fulfilled them, and why our Sauiour saith in the Gospell, Enter in at the straite gate? But if they be hard, why doest thou dare to say that the commaundements of God are easie which no man hath fulfilled? Thus Hierome plainly excepteth against his answer to those words of Christ; for they to whom Christ speaketh those words, were and are men endued with the grace of God, and yet he giueth them to vnderstand, that the gate of life shall be strait and narrow vnto them. Therefore S. Austine saith, thatAug. de praedest. & grat. ca. 9 Arduum est virtutis iter, & quanquā adiuuāte gratia Dei non sine labore gradiendum. the way of vertue is hard, and though the grace of God do helpe, yet is not to be traueled without labour and paines. Now if it be so hard a matter, and so full of trauaile and paines, to compasse thatJdem cont. 2. epist. Pelag lib. 3. ca. 7. Ista parua iustitia. Et epist. 200. Iustitia nondum cō summata. small and vnperfect righteousnesse which here we haue, is it an easie matter with M. Bishop, to atchieue that absolute and perfect righteousnesse that is described in the law? Some helpe he thinketh to haue in that the Apostle saith;Phil. 4.13. I am able to do all things in Christ, or by the helpe of Christ that strengtheneth me. But the Apostle himselfe excludeth him from that helpe, in that he so plainly testifieth of himselfe, that he could not finde how to performe the good that he would, as we haue seene before, yea & telleth vs, that though the spirit be in vs lusting against the flesh, yet by reason of theGal. 5.17. flesh lusting against the spirit, we cannot do the things that we would. He that could do all things, yet could not repell the2. Cor. 12.7. buffeting Angell of Satan, by whom he was greeuously afflicted, nor was thought able to withstand the temptations of pride and vaine glory, vpon the abundance of his reuelations, as appeareth in that, this sting of Satan was occasioned to bridle him therefrom. The place it selfe plainly sheweth the meaning of it selfe, that he was enabled to all things, that is, to the enduring of all things that cōcerned him in the seruice that he had in hand, that neither abounding nor wanting neither fulnesse nor hunger should hinder him frō going on therein for the preaching & testifying of the Gospel, & for enlarging & cōfirming of the Church of Christ, accordingly as elsewhere he saith,2. Tim. 2.10. I suffer all things for the elects sake. But the restraint that Bernard vseth is not to be omitted.Bernard. de dilig. Deo. In illo omma potest quae tamen poss [...] prosit. He is able to do all things, that is, all which it is behoouefull that he be able to do. Now what is behoouefull, it is not for M. Bishop to presume, but for God himselfe to determine, who hath not thought fit to bring vs to perfection in this life, that he may haue the whole glorie of our saluation in the life to come. The words of Dauid [Page 564] are as little helpfull vnto him,Psal. 119. I will runne the way of thy commaundements, when thou hast set my heart at liberty. So farre as we are at liberty, so farre we runne, and so fast we runne. But we attaine not to that liberty yet, but that beingRom. 7.23. holden captiue to the law of sinne which is in our members, we haue still cause to cry,24. Who shall deliuer vs (or set vs at liberty) from this body of death? 2. Cor. 3.17. Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. We haue receiued as yet onelyRom. 8.23. the first fruites of the spirit. We haue yet therefore but the first fruites of liberty, and there is still remaining somewhatHeb. 12.1. that presseth downe, and sinne hanging fast on, so that we cannot runne without much hinderance and many falls, and theMat. 26.41. willingnesse of the spirit findeth alwaies a let by the infirmitie and weaknesse of the flesh.
43. W. BISHOP.
Hauing now confuted all that is commonly proposed to prooue the impossibility of keeping Gods commaundements, let vs now see what we can say in proofe of the possibility of it: First, S. Paul is very plainly for it, saying: That which was impossible to the law, in that is weakened by the flesh, God sending his Sonne in the similitude of flesh, of sinne, damned sinne in the flesh, that the iustification of the law might be fulfilled in vs, who walke not according to the flesh, but according vnto the spirit. See how formally he teacheth, that Christ dying to redeeme vs from sinne, purchased vs grace to fulfill the law, which before was impossible vnto our weake flesh. Againe, how farre S. Iohn was from that opinion, of thinking Gods commaundements to be impossible, Cap. 5. may appeare by that Epistle: And his commaundements be not heauie. Which is taken out of our Sauiours owne words: My yoke is sweet,Math. 11. and my burthen is light. The reason of this is, that although to our corrupt frailty, they be very heauie: yet when the vertue of charity is powred into our hearts by the holy Ghost, then loe, do we with delight fulfill them. For as the Apostle witnesseth: Charity is the fulnesse of the law.Rom. 13. And, He that doth loue his neighbour, hath fulfilled the law:Math. 22. Which Christ himselfe, teacheth, when he affirmeth, That the whole law and Prophets depend vpon these two commaundements, of louing God, and our neighbour. Now both according vnto our opinion and the Protestants, a man regenerate and in the state of grace, hath in him the vertue of Charity: we hold it to be [Page 565] the principall part of inherent iustice: they say that their iustifying faith can neuer be seperated from it: so that a righteous man, being also indued with charity, is able thereby to fulfill the whole law. Let vs adioyne vnto these Authorities of holy write, the testimonie of one auncient Father or two; S. Basil affirmeth: That it is impious and vngodly,Serm. in illud. Attende tibi. to say that the commaundements of the spirit be vnpossible.
S. Augustine defineth, That we must beleeue firmely,De nat. & gra. cap. 69. that God being iust and good, could not command things that be impossible for vs to fulfill: The reason may be, that it is the part of a tyrant, and no true lawmaker, to comma [...]d his subiects to do that vnder paine of death, which he knowes them no way able to performe: for those were not to be called lawes, (which are to direct men, to that which is iust) but snares to catch the most diligent in, and to bind them vp to most assured perdition. Wherefore it was afterward decreed in an approoued Councell of Aransican, as an article of faith, in these words: 2. Can. vlt. This also we beleeue according to the Catholike faith, that all men baptized by grace there receiued, with the helpe and cooperation of Christ, can, and ought to keepe and fulfill those things which belong to saluation. The principall whereof are after our Sauiours owne determination, to keepe the commaundements: If thou wilt enter into life,Math. 1 [...]. keepe the commaundements.
This by the way concerning the possibility of fulfilling the law.
R. ABBOT.
M. Bishop hath a good opinion of that that he hath done, and if his fellowes do not accept it accordingly, no doubt but he will thinke they do him great wrong. As for vs we may by his leaue thinke that that we see, that he hath babled much, and said as good as nothing, and that he is farre from being a man to take vpon him the confuting of any thing that is defended on our part. But now leauing his confutation, he goeth in hand with proofe of a possibility in vs to fulfill the law. And first he alledgeth to that purpose the words of S. Paul in some part handled before,Rom. 8.3. That that was vnpossible to the law, inasmuch as it was weake because of the flesh, God sending his owne Sonne in the similitude of sinfull flesh, and for sinne condemned sinne in the flesh, that the iustification or righteousnesse of the law might be fulfilled in vs, who walke not after the flesh but after the [Page 566] spirit. Now of this place he saith, that it formally teacheth that Christ dying to redeeme vs from sinne, did purchase vs grace to fulfill the law which before was impossible to our weake flesh. But he is still so full of formality, that we can finde little matter in any thing that he saith. How hath Christ purchased grace for vs to fulfill the law in that sence as here we speake of fulfilling the law, when as the grace of Christ doth still leaue, remaining in vs a weakenesse of flesh, to which the Apostle saith, it is a thing vnpossible to fulfill the law. All M. Bishops teeth cannot vntie this knot. If weakenesse of flesh hinder the fulfilling of the law, then so long as we liue here the grace of Christ neuer putteth vs in state to fulfill the law, because it neuer taketh from vs the weakenesse of the flesh. His commentarie therefore is nothing woorth, and because it is but his owne, we make very small account or reckoning of it. The cause of our not fulfilling the law continueth still, and therefore we must referre the benefit here expressed to some other thing, then our fulfilling of the law. That the Apostle noteth first in saying, that Christ condemned sinne, comparing it thereby to a prisoner, a robber or murtherer brought to the barre, and there receiuing sentence of condemnation and death, that thenceforth it should be bereaued of all action or accusation, of all plea or power against vs. This Christ hath done for vs by purchasing for vs the forgiuenesse of sinnes, wherebyRom. 4.6. the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without workes, because as S. Austine saith,Aug. Retra [...]t. lib. 1. ca. 19. Omnia Dei manda [...]a facta deputā tur quando quicquid non fit ignoscitur. All the commaundements of God are reputed to be done, when that that is not done is pardoned. Now when all the commaundements of God are reputed to be done, the iustification of the law is fulfilled in vs. For what is the iustification of the law, but the iustification which the law might seeme to intend and propound vnto it selfe, that we might be acquitted of sinne, and accepted vnto life. Thus the auncient Fathers expound it forTheophylact. in Rom. ca. 8. Iustificatio laegis, id est, exitus ipse & destinatio. the scope, the end, the thing destinated by the law, which when the law could not attaine vnto, Christ performed it vnto vs by the forgiuenesse of our sinnes.Theodoret. ibid. Nostrum debitum exoluit & legis scopum perfecit. He paid our debt, saith Theodoret, and performed that which was the scope of the law. Oecumen. ibid. Quis est finis legu? Vt non essemu [...] maledictio [...] obnoxij. Per Christum quidē in effectū deductus est in nobis legis scopus. What was the end of the law, saith Oecumius? That we should not be subiect to the curse. By Christ then that which was the scope of the law, was brought to effect in vs. So Chrysostome,Chrysost. ibid. hom. 13. Quae legis erat [...]ustificacio non esse execrationi obnoxium, id tibi perfecit Christus. That which was the iustification of the law, not to be subiect to the curse, Christ hath effected vnto vs. Last of all Ambrose saith, [Page 567] Ambros. ibid. Quomodo impletur in nobis iustificatio nisi cū datur remissio omnium peccatorum? How is the iustification of the law fulfilled in vs, but when there is giuen vnto vs forgiuenesse of all our sinnes? The Apostle therefore by the iustification of the law, vnderstandeth not inherent righteousnesse, but signifieth that that iustification which the law intended, but through our default could not make good vnto vs, by inherent righteousnesse Christ hath performed, in purchasing for vs forgiuenesse of sinnes, by which we are reputed iust and blamelesse in Gods sight, and accepted to be inheritours of euerlasting life. Now S. Ambrose to the former words addeth,Ibid. Ʋt sublatis peccatis iustificatus appareat mente seruiens legi De [...]. That a man being iustified by the taking away of his sinnes, may appeare in his minde seruing the law of God, whereby he noteth that to iustification by forgiuenesse of sinnes, is adioined regeneration to inherent righteousnesse, which he calleth afterwardsIbid. Signū iustification [...] hoc est in homine, vt per id quod inhabitat in eo, iustificatus appareat esse filius Dei. a signe of iustification. And this we denie not, but do alwaies most religiously teach the same; onely we denie that this is that, wherein consisteth our iustification before God, but it is a sequell and signe thereof, and we neuer attaine to the perfection of it whilest we liue here. And if we will either directly or vndirectly vnderstand it in these words, we must take thereof that which S. Austine saith, thatAug. de sp & lit ca. 36. Sic operatur iustificationem in sanctis suis in huius vita tentatione laborantibus vt tamē sit & quod petē tibus largitèr ad [...]ciat et quod cō fitentibus clemē ter ignoscat. God so worketh in his Saints, labouring in the temptation of this life, as that there is yet for him largely to adde vnto them asking or crauing of him, and mercifully to pardon them when they confesse it vnto him; yea, so as the same S. Austine elsewhere saith,Idem de ciu. Dei. li. 19. cap. 27. Ipsa iustitia nostra tanta est in hac vita vt potius remissione peccatorum constet quàm perfectione virtutum. as that our righteousnesse in this life rather consisteth in forgiuenesse of sinnes, then in perfection of vertues. Now therefore though the place be vnderstood of inherent righteousnesse, yet it maketh not for M. Bishops turne, because it prooueth onely, that Christ shall restore vs to the perfect righteousnes of the law, which we affirme, that he beginneth in this life, and shall fully accomplish in the life to come; but it prooueth not that which he desireth, that in this life we are enabled by the grace of Christ, to the perfect fulfilling of the righteousnesse of the law. To the other places that he alledgeth, that the commaundements of God are not heauie; that the yoke of Christ is easie, and his burden light, he himselfe in effect setteth downe the answer. To our corrupt frailty, saith he, they be very heauie. True; and therefore so long and so farre as this corrupt frailty continueth, so long and so farre the commaundements of God are still heauie vnto vs, which must needs be till that which1. Cor. 15.42▪ 43. shall be sowed in corruption and weakenesse, shall be raised againe in [Page 568] incorruption and power. When the vertue of charity, saith he, is powred into our soules, then we do with delight fulfill them. True, so farre forth as charity is powred into our soules. But so long as there is carnall concupiscence, there cannot be perfect charity to take full delight in the law of God, becauseAug. cont. Iuli [...]n. lib 4. cap. 2. Inquā [...]m inest nocet a [...] minuendam spiritualē dele [...]ationem sanctarū m [...]ntium, illam scilicet de qua dicit Apostolus: Condelector legi Dei, &c. carnall cōcupiscence euen by very being in vs, as S. Austine saith, doth abridge or diminish that spirituall delight of holy minds, of which the Apostle saith, I delight in the law of God, as touching the inner man. Jdem de perfect. iustit. Rat. 8. Tunc erit plena iustitia, quā do plena sanitas: tunc plena saenitas quendo plena charitas; tunc plena charitas quando videbi mus sicuti est. Then shall be perfect righteousnesse, saith he againe, that is perfect keeping of the commaundements of God, when there shall be perfect health; then perfect health, when perfect charity: then perfect charity, when we shall see him as he is. In the meane time loue keepeth the commaundements of God, but yet vnperfectly, because it selfe is but vnperfect, euen as a lame man goeth, but yet halteth [...]n his going. To be short, the same S. Austine well obserueth, thatIdē de nat. & grat. cap. 69. Cō sideret nō potuisse diuinitus dici, grauia non sunt nisi quia potest esse cordis affectus cui grauiae non sunt. God could not haue said that his commaundements are not heauie, but that there may be an affection of heart to which they are not heauie. ThereforeIbid. Conuersus quis (que) ad Dominum Deū suum ex toto corde suo et ex tota anima suae mandatum Dei non haebebit graue. when a man shall be conuerted vnto God with all his heart, and with all his soule, he shall finde the commaundement of God not heauie vnto him. But that affection, that conuersion is yet but begun. So long as concupiscence possesseth any part of the soule, all the soule is not yet conuerted vnto God. Very vainely therefore doth M. Bishop deale, when from that which we haue yet but in part for the fulfilling of the law, he inferreth the fulfilling of the whole law. But to make vp the matter, he bringeth some authorities of the auncient Church, as much to his purpose as that that he hath said already. That that Basil saith,Basil. in illud, Attende t [...]bi. Jmpiū est dicere spiritus praecepta seruari nō posse. that it is impious to say, that the commaundements of the spirit cannot be obserued (for so the words are) is spoken of those things, which by no meanes can be done. As where the spirit saith, Looke to thy selfe, if a man will expound it of bodily looking and viewing of himselfe, it is that that cannot be done. For the eie as he saith cannot see it selfe, it cannot see the head, nor the backe, nor the face, nor into the bowels. Now it were wickednesse, as he saith, to say that the spirit commaundeth any thing in this sort. But we say not so of the commaundements of God; for we teach that by the grace of Christ we fulfill them in part already, and shall do it perfectly when the impediment which is the remainder of originall corruption shall be done away. But so long as theGal. 5.17. flesh lusteth against the spirit, so that we cannot do the [Page 569] things that we would, so long it is vnpossible for vs to obserue the righteousnesse of the law, according to the full measure and perfection thereof. Hereby the answer is plaine to the place that he alledgeth out of Austine. For we beleeue that God hath not commaunded any thing vnpossible, meaning as he doth, absolutely and wholy vnpossible. We say as he saith,Aug. de sp. & lit. cap. 35. Siue exemplo est in hominibus perfecta iustitia & tamen impossibilis non est. Fi [...]ret enim, si tanta voluntas adhiberetur quanta sufficit tantae res. Effet autem tanta si & nihil eorum quae pertinent ad iustitiā nos lateret, & ea sic delectarent animū, vt quicquid aliud siue voluptas siue dolor impedit delectatio illa superaret. Quod vt non sit non ad impossibilitatem sed ad iudicium Dei pertinet. There is no example of perfect righteousnesse amongst men, and yet it is not vnpossible. For it might be performed if there were so great will put to it as is sufficient for so great a matter. And there should be so great will, if on the one side nothing were hidden from vs of those things which belong to righteousnesse, and on the other side the same did so delight the mind, as that that delight did ouercome all other impediments of pleasure or paine. Which that it is not so, is not to be referred to any impossibility of the thing, but to the iudgement of God. Ibid. cap. 36. Nullo modo dicendum est Deo deesse possibilitatem, qua voluntas sic adiunetur humana vt iustitia omni ex parte modò perficiatur in homine. Quando quidem si nunc velit in qucquā, etiam hoc corruptibile induere incorruptionem, at (que) hic inter homines morituros eum iubere viuere minimè morituram, vt tota penit [...] vetustate consumpta nulla lex in membris eius repugnet legi mentis deum (que) vbi (que) praesentem ita cognoscat. sicut eum sancti postea cognituri sunt, quis demens audeat affirmar [...] non posse? Sed quare non faciat, &c. est aliquid in abdito & profundo iuditiorum Dei, vt etiam iustorum omne os obstruatur in laude sua, & non aperiatur nisi in laudem Dei. For God, as he saith afterwards, wanteth not power so to assist the will of man, as that euen now righteousnesse may in euery sort be made perfect in him. And if it were the will of God that euen now this corruptible in any man should put on incorruption, and he would appoint that he should liue here immortall amongst mortall men, so as that all oldnesse being vtterly consumed, there should be no longer any law in the members to rebell against the law of the mind, and that he should so know God as the Saints hereafter shall know him, who would be so mad as to affirme that God cannot do it? But why he doth it not, somewhat there is in the secrecie and depth of his iudgement, that euery mouth euen of the iust may be stopped in their owne praise, and not be opened but to the praise of God. Thus therefore the commaundements of God are not vnpossible to be done, because God can make vs able perfectly to fulfill the same. Yea, it is in his power euen in this life to bring vs to this perfection, if it were his will and pleasure so to do. But in his wisedome he hath thought good to giue vs in this life only some tast and beginnings thereof, whereby we very well see and vnderstand, that there is no impossibility in the rest. The reason why he doth so is, because he will haue vs, yea euen the most iust and righteous of vs, fully to vnderstand by our defects, that our saluation is not of our merits or workes, but onely of his mercy. But in his due time he will giue vs fully [Page 570] to be satisfied with that righteousnesse, with the tast onely whereof he now prouoketh rather then asswageth our hunger and thirst. EuenIbid. Primum praeceptū iustitiae quo iutemur diligere Deum ex toto corde, &c. in illa vita complebimus cùm videbimus faecie ad faciem. Sed ideo nobis hoc etiam nunc praeceptum est vt admoneremur quid fide exposcere, quò spē praemittere, et obliuiscendo quae retrò sunt, in quae anteriora extendere debeamus. that great commaundement of righteousnesse to loue the Lord our God with all our heart, with all our soule, with all our minde, whereto is consequent that other of louing our neighbour as our selfe, we shall fulfill in that life when we shall see face to face. But therefore euen now is that commaunded vnto vs, that we should thereby be aduertised what to aske and pray for in faith, to what to send our hope before vs, and to what to follow hard forward, forgetting that that is behind. Now therefore as it is most easie for a man that hath sound and perfect eies to discerne the light, which yet is vnpossible for him that is blinde, so long as he continueth so; so when God shall perfectly restore vs to our spirituall health and strength, it shall be easie and delightfull vnto vs, to keepe all the righteousnesse which God hath commanded, but so long as we continue in this weakenesse and frailety, we can by no meanes be said to attaine to the perfection of the law. But here M. Bishop vnstringeth his tongue against God, and faith that it is the part of a tyrant, not of a true lawmaker to commaund his subiects to do that vpon paine of death, which he knowes them no way able to performe. A silly foolish man, that by his brainsicke fancies measureth the wisedome and righteousnesse of God, and taketh vpon him presumptuously, to giue law vnto God in what sort he shall make lawes for men. But God is able in this behalfe to acquit himselfe,Rom. 3.4. that he may be iustified in his sayings, and found cleare when he is iudged. For the iust God was not in making of lawes, to regard mans ablenesse but his owne righteousnesse, and therefore to forbid all sinne, that he might not seeme to approoue any, and to commaund all righteousnesse, that he might not seeme to neglect any. It should not haue bene knowne to be sinne which he had not regarded to forbid, nor taken for righteousnesse which he had not vouchsafed to commaund. Was it fit that the rule of righteousnesse should haue bene abridged in fauour of mans sinne, when the want of power to fulfill the law, was not by Gods default in creating man, but by mans disabling himselfe in turning away from God? But M. Bishops folly and ignorance appeareth herein very plainly, for that the Scripture teacheth vs that the vse of the law, we not being able to fulfill it, was to beGal. 3.24. our Schoolemaister to traine vs vnto Christ. God had not any opinion in giuing the law of our [Page 571] performance thereof, but he intended it to be as a glasse for vs to see our selues, and to conceiue thereby our owne estate, that finding our selues to be miserable and vtterly lost in our selues, we might the more readily accept of the saluation that is freely offered vnto vs by Iesus Christ. Thus saith the Apostle againe,Rom. 10.4. Christ is the end of the law for righteousnesse to euery one that beleeueth. Therefore S. Austine saith, thatAug. de nat. & grat. cap. 12. Haec est intentio legis arguentu vt propter ea quae perperàm fiu [...]t confugiatur ad gratiam Domini miserā tis, &c. vbi et remittantur quae malè fiunt & eadē gratia iuuante nō fiant. the intent of the law reproouing vs is this, to make vs for our misdoings to flie to the grace of the mercifull God, where what we do amisse may be pardoned, and by the helpe of the same grace may not be done. To some part whereof we are come already by repentance and amendment of life, and mortification of fleshly lusts, but yet not so, but that still we do many things amisse, and stand in neede of pardon. The law in the meane time serueth vs for a patterne of true righteousnesse, teaching vs what we are to striue vnto, what the purity is whereunto God hath called vs, that though in the prison of corruptible flesh, we cannot fully answer the same, yet we may still be labouring towards it, sighing & groaning at that infirmity and disease that hindereth vs from it, praying instantly vnto God to bring vs to it, that his grace and mercy may in the end make vs partakers of our desire, and thenceforth we may neuer do amisse.Jdem de perfect. iustit. Rat. 17. Cur non praeciperetur homini ista perfectio quamuis eam in hac vita nemo habeat? Nō enim rectè curritur si quò currendum est nesciatur. Quomodo autē sciretur si nullis praeceptis ostenderetur? Why should not this perfection be commaunded to man, saith Austine, although no man haue it in this life? For we cannot runne aright, if we know not to what to runne. And how should we know if by no commaundements it were declared vnto vs? Againe he saith:De grat. & lib. arbit. cap. 16. Magnū aliquid Pelagians se scire putant quād [...] dicunt, Non iuberet Deu [...] quod sciret ab homine non posse fieri. The Pelagians (he might haue said the Papists) thinke they know some great matter when they say, God would not commaund that which he knew could not be done by man. Let M. Bishop take knowledge of his obiection vsed of old by the Pelagian heretikes. S. Austine answereth,Quis hoc nesciat? sed ideò iubet aliqua quae non possumus vt sciamus quid ab illo petere debeamus. Ipsa est fides quae orando impetrat quod lex imperat. Who knoweth not so much? But therefore doth he commaund some things which we cannot do, that we may know what we are to aske of him. It is faith which by praier obtaineth that which the law commaundeth. The commaundements of God then are not vnpossible; for if they were vnpossible, we could neuer hope to attaine to the keeping of them. But now we pray vnto God that he will, and according to his promise we beleeue that he will bring vs to that state of innocencie and perfection, wherein we shall fully answer the image of perfect righteousnesse, which is set before vs in the law. In the meane time there is a let that hindereth vs, and [Page 572] holdeth vs backe, that it is not possible for vs so long as it continueth, to do those things which yet are possible to be done. The Arausican Councell saith nothing of fulfilling the law, but speaketh generally of doing those things which belong to saluation. Now to our saluation it belongeth to know and confesse, thatRom. 3.20. by the workes of the law no flesh shall be iustified in the sight of God. To our saluation belongeth an humble acknowledgement of our vnablenesse to satisfie the law, true repentance of our sinnes, the faith of Iesus Christ, that by him and in him we may haue supply of that wherein we are found defectiue by the law. In a word, it is the way to exclude vs from saluation, to place our affiance and trust of obtaining the same in our fulfilling of the law, the Apostle telling vs, thatGal. 3.10. so many as are of the works of the law, are vnder the curse, because it is written, Cursed is euery one that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law to do them, whereasEccles. 7.22. there is not a man iust vpon earth that doth good, and sinneth not. The words of Christ,Mat. 19.17. If thou wilt enter into life, keepe the commaundements, were spoken to the young man, to the same end to which the law generally was giuen, to giue him occasion to measure and know himselfe by the commaundements, that so he might seeke the way of saluation in Christ, which in the law being a transgressour thereof, he could not finde. But of these words enough hath bene said before in the question ofCha. 3. Sect. 3. the Certaintie of Saluation. For conclusion of this point, to quit M. Bishop, I will alledge the words of S. Bernard; Bernard in Cant. ser. 50. Non latuit praeceptorē praecepti pondu [...] humanas excedere vi [...]es, sed iudicauit vtile ex hoc ipso suae ipsos insufficientiae admoneri, et vt scirent sanè ad quē iustitiae finē niti pro virib [...]s oporteret. Ergo mandando impossibilia non praeuaricatores fecit sed humiles, vt omne os obstruatur & subditus fiat to tus mundus Deo. Accipiētes quippe mand [...]tum & sentientes defectum clamabimus in coelum & miserebitur nostri Deus, & s [...]temus in die illa quia non ex operibus iustitiae quae fecimus nos sed secundum miserecordiam suam saluos nos fecit. It was not vnknowne to the commaunder, that the waight of the commaundement doth exceede the strength of man; but he held it expedient, that hereby men should be aduertized of their owne vnsufficiencie, and that they should know to what end of righteousnesse they should labour to their vtte [...]most. Therefore by commaunding things vnpossible to vs, he hath not made vs trespassers, but humbled vs, that euery mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be made subiect to God. For receiuing the commaundement, and feeling our owne defect and want, we shall cry to heauen, and God will haue mercy vpon vs, and we shall know at that day, that not for the workes of righteousnesse which we haue done, but of his owne mercy he hath saued vs. In which words he giueth vs to vnderstand, that God had reason sufficient to giue [Page 573] the law, though he knew it vnpossible for vs in this state of mortality and weakenesse, perfectly to fulfill the law.
44. W. BISHOP.
Now that iust mens workes be not sinnes: which I prooue first, That good works be not stained with sinne. by some workes of that patterne of patience, Iob: Of whom it is written, that notwithstanding all the diuels power and craft in tempting of him, He continued still a single hearted and an vpright man,Cap. 2. departing from euill, and preseruing his innocencie. If he continued an innocent, he sinned not: Againe, if in all these instigations to impatience, he remained patient: these his workes were perfect. For S. Iames saith, Esteeme it my brethren all ioy,Cap. 1. when you shal fall into diuers temptations: knowing that the probation of your faith worketh patience: And let patience haue a perfect worke, that you may be perfect and entire, failing in nothing.
2. King Dauid thus by the inspiration of the holy Ghost speaketh of himselfe, Thou hast (O Lord) prooued my heart,Psal. 16. thou hast visited me in the night, thou hast tried me in fire, and there was no iniquity found in me. It must needes then be graunted, that some of his workes at least were free from all sinne and iniquity. And that the most of them were such, if you heare the holy Ghost testifying it, I hope you will beleeue it: reade then where it is of record, 3. Reg. 15. That Dauid did that which was right in the sight of our Lord (and not onely in the sight of men) and turned from nothing that hee commaunded him, all the dayes of his life, except onely the matter of Ʋrias the Hethite.
3. The Apostle affirmeth, 1. Cor. 3. That some men do build vpon the onely foundation Christ Iesus, gold, siluer, and pretious stones: that is, being choise members of Christes Catholike Church, doe manie perfect good workes, such as being tried in the fornace of Gods iudgement, will suffer no losse or detriment, as he there saith expresly: Wherefore they must needes be pure, and free from all drosse of sinne, otherwise hauing bene so prooued in fire, it would haue beene found out.
4. Many workes of righteous men please God: Rom. 12. 1. Pet. 2. Make your bodies a quick sacrifice, holy & acceptable to God: the same offering spirituall [Page 574] sacrifices acceptable to God.Phil. 4. And S. Paul calleth almes bestowed on him in prison, an acceptable sacrifice of sweet sauour, and pleasing God. But nothing infected with sinne (all which he hateth deadly) can please God, and be acceptable in his sight: God of his mercy through Christ doth pardon sin, or as the Protestants speake, not impute it to the person: but to say that a sinfull worke is of sweet sauour before him, and a gratefull sacrifice to him, were blasphemie: wherefore we must needs confesse, that such workes which so well pleased him, were not defiled with any kind of sinne.
Mat. 5. 1 Tim. 6. Ephes. 2. Finally, many workes in holy writ be called good, as, That they may see your good workes: To be rich in good works: We are created in Christ Iesus to good workes: but they could not truly be called good workes, if they were infected with sinne. For according to the iudgment of all learned Diuines, it can be no good worke, that faileth either in substance, or circumstance, that hath any one fault in it: for bonum ex integra causa malum, ex quolibet defectu. Wherefore we must either say, that the holy Ghost calleth euill good, which were blasphemie, or else acknowledge, that there be many good workes free from all infection of sinne.
R. ABBOT.
The wise man hauing prefixed this title, That good workes be not stained with sinne, which we say they be, taketh vpon him in his text to proue, that iust mens workes be no sinnes, which no man saith they be. We must beare with him, because his vnderstanding doth not serue him to take that for gold, wherein there is any drosse: for if it did, he would easily conceiue that the staine of mans sinne doth not destroy or take away the nature of the good worke which in man & by man is wrought by the grace of God. But leauing that peece of his folly, let vs examine his proofes, that good workes be stained with sinne. And first, he will proue it by the example of Iob, because it is said of him, thatIob. 2.3. he continued still a single hearted and an vpright man, departing from euill, and preseruing his innocencie. But it were very hard to say, how M. Bishops purpose should be made good out of these words. We find here a relation of Iobs goodnesse, but we find nothing to proue, that that goodnesse of his was no way touched or stained with sin. Now the reader is to vnderstand, that this cōmendation of Iob set down in the 1. Chapter, & after repeated in the 2. chapter to shew his constancy therin, was of old vrged by the [Page 575] Pelagian heretikes, as now by M. Bishop to prooue the perfection of the righteousnesse of man. But S. Austine well waighing the circumstance of the text, how it is withall said, There is none like him in the earth; and considering what Iob elsewhere saith;Cap. 9.2. How should a man be iust before God? answereth him in this sort;Aug. de peccat. merit. & remiss. lib. 2. ca. 10. Secundū modū cōuersationis humanae perhibet ei Deus tam magnū iustiae testimoniū. Ipse autē se metuens ex regula illa iustitiae quam sicut potest conspicit apud Deum, in veritate scit quia ita est quia non erit homo iustus ante Deum. According to a measure of humane conuersation, God giueth him this so great testimonie of righteousnesse, but he himselfe being afraid of himselfe, according to that rule of righteousnesse, which as he can he seeth with God, knoweth in truth that so it is, that there shall not a man be found iust before God. Thus he saith againe, thatIbid. ca. 12. Ex hominum qui in terra sunt cōparatione laudatur. he was commended in comparison of men liuing vpon earth. Hereby then it appeareth that there is nothing in these words of Iobs commendation, that auaileth M. Bishop any whit at all. Which that it may the better appeare, Iob saith of himselfe as the vulgar Latine translateth,Iob. 9.28. Verebat omnia opera mea. I was afraid of all my workes. Whereof what we are to conceiue, we may esteeme by that that Gregory Bishop of Rome speaketh by occasion of other words of the same Iob, thatGrego. Moral. lib. 9. ca. 1. Sanctus vir quia omne virtutis nostrae meritum vitiū esse cōspexit si ab interno arbitro districté iudicetur, rectè subiungit, si voluero, &c. the holy man because he saw all the merit of our vertue to be faulty, if it be strictly iudged by him that iudgeth within, saith rightly, If I will contend with him, I shall not be able to answer him one for a thousand. To which purpose he saith afterwards againe, thatIbid. cap. 8. Interrogationi illius homo respondere non sufficit, quia si remota tunc pietate discutitur in illo examine etiā iustorum vita succumbit. man is not able to answer to God, questioning or reasoning with him, because if he be sifted without fauour, the life euen of the iust quaileth in that examination. This made Iob afterwards to say of himselfe againe:Iob. 39.37. Behold, I am vile, what shall I answer thee? I will lay my hand vpon my mouth. Whereupon Hierome saith against the Pelagians:Hieron. cont. Pelag. lib. 2. Ecce Iob noster immaculatus & sine querela quali iustitiae fine coronatur vt miserecordia Dei indigeat. Behold our Iob so innocent and without reproofe, with what end of righteousnesse he is crowned, that he standeth in neede of mercy at Gods hands. By all which it may appeare, how impertinently M. Bishop alledgeth the words of Iames, to affirme the perfection of Iobs workes. Yea, what a mad connexion doth he make, S. Iames saith,Iam. 1.4. Let patience haue a perfect worke that you may be perfect and entire, failing in nothing. Therefore if Iob remained patient, then his workes were perfect. He should vnderstand that a man may remaine patient, and yet his patience not altogether perfect, being resisted and interrupted by the weakenesse and rebellion of the flesh; euen as came to passe in holy Iob, as may appeare by many of his owne speeches, and by the reproofe that God vsed to him in the end;Iob. 39.35. Is this to learne, to striue with the almighty? [Page 576] he that reprooueth God, let him answer to it. Therefore the remaining of patience doth not prooue it selfe to be perfect; much lesse prooueth it the perfection of other workes. The perfect worke of patience intended by Saint Iames is perseuerance, whereby we continue and grow forward to that perfection which our Sauiour Christ setteth as a marke for vs to aime at,Ma [...]. 5.48. Be ye perfect as your heauenly Father is perfect, but yet still finde cause so long as we liue here, to say with the Apostle,Phil. 3.10. Not as though I were alreadie perfect. If Maister Bishop thinke that here we can be perfect and encier lacking nothing, let him remember what Saint Hierome saith;Hieron cont. Pelag lib 1 Omni [...] habere & nullo indigere virtutis est eius qui peccatum nō fecit nec inuentus est in ore eius dolus. To haue all things and to want nothing is a matter of his vertue who did no sinne, neither was guile found in his mouth. Let him not therefore dreame of it,Ephe 4.13. till we all meete together vnto a perfect man, and vnto the measure of the age of the fulnesse of Christ. But as touching perfection more hereafter.
That which he alledgeth spoken by Dauid concerning himself, is absurdly forced to his purpose, whilest he vrgeth it as simply & generally spoken, which was spoken only in a special respect.Psal. 17.3. There was no iniquitie found in him as touching any imagination or practise against Saul, wherof he was vniustly and wrongfully accused, but otherwise simply speaking of himselfe, he saith,Psal. 38.4. Mine iniquities are gone ouer my head, and as a weightie burden they are too heauie for me. 130.3. O Lord if thou be extreame to marke iniquities, who shall abide it? 143.2. Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant, O Lord, for in thy sight no man liuing shall be iustified. Hereby therefore it is plaine also that that which is said of Dauid, that1. King. 15.5. he turned from nothing that the Lord commaunded him all the daies of his life, but onely the matter of V [...]ias the Hittite, is to be vnderstoode according to the occasion whereof it is spoken, the text setting downe before the wickednesse of Abi [...]am in his reigne and gouernement ouer the Kingdome of Iudah, sinning himselfe by publike idolatrie, and causing the people also to sinne with him. To him his Father Dauid is opposed, as touching lawes and publike gouernement, and direction of his people, that he turned not aside from the commaundements of the Lord, nor caused any publike scandall or offence, but onely in commaunding the death of O ij [...]h the Hittite, for colouring the adulterie committed [...] [...]ith his wife.
As touching the third proofe that hee bringeth out of Saint Paules wordes to the Corinthians, it is apparent by the place it selfe, that it is very absurdly wrested. For Saint Paul speaketh there of building by the preaching of the Gospell, as is cleare by the wordes immediatly going before;1. Cor. 3.10. According to the grace of God giuen vnto me, as a skilfull Maister builder I haue laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon; but let euery one take heede how he buildeth vpon it. Then signifying the foundation whereupon the building is to stand to be Iesus Christ, [...]e prosecuteth that caueat, giuing to vnderstand, that there shall be a triall of the worke of euery builder, whereby losse shall growe to them who are not carefull to build such matter as is proportionable to the foundation. Hee therefore that buildeth gold, and siluer, and precious stones, that is, true faith and doctrine according to Christ, his worke shall abide the triall of the word of truth, and his labour shall haue reward. But if any man build vpon Christ timber, hay, and stubble, that is, the trash of humane traditions and superstitions, the fire, that is,Chrysost. de panitent. hom. 8. Igne examinemus; verbo scilicet doctrina. the word of Doctrine, as Chrysostome expoundeth it, shall consume it; by the word of the Gospell that which he hath builded shall be reprooued and reiected, and hee shall lose both his labour and reward. This is the very direct and plaine meaning of the Apostles wordes, fully agreeing with the circumstance of the text. But Maister Bishop perforce and against the haire, draweth the text to be construed of workes, and like to a sorie husband, who for a penny present gaine neglecteth a shilling profit another way, for the gaining of a present small aduantage, is content to bereaue himselfe of that that should steede him much more in another cause. For whereas they are woont generally to alledge this place, and to expound the fire here spoken of, for the maintenance of Purgatorie fire, he for a shift here turneth Purgatorie fire into the fornace of Gods iudgement, and so striketh downe a maine pillar of the Popes Kitchin, and endaungerethAct. 17.25. the craft whereby he and his fellowes haue their goods. Surely if Purgatorie fire doe not burne here, it is hard to say how they will get it a chimney wherein to burne any otherwhere. But to the point, it hath beene alreadie shewed, that there is no golde or siluer of our vvorkes, vvherein there [Page 578] is not found some drosse if triall be made thereof in the fornace of Gods iudgement; no stones so precious wherein the Ieweller of heauen doth not finde speckes and flawes, if he precisely take view of them, so thatAug Confess. lib. 9. ca. 13. Va etiam laudabili vitae hominum si remota miserecordia discutias [...]am. woe to the commendable life of man, saith S. Austine, if God set mercy aside in the iudging of it, and therefore all pray that God will not enter into iudgement with them. The gold notwithstanding, and siluer, and pretious stones which we build in our good workes through Gods mercy, shall abide and haue their glory; the drosse thereof the fire of repentance shall consume, whilest we aske and obtaine of him pardon and forgiuenesse of all our imperfections and wants, of all that timber, and hay, and stubble of carnall and earthly affections, with the dust whereof our feet haue bene soiled, and berayed in walking the path of the faith of Christ. Yea he thatMat. 3.11. baptizeth his with the holy Ghost and with fire, wil by this fire purge from vs and our works this drosse and corruption more and more, till he bring vs out of the fornace as the pure and perfect gold to be glorious before him for euer and euer. To be short, the fire of Gods iudgement mitigated and asswaged with the water and dew of his mercy, shall at that day giue approbation and testimony of righteousnesse to the good workes of his seruants, so as that because they are true gold which that fire consumeth not, they shall not for some drosse receiue any losse or detriment therein, but fully receiue that reward in the hope and expectation whereof they haue laboured in the Lord. Therefore though we would vnderstand these words of the works of holy men, as without forcing them we cannot, yet is there nothing whence M. Bishop can inferre that which he intendeth, that good workes are wholy free from all drosse and staine of sinne. As little hath he for his purpose in his next argument. Many workes of righteous men please God, saith he, but nothing infected with sinne can please God. Nothing indeed if it be considered as infected with sinne; and therefore good works being touched and infected with the contagion of sinne, before they can please God, must haue some meanes to take away the guilt and imputation of the sinne. There wasExod. 28.38. iniquity in the holy offerings of the children of Israel, but the high Priest did beare the iniquity to make the offerings acceptable before the Lord. There is iniquity in our holy offerings, our spirituall sacrifices, but Christ our High Priest hath borne the iniquitie, and they are1. Pet. 2.5. acceptable to GOD by Iesus Christ. [Page 579] Not by themselues, or by their owne perfection, but by Iesus Christ, being perfumed with the sweet incense of his obedience, whoEphes. 5.2. for vs (to make vs acceptable both in our selues and in our workes) hath giuen himselfe an offering and a sacrifice of a sweet smelling sauour vnto God. Therefore by the pardoning and not imputing of sinne, through the redemption of Christ, both the person and the worke are pleasing in Gods sight, neither is the same to be called a sinfull worke, as M. Bishop tearmeth it, because it is in substance a good worke, and the fruite of the good spirit of God, and the default and imperfection is onely an accident to the worke. Briefly we are to lay vp in our hearts that which the Prophet saith:Psal. 103.13. As a father pitieth his children, so is the Lord mercifull vnto them that feare him: for he knoweth whereof we be made, and remembreth that we are but dust. And therefore as a father accepteth the readinesse and obedience of his child to that that he commaundeth, though he do the thing perhaps but rawly and rudely: so is God pleased through Christ with the good intendment and indeuour of his children, for the doing of that that he requireth, though by the weaknesse of the flesh, much halting and lamenesse, and imperfection appeare in that which they do.
By this appeareth the vanitie of his argument taken from the name of good workes, which he saith could not be truly called good, if they were infected with sinne. For as the offerings were truly called holy offerings, in which notwithstanding there was some blot of iniquitie: so are the workes of the faithfull truly called good workes, in which notwithstanding there is a staine of the same iniquitie and sinne. They are good in the substance of the deede good in the originall of the grace and spirit of God from whence they proceed, good in the will and indeauour of the person by whom they are done, good in the acceptation of God, in whose name and seruice they are done: but yet they haue a blemish of euill,Ambros. apud August. contra Iulian. lib. 2. Labes corporeae concretionis. by reason of the blot of bodily corruption growing fast too, as Ambrose speaketh,Hilar. ibid. Corpora nostra vitiorum omniū materia, pro qua polluti & sordidi nihil in nobis mundum, nihil innocens obtin [...] mus. whereby being polluted and filthie (saith Hilary) we haue nothing in vs innocent, nothing cleane. They are good then, but yet not perfectly good, yea if God should strictly and narrowly deale with vs, he should haue iust cause of reiecting vs in the doing thereof, for that we by our corruption do disgrace that which proceedeth holy, and pure, and good from him. Now therefore whereas he saith, that it can be no [Page 580] good worke wherein is any defect, he saith vntruly, because good and euill haue their latitude and degrees: and accordingly as contraries expell each other, the one alwaies growing by the impairing of the other, accordingly as S. Austine saith:August. de verb. Dom ser. 11. Non n [...]bis inf [...]rt bona sua nisi auferat mala nostra: & in tantū illa crescunt, inquantum ista mi nuuntur: nec illa perficientur nisi ista finiantur. God doth not bring his good gifts into vs, except he take away our euils; and so far do the good things increase, as the euill are diminished: neither shall the one be perfected, till the other be fully ended. Now in this mixture of contraries, that giueth the name that preuaileth most: so thatHier ad Ctesiphont. Iusti non quod omni vitio careant, sed quod maiori virtutum parte commend [...]ntur. men are called iust, as Hierome saith, not for that they are without all vice, but in that they are commended for the greater part of vertues. That therefore may rightly and truly be called a good worke in some measure and degree of goodnesse, which yet entirely, and perfectly, and wholy cannot be called good. But that we may see how vainely and idlely he talketh, his conclusion is diligently to be obserued, that there may be many good workes free from all infection of sinne. There be many such, but all good workes then it seemeth be not free from all infection of sinne. And if all be not so, then let him tell vs how those good workes which be not free from all infection of sinne, be called good workes, as he importeth, seeing no worke can be called good, as he hath told vs before, that faileth either in substance or in circumstance, or hath any fault or defect in it. Let him answer vs for those some, and his answer shall serue vs for all the rest.
45 W. BISHOP.
In lieu of the manifold testimonie of Antiquity, which doth nothing more then recommend good workes, and paint out the excellencie of them, I will set downe one passage of S. August. wherein this very controuersie is distinctly declared and determined: Lib. 3. contra duas Epist. Pelag. cap. 7. thus he beginneth: The iustice (through which the iust man liueth by faith) because it is giuen to man by the spirit of grace, is true iustice: the which, although it be worthily called in some men perfect, according to the capacitie of this life, yet it is but small in comparison of that greater, which man made equall to Angels shall receiue. Which (heauenly iustice) he that had not as yet said himselfe to be perfect, in regard of that iustice that was in him: and also imperfect, if it be compared to that which he wanted. But certainly this lesser iustice, or righteousnesse, breedeth and bringeth foorth merits, and that greater, is the reward thereof. Wherefore he that pursueth not this, shall not [Page 581] obtaine that. Hitherto S. Augustine. Note first, that he defineth the iustice which we haue in this life, to be true iustice, which is pure from al iniustice and iniquitie: then, that it is also perfect, not failing in any duty which we be bound to performe. Lastly, that it bringeth foorth good workes, such as merit life euerlasting. True it is also, that this iustice although perfect in it selfe, so farre as mans capacitie in this life doth permit: yet being compared vnto the state of iustice which is in heauen, it may be called imperfect, not that this is not sufficient to defend vs frō all formall transgression of Gods law: but because it keepeth not vs sometimes from veniall sinne, and hath not such a high degree of perfection as that hath. S. Augustin hath the like discourse, where he saith directly, De spir. & lit. vlt. cap. that it appertaines to the lesser iustice of this life, not to sinne. So that we haue out of this oracle of Antiquity: that many workes of a iust man are without sinne.
R. ABBOT.
Here M. Bishop notably abuseth S. Austin, and maketh him in stead of all antiquitie, a witnesse of that which he oppugneth euen in that very Chapter whence he citeth the words here set downe. Which that we may the better discerne, let vs examine particularly the collections that he maketh from the words. First, that the iustice that we haue in this life is true iustice. We acknowledg the same, euen as it is true gold wherein notwithstanding there is found drosse; euen as it is a true pearle which notwithstanding with handling hath a spot or staine. It is true righteousnesse,Bernard. de verb. Esa Ser 5. Humilis iustitia sed non pura. but not pure, saith S. Bernard: Idem in fest. sanct. Ser. 1. Si districtè iudicet [...]r iniusta inuenietur omnis iustitia nostra & [...]nùs habens. it will be found vnrighteousnesse and scant, if it be strictly iudged. Therfore M. Bishops exposition of true iustice is false, where he maketh the same to be pure from all iniustice and iniquitie. Secondly, he maketh S. Austin to say, that our righteousnesse in this life is perfect, not failing in any duty which we are bound to performe. But how lewdly doth he therein deale with S. Austin, who plainely teacheth, thatAug. de Ciu. Dei. lib. 19 ca. 27 Magis remissione peccatorum constat, quàm perfectione virtutum. our righteousnesse in this life standeth rather in forgiuenesse of sinnes, then in perfection of vertues. Yea in the Chapter cited by him, he saith:Idem contra 2. Epist. Pelag. li. 3. cap 7. Virtus quae nunc est in homi ne iusto hactenus perfecta nomina tur, vt ad eius perfectionē pertineat, etiam ipsius imperfectionis, & in veritate cognitio, & in humilitate confessio. Tunc enim est secundum hanc infirmitatem perfecta ista p [...]rua iustitia, quando etiam quid sibi desit intelligit. Ideoque Apostolus & imperfectum & perfectum sedicit; imperfectum, cogitando quantum illi ad iustitiam desit, cuius plenitudinem adhu [...] esurit & siti [...]. Perfectum autem quòd & suam imperfectionem confitori non erubescit, & vt peruentat bene procedit. The vertue which is now in the iust man is thus farforth called perfect, as that to the perfection therof belongeth both the [Page 582] knowledge in truth, and in humilitie the confession of the imperfection of it. For then is this small righteousnesse for the modell (or little measure) of it perfect, according to this infirmitie, when it knoweth what there is wanting vnto it. Therefore the Apostle calleth himselfe vnperfect and perfect; vnperfect, in bethinking how much he wanteth to righteousnes, the fulnesse whereof he yet hungreth and thirsteth after: perfect, both for that he is not ashamed to confesse his imperfection, and for that he goeth well forward to come to perfection. Now how should we here acknowledge imperfection, if we be perfect according to the vttermost of that perfection that is required of vs here? How can we take vpon vs to know, that there is somwhat wanting to our righteousnesse, when we must beleeue it to be such, as faileth not in any duty which we are bound to performe? How did the Apostle think that he wanted much to righteousnesse, when his righteousnesse wanted nothing that it ought to haue? How is it said, that he was not ashamed to confesse his imperfection, when yet there was no imperfection for him to confesse? Nay, how is it that M. Bishop is not ashamed to seeke by Austin to auouch such a Paradoxe, so contrarie to sence, so contrarie to conscience, so contrarie to the confessions of all the faithfull crying with one voyce,August. in Psal. 142. Quare hoc dicitis? &c. Quoniam non iustificabitur, &c. Forgiue vs our trespasses, and that for this very cause, as S. Austin saith, because no man liuing shall be iustified in the sight of God. The same S. Austin telleth vs, thatDe spir. & lit. cap. 35. Sine exē plo est in hominibus perfecta iustitia. there is no example of perfect righteousnesse amongst men: thatDe Temp. ser. 49. Ipsa est perfectio hominum inuenisse se non esse perfectum. this is the perfection of man, to find himselfe not to be perfect: De spir. & lit. ca. 36. In ea quae perficienda est iustitia multum in hac vita, ille profecit, qui quā longè sit à perfectione iustitiae proficiendo cognouit. that he hath much profited in righteousnesse, who by profiting knoweth how farre he is from perfection of righteousnesse: that S. Paule was De peccat mer. & remiss lib. 1. cap. 13. Perfectus viator etsi nondum erat itineris perfectione peruentor. perfect as a trauellers. (to perfect righteousnesse,) not as one that was come vnto it, becauseDe nat. & grat cap 12 Benè proficientes dicuntur perfecti viatores. they that go well forward, or profit well, are called perfect trauellers. These speeches are euident and plaine, and will M. Bishop tell vs, that S. Austin affirmeth, in this life a perfect righteousnesse, not failing in any dutie which we are bound to performe? To the same purpose S. Hierome also saith: thatHieron. contra Pelag li. 1. Haec est hominis vera sapientia imperfectum esse se nosse, atque vt ita loquar, cunctorum in carne iustorum imperfecta perfectio est. it is mans true wisedome to know himselfe to be vnperfect, and that there is but an vnperfect perfection of all that are righteous in this life. And againe, thatIbid. lib. 3. Vera & absque omni sorde perfectio in coelestibus reseruatur, quando sponsus loquetur ad sponsam, Tota pulchra es amica mea, & macula non est in te. true perfection [Page 583] which is without all filth or vncleannesse, is reserued vnto heauen, when the bridegroome shall say to the bride, Thou art all faire, my loue, and there is not a spot in thee. So saith Fulgentius, thatFulgent. ad Monim. lib. 1. Diuinorū munerum nondum est perfecta perfectio vtpote vbi omnis perfectus perfectionis est indigus. there is yet no perfect perfection of the gifts of God, as where euery perfect man is yet wanting of perfection. And this made Origen to say, thatOrigen. ad Ro. cap. 6. Jn praesenti vita puto quòd formā at (que) vmbram virtutū tenere possimus, ipsas verò virtutes tunc cùm venerint illa quae perfecta sunt: & ideo iustus magis vt mihi videtur in vmbra virtutum quàm in ipsis virtutibus viuit. in this life we may haue the image and shadow of vertues, but the vertues themselues when the things that are perfect shall come: and therefore that the iust man liueth rather, as he thinketh, in the shadow of vertues, then in the vertues themselues. To which words accordeth that of Hierome, alluding to that of the Apostle whereto Origen alludeth, that1. Cor. 13.9.10.12. we know in part, and we see through a glasse in a darke speaking; and when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away. Hier. contra Pelag. li. 3. Mū dum cor quod posteà sit visurum Deum & vitae immaculatae beatitudinē in vmbra possidemus & imagine. Quamuis Patriarcha sit aliquis, quamuis Propheta, quamuis Apostolus dicitur eis à Domino Saluatore, si vos cùm sitis mali, &c. We haue (saith he) but in a shadow and an image the cleane heart, that shall after see God, and the happinesse of vnspotted life. Though a man be a Patriarch, though a Prophet, though an Apostle, yet is it said to them by our Sauiour, If ye being euill, &c. Where is he now that telleth vs of such a perfect righteousnesse in this life, as faileth not of any dutie that we are bound to performe, when as there is here none but vnperfect perfection, no man but that wanteth of perfection: when as we haue here but the image and shadow of vertues, no perfection without some filth or vncleannesse, none but which leaueth vs still in case to be called euill? Whereby appeareth againe the absurditie of his third collection, that our perfection yeeldeth such good workes as merit euerlasting life. It is true that S. Austin vseth the name of merit, but that by the name of merits he meaneth simply good workes, to which God hath promised reward, and not any merit properly so called, shall hereafter appeare in the question of merits. In the meane time how farre he was from that opinion of meriting, which M. Bishop here would fasten vpon him, may appeare by the words cited by him out of Hilary against the Pelagian heretickes:Aug. contra Iulian. lib. 2. ex Hilar. in Psal. 51. Spes in misericordia Dei in seculum, & in seculum seculi. Non enim illa ipsa iustitiae opera ad perfectae beatitudinis sufficient meritum, nisi misericordia Dei etiam in hac iustitiae voluntate humanarum demutationum & motuum non reputet vitia. Our hope is in the mercy of God for euer and euer: for the very workes of righteousnesse are not sufficient to the meriting of perfect blisse, vnlesse the mercy of God euen in this will of righteousnesse, do forbeare to impute the vices or defaults of humane passions and affections. Whereupon he himselfe saith.Ibid. Confitetur etiam peccata iustorum magis eos asserens in Dei misericordia spem ponere quàm de iustitia sua fidere. He confesseth the sinnes euen of iust men, affirming that they rather trust to the mercie of God, then haue [Page 584] any confidence of their owne righteousnesse. It is not therefore the merit of righteousnesse, that we can rest vpon, but onely the pardon of Gods mercie, by which as we haue obtained the gift of righteousnesse: so we expect also the reward and crowne thereof, that it may be verified which the Prophet saith:Psal. 103 4. He crowneth thee in mercie and compassion: and that of the Apostle, that eternall life is the gift of God through Iesus Christ our Lord. Now to these collections M. Bishop addeth a caueat, that this iustice though perfect in it selfe, so farre as mans capacitie in this life doth permit, yet in comparison of the state of iustice in heauen may be called vnperfect. Which is as much as if he should say, that it is perfect in it selfe, so farre as it may be perfect there where it cannot be perfect. For there is not in this life any capacitie of perfect righteousnesse, as wherein we continue still with the ApostleRom. 7.14.19. carnall, sold vnder sinne, not doing the good that we would, by reason ofGal. 5.17. the flesh lusting against the spirit, Rom. 7.23. rebelling against the law of the minde, leading vs captiue to the law of sinne which is in our members, so as that to auoide the entisements of the world, and to keepe our selues in our course entierly to God, is as S. Ambrose saith,Ambros. de suga seculi. cap. 1. Res voti magis quàm effectus. a matter that we do more wish and desire then we can effect and do, and when we haue laboured much for it, cannot but condemne our selues for being so farre from it. But against this deuice of his, we must note what hath bene said, that our perfection here is not without some filth, and that it leaueth vs still euill, and therefore is not perfect in it selfe. Yea, and S. Hierome againe against the Pelagians distinguishingHieron. adis. Pelag lib. 1. Perspicuum est duas in scripturis sanctis esse perfectiones, duas (que) iustitias: Primam perfectionem, & incomparabilem veritatem, perfectam (que) iustitiam Dei virtutibus coaptandam: secundam autem quae competit nostrae fragilitati: [...]uxta illud quod dicitur, Non iustificabitur, &c. ad eam iustitiam quae non comparatione sed Dei sceintia dicitur esse perfecta. two sorts of perfection and righteousnesse, the one to be compared to the righteousnesse of God; the other belonging to the frailty of man, denieth our perfection in this latter kinde, and saith, that in this sort it is true, that no man liuing shall be iustified in Gods sight, which he affirmeth to be spoken as touching a righteousnesse called perfect not by comparison, but in respect of the knowledge of God. The knowledge of God then which knoweth all things according to truth, yet knoweth no iustice or perfection in vs, whereby we are able to stand iust and perfect before him. Therefore Gregory saith, thatGrego. Moral lib. 5. cap. 8. Ipsa nostra perfectio culpa non caret nisi ha [...]c seuerus iudex in subtili lince examinis misericorditèr pe [...]set. our very perfection is not without fault, vnlesse the seuere Iudge do with mercy weigh it in the precise ballance of his examination. Neither is it to be omitted which S. Austine saith, thatAug. de Temp. ser. 49. In cōparatione resurrectionis illius stercus est tota ista vita qu [...]m gerimus. Vnusquis (que) metiatur se quid est modò & quid erit tunc & inueniet in comparatione illius ista damna esse & stercora. all the life which we liue here, that is, all [Page 585] the righteousnesse of this life, is but dung in comparison of the resurrection, that if a man measure himselfe what he is now and what he shall be then, he shall finde that that which now is, is but losse and doung in comparison of that. Which how can it be true, if that that is in this life be perfect in it selfe, so perfect as that it faileth not in any duty which we are bound to performe; yea, as that it meriteth and deserueth the righteousnesse of heauen? Can that that in comparison is but drosse and doung, be truly said to deserue the righteousnesse of heauen? But concerning the same, he addeth further, that it is sufficient to keepe vs from all formall transgression of Gods law. So then thereby a man shall be free from all formall sinne; and shall haue no formall trespasse for which to say, forgiue vs our trespasses; and of formall transgression it shall not be true which S. Iohn saith,1. Iohn. 1.8. If we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues, or which S. Iames saith,Iam. 3 2. In many things we offend all. Is not this a formall foolery of a man that would be taken to be wise? These are drunken fancies, fit for no other but drunken men, that neither know themselues nor others, and therefore we can take M. Bishop for no other but a vile hypocrite, who contrary to his owne conscience and knowledge, pleadeth in this sort for the perfection of the righteousnesse of man. But to fill vp the measure of his lewd dealing, he falsifieth another place of Austine, making him to say, that it belongeth to the lesser iustice, that is, the iustice of this life, not to sinne. Wherein he goeth about to make S. Austine a promoter and vpholder of that heresie, which with all his might he oppugned in the Pelagians, who defended as M. Bishop here doth a righteousnesse in this life, wherby a man may be free from sin. And indeed the words which M. Bishop alledgeth out of Austine, are the aduersaries obiection, not the assertion of Austine himselfe. He bringeth them in by way of supposition what may be said, namely thatAug de sp. & lit. ca. 36 Sed dici potest quadam iustitia minor huic vitae competens qua iustus ex fide viuit, &c Non absurdè dicitur etiam ad istam pertinere ne peccet. there is a lesser righteousnes belonging to this life, wherein the iust liueth by faith, to which righteousnes it pertaineth not to sinne. Which obiection hauing prosecuted more at large, and alledged what may be said for the maintenance thereof, he at length setteth down answer, whereof a part is contained in these words:Ibid. Tales iusti ex fide viuentes non opus habent Deo dicere, Dimitte nobis, &c. Falsum (que) esse conuincunt quod s [...]riptū est, Non iustificabitur, &c. Sed quia haec falsa esse non possunt illud esse consequens video vt qu [...]lemlibes vel quantamlibet in hac vita potuerimus definire iustitiam nullus in ea sit hominum qui nullum habeat omninò peccatum. Such iust men liuing by faith haue no need to say, forgiue vs our trespasses, & do cōuince it to be false which is writtē, No mā liuing [Page 586] shall be iustified in the sight of God, and that, If we say we haue no sinne, we deceiue our selues: and that there is not a man that sinneth not: and that, There is not a man iust vpon the earth that doth good and sinneth not. But because these sayings cannot be false, it followeth, that whatsoeuer, or how great soeuer we can define righteousnesse in this life, there is not a man therein that is without sinne. Where very plainely he disclaimeth the assertion of any righteousnesse in this life, in which that may be found that M. Bishop speaketh of: namely, not to sinne. And surely had not this man a face of brasse, and an iron conscience, he would not in these dayes of light affirme a thing, or seeme to affirme it, so contrarie to the perpetuall doctrine and confession of the Church. As for his distinction of veniall sinnes, I haue before shewed it to be friuolous and vaine, and the same (God willing) shall appeare further in the Section next saue one.
46. W. BISHOP.
To these reasons taken partly out of the Scriptures, and partly out of the record of Antiquitie, let vs ioyne one or two drawne from the absurditie of our aduersaries doctrine, which teacheth euery good worke of the righteous man to be infected with mortall sinne: which being graunted, it would follow necessarily, that no good worke in the world, were to be done vnder paine of damnation, Rom. 7. thus: No mortall sinne is to be done vnder paine of damnation: for the wages of sinne is death: but all good workes are stained with mortall sinne, ergo, no good worke is to be done vnder paine of damnation. It followeth secondly, that euery man is bound to sinne deadly: for all men are bound to performe the duties of the first and second table: but euery performance of any duty is necessarily linked with some mortall sinne, therefore euery man is bound to commit many mortall sins, and consequently to be damned. These are holy and comfortable conclusions, yet inseparable companions, if not sworne brethren of the Protestants doctrine. Now let vs heare what arguments they bring against this Catholike verity.
R. ABBOT.
Here M. Bishop hath learned from his fellow M. Wright to strike the matter dead at one blow. Albeit, it is more likely, that these [Page 587] arguments going so currant amongst them, were agreed vpon at Wisbich or some other like place, in some solemne assembly and consultation, where the graue and reuerend companie of the Seculars laid their wits together, to giue the Protestants some ineuitable and deadly blow. It is hard to thinke, that one or two mens wits should serue to contriue such a matter as here is against vs. Now if some young Sophister of the Vniuersitie had stood by, and smiling at them had said, that it was pitty that they good old men, should be troubled with making of Syllogisms, who had forgotten of how many termes a Syllogisme doth consist, would they not (think you) haue startled at the hearing of it, and thought themselues exceedingly disgraced by a boy? Surely the arguments here set downe are such, as that if a boy in our Vniuersities should make the like in earnest, he shold be thought iustly to deserue the rod, and yet these are they who take vpon them, as if we were to say vnto them:Iob. 12.2. Because you onely are men, wisedome must dye with you. He will proue by our doctrine, that no good worke is to be done vnder paine of damnation. And how? forsooth no mortall sinne is to be done vnder paine of damnation: but all good workes are stained with mortall sinne, ergo, &c. Did not his head serue him to know, that it is an error in arguing, when a Syllogisme consisteth ex quatuor terminis. We haue mortall sinne in the Maior proposition and in the Minor, stained with mortall sinne. If he would haue kept the course of argument, he must haue said thus: No mortall sinne is to be done vnder paine of damnation; but all good workes are mortall sinnes, ergo, &c. Which if he had said, the absurditie of his minor proposition had easily appeared, because euery man could haue discerned, that good workes, though they haue some aspersion or touch of our corruption, yet do not thereby become sinnes, no more then gold by his drosse becometh earth or iron; no more then white linnen for some spot or staine, is to be accounted blacke haire-cloth; no more then the day is to be called night, because it hath but ouercast and darksome light. S. Hierome telleth vs, thatHier. aduers. Pelag. lib. 2. Quando dicit nullas tenebras in Dei lumine reperiri, ostendit omnia aliorum lumina sorde aliqua maculari. Denique & Apostoli appellantur lux mundi, sed non est scriptum quod in Apostolorum luce nullae sint tenebrae. When S. Iohn saith, that there is no darkenesse found in the light of God, he sheweth, that all others lights are blotted with some vncleannesse. The Apostles (saith he) are called the light of the world, but it is not written that there was no darknesse in the Apostles light. And what? will M. Bishop conclude, that because there was some darknes in the Apostles light, therefore their light was [Page 588] darknesse and not light? If he will not so conclude, then let him say, that it followeth not that good workes are sins, albeit in our doing of them they receiue some blemish and staine of sinne. But to shew vs somewhat more of the sweat and superfluitie of his learning, he hath added another argument of the like feature, to proue that by our doctrine euery man is bound to sinne deadly. And why so? because all men are bound to performe the duties of the first and second Table, and euery performance thereof is necessarily linked with mortall sinne. Which is as if a man should reason thus: A lame man is bound by law to come to the Church; but he cannot come to the Church but he must halt, therefore he is bound by law to halt. M. Bishop is bound to pay a man twenty pounds, but he cannot tell the mony without soyling his fingers: therefore he is bound to soile his fingers. He can no way inferre his conclusion, but by a sophisticall cauillation, which the Logicians call fallaciam accidentis, whereby in the conclusion he inferreth that of the accident, which in the premisses is referred onely to the subiect, his argument by that meanes wholly without forme, and offending in the like sort as the other did. Bring it into his due fashion, and euery child then shal see, that his proofe is most ridiculous and absurd. For to bring in his conclusion, his argument must be this: Whosoeuer is bound to do the duties of the first and second Table, is bound to sinne. But euery man is bound to do the duties of the first and second Table; therefore euery man is bound to sinne. His Prosyllogisme for the proofe of his maior proposition out of his owne words must arise thus: Whosoeuer necessarily sinneth in doing the duties of the first and second Table, is bound to sinne: but whosoeuer is bound to do the duties of the first and second Table, necessarily sinneth in the doing therof: therefore whosoeuer is bound to do the duties of the first and second Table is bound to sinne. Here his maior proposition is apparently absurd: for though a man by reason of infirmity cannot but sinne in doing his duty, yet it is the duty onely that he is bound to, and not to the sinne, because the sinne is not implyed in the dutie, but ariseth by casuall and accidentall necessitie from the condition of the man. Now therefore a man may doubt whether is greater in this man, his malice or his ignorance. In respect of his malice we may vse to him the words of the Prophet Dauid: Psal. 52.3.5. Thy tongue imagineth wickednes, and with lies thou cuttest like a sharpe razor: Thou [Page 589] hast loued to speake all words that may do hurt, O thou false tongue. In respect of his ignorance, we may iustly scorne him as a presumptuous and sawcie companion, who being of so base qualitie, and not knowing how to frame an argument aright, would take vpon him to encounter a whole armie of learned men, and so insolently dedicate his vnlearned fooleries to the King.
47. W. BISHOP.
First, they alledge these words: Enter not, O Lord,Psal. 141. into iudgment with thy seruant, because no liuing creature shall be iustified in thy sight. If none can be iustified before God, it seemes that none of their workes are iust in his sight.
Answer. There are two common expositions of this place among the ancient Fathers: both true, but farre from the Protestants purpose. The former is S. Augustines, S. Ieromes,De perf. iustic. Epist. ad Ct [...]s. S. Gregories in his Commentaries vpon that place: who say, that no creature ordinarily liueth without many veniall sinnes, for the which in iustice they may be punished sharpely either in this life, or else afterward in Purgatory. Wherefore the best men do very prouidently pray vnto God, not to deale with them according vnto their deserts: for if he should so do, they cannot be iustified and cleared from many veniall faults. And therefore they must all craue pardon for these faults, or else indure Gods iudgements for them, before they can attaine vnto the reward of their good deedes. The second exposition is more ordinarie with all the best Writers vpon the Psalmes: as S. Hilarie, S. Hierome, S. Arnobius, S. Euthimius, and others: which is also S. Augustins, S. Gregories. All these say, Lib. ad Cro [...]ia. cap. 10. lib. 9. moral. cap. 1. that mans iustice in comparison of the iustice of God, will seeme to be no iustice at all: and so take these words, No creature, neither man nor Angell, shall be iustified in thy sight: that is, if his iustice appeare before thine, and be compared to it. For as the stars be bright in themselues, & shine also goodly in a cleare night, yet in the presence of the glittering Sun beams, they appeare not at all: euen so mans iustice, although considered by it selfe it be great & perfect in his kind, yet set in the sight & presence of Gods iustice, it vanisheth away, and is not to be seene. This exposition is taken out of Iob, where he saith: I know truly it is euen so, that no man compared to God,Iob 9. shal be iustified. Take the words of the Psalme in whether sence you list (that either we haue many veniall faults, for which we cannot be iustified in [Page 590] Gods sight, or else that in the sight of Gods most bright iustice, ours will not appeare at all) and it cannot be thereof iustly concluded, that euery worke of the righteous man is stained with sinne: and consequently, the place is not to purpose.
R. ABBOT.
I would wish thee (gentle Reader) well to obserue M. Bishops twofold answer to this place. The more cleare these words of Scripture are against the inherent righteousnesse of man, the more notably his singular impudencie appeareth in seeking to shift them off. Dauid saith it, a Prophet saith it, a man after Gods owne heart saith it:Psal. 143.2. Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant, O Lord, for no man liuing shall be iustified (or found iust) in thy sight. Now M. Bishop answ [...]reth, that this is spoken in respect of veniall sinnes, without which no creature liueth, and for which a man may in iustice be punished sharpely, either in this life or in Purgatorie. Where it is to be obserued, that he hath told vs in the Section last saue one, that veniall sinne is no formall transgression of Gods law, by reason whereof they hold, thatRhem. Testim. 1. Ioh. 1.8. veniall sinnes consist with true iustice, and hinder it not. So saith Andradius, Andrad. Orth. explicat. lib. 5. Iustitiam euertere nullo pacto possunt, neque perfectam & ab solutam legis obedientiam quoquo modo impedire. They can no way ouerthrow iustice, nor in any sort hinder the perfect and absolute obedience of the law. So then Dauids prayer must be this: Enter not into iudgement with me for veniall sinnes; for by reason of veniall sinnes which hinder not, but that a man is iust, no man liuing shall be iustified in thy sight. Which exposition being apparently lewd and shamelesse, yet he hath learned of his maister Bellarmine to countenance it with the names of them who neuer thought any such thing. He alledgeth Austin, who in the place by him cited hath not a word to t [...]at effect, which maketh him to set none downe, because indeed there are none. But in the place mentioned the same Austin rightly saith,Aug. de perfe. iustit. Superexal [...]at misericordia iudi [...]io. Quod si nō esset, quae spes esse [...]? Quando. quidem cùm rex iust [...]s federit in thro [...]o, quis glo ritbitur se castū habere cor, aut quis gloriabitur se esse immu [...]em à peccato? Were it not that mercy reioyceth ouer iudgement, what hope should there be? For when the iust King shall sit vpon his throne, who shall glorie that he hath a cleane heart, or reioyce that he is free from sinne? If no man shall be able then to challenge to himselfe a cleane heart, where is that perfect iustice of workes which Master Bishop dreameth of, which cannot come but from a cleane heart? He citeth in the second place the reuerend Father Saint Hierome, who beside that he saith nothing for him, speaketh expresly and directly against him. [Page 591] Hieron. ad C [...]esiphont. Quando [...]icit, In cōspectu tuo, hoc intelligi vult, quòd etiam qui hominibus sancti videntur, Dei scientiae at (que) noutiae nequa quā sancti sunt. Homo enim videt in facie, Deu [...] in corde. Si autē inspiciente Deo & omnia contemplante, quem cordis arcana nō fallum, nullus est iustus, perspicuè ostenditur haereticos nō hominem in excelsa sustollere, sed potentiae Dei derogare. When the Prophet saith, In thy sight, he will haue it to be vnderstood, that euen they which seeme holy vnto men, are not holy to the notice and knowledge of God. For man seeth in the face, but God in the heart. Now if in the sight and beholding of God, whom the secrets of the heart cannot deceiue, no man be iust, it is plainly shewed that the heretikes (in affirming men to be iust) do not lift vp man, but detract from the power of God. He affirmeth that by the place it is proued, that to the knowledge and sight of God no man is iust, and M. Bishop maketh him a witnesse, that the Prophet speaketh of veniall sinnes, which are no let, but that a man is iust. In the like fraudulent manner he nameth Gregorie, whose words are these;Greg. in sept. Psal. panitent. Scio multos in conspectu hominum iustos videri, & ad spem coelestium promissorū euectos innocentèr in mūdo viuere, qui etsi nō delinquant in opere, labuntur tamen aliquando vana aut peruersa cogitatione. Cuius enim ment [...]m vanae cogitaetiones non laniant? Cuius cor tentationes non vexant? Cuius animum desideria carnis non turbant? Nō ergò in conspectu Dei iustificatur, qui corde delinquit quod iniuetur Deus. I know that manie seeme iust in the sight of men, and being lifted vp to the hope of heauenly promises, do liue innocently in the world, who albeit they offend not in deede or worke, yet do sometimes fall by vaine and peruerse cogitation and thought. For whose minde do not vaine thoughts wound? whose heart do not temptations afflict? whose minde do not fleshly desires trouble? Therefore he is not iustified in the sight of God who offendeth in the heart which God beholdeth. Now who would not wonder that M. Bishop should referre himselfe to these words for the exposition that he maketh of the place here in hand. And yet why should we wonder, for his maister Bellarmine had so alledged it; and that was enough: whether truly or falsly, what was that to him? But how farre Gregorie was from that which he would so faine fasten vpon him, appeareth by that that was a little before cited out of him, as also in that he saith, thatGreg. Moral lib. 8. cap. 21. Quantalibet iustitia polleaut nequaquam sibi ad innocentiam vel [...]lecti sufficium si districtè in iudicio requirantur. euen the elect howsoeuer they excell in righteousnesse, haue not sufficient to approoue themselues innocent, if they be narrowly sifted in iudgement. Therefore not for veniall sinnes which hinder not a man from being iust, but for such sinnes as bereaue a man of the title of iustice and innocencie, doth the Prophet desire that God will not enter into iudgement with him. M. Bishops other answer is taken from an exposition, which he saith is more ordinarie with all the best writers vpon the Psalms, and yet indeede is no other but a meere Pelagian shift; that is, that mans iustice in comparison of the iustice of God, will seeme to be no iustice at all, euen as the Sunne drowneth the light of the starres [Page 592] that it appeareth not. Hierome hauing mentioned the words in question against the Pelagians, addeth thereupon;Hieron. ad Ctesiphont. Non iustificabitur, &c. Quod testimoniū sub nomine pietatis noua argumē tatione deludunt. Aiunt ad comparationem Dei nullum esse perfectum: Quasi scriptura hoc dixerit. Which testimonie vnder the name of pietie they delude with a new shift. They say, that in comparison of God no man is perfect. As if this were it, saith he, that the Scripture speaketh of; & so he goeth on with the words which I cited out of him last before. That is not then by S. Hieromes testimonie that the Scripture meaneth when it saith, that no man liuing shall be iustified in Gods sight. For shall we be so mad as to thinke, that we are taught to pray to God not to enter into iudgement with vs, because our righteousnesse is not comparable to his? Where hath God required it so to be?Ibid. Nūquid praecepit mihi Deus vt essem quod Deus est? vt nihil inter me esset & Dominū Creatorem? vt maior essem An gelorum fastigio? vt haberē quod Angeli non habent? Hath God, saith Hierome, commanded me to be the same that God is? That there should be no difference betwixt me and the Lord my creator? that I should be aboue the height of Angels? that I should haue that which the Angels haue not? Shall we thinke that the creator will be offended, because his creature is not the same that he himselfe is? or that God will enter into iudgement with vs because we were not made Gods? If this be absurd, as indeed it is, then we must confesse, that therefore the Prophet teacheth vs by his example so to pray, because according to that righteousnes that is commanded vnto vs, & belongeth to our dutie, we are found greatly defectiue and wanting in the sight of God, as in the former section also I haue shewed that Hierome expoundeth that place. As for them whom M. Bishop citeth to warrant his exposition, he doth notably abuse them. First Hilary indeed speaketh of comparison to God, but not as touching degree of righteousnesse, in which there can be no comparison, because the one is finite and the other infinite, but as touching an vniformitie and constant tenour of righteousnesse, whereby man should inuiolably and vnmoueably without interruption continue in that righteousnesse that concerneth him, as God doth in his righteousnesse. This he expresseth when he saith, thatHilar. in Psal. 142. Non hos demutabilis naturae nostrae promptissimos lapsus secundum indemutabilis substantiae sua indeflexam constanitam metitur, sed iustus & moderans tan tum ab homine expectat quantū humanae meminerit licere naturae. God doth not measure these slippery fals of our changeable nature according to the inflexible constancie of his vnchaungeable substance, but in iustice and moderation expecteth so much of man as he remembreth the nature of man can reach vnto. For so is his promise in our willing minde to accept vs according to that that we haue, as the Apostle speaketh in another case. To this meaning he saith:Ibid. Quid spei est si iudicari nos fecundū se Deus velit; si ad comparationem sui vitae nostrae innocentiam postulabu? What hope is there if God will haue vs [Page 593] to be iudged according to himselfe; if he shall require the innocencie of our life in comparison of him: that is, to be as free from slippes and fals in our state as he is in his? And to shew that man being subiect to alterations and chaunges is not iust in Gods sight, according to the righteousnes that concerneth him in his owne state, he addeth:Ibid. Iustificari in conspectu Dei quis viuentium potest, cui ira, cui dolor, cui cupiditas, cui obliuio, cui ignoratio, cui casus, cui necessitas vel per naturam corporis, vel per motum semper fluctuantis animae admixta sunt? Cui & quotidiè grauissimus host [...] immineat, drabolui videlicet animae viri fidelis insidians eam (que) ad interitum per sequens? Hanc enim esse causam docet, qua nemo viuens iustist [...]arò in conspectu Dei possit. And what man liuing can be iustified in Gods sight, with whom anger, and griefe, and lust, and ignorance, and forgetfulnesse, and casualtie, and necessitie, are blended and mingled either by the nature of the bodie, or by the motion of the euer-wauering soule; who also hath daily a grieuous enemie at hand, euen the diuell lying in waite against the soule of the faithfull man, and persecuting the same to destroy it? For this doth the Prophet teach to be the cause, why no man liuing can be found iust in the sight of God. By which words being very cleare and manifest, the reader may esteeme with what fidelity M. Bishop hath brought Hilarie to iustifie his exposition of that place. With the like truth or rather vntruth, he citeth Hierome, who saith, thatHieron. in Psal. 142. Manifestissimè demonstrauit, quia misericordiam De [...] praestolatur, &c. Hic quasi aliquis iudicet inter Deum & Prophetam, sicut & scriptum est, vt iustificeris, &c. Et proptereà intrat in iudicium Deus vt iustè pumat. the Prophet doth manifestly shew, that he did waite for Gods mercie, that he supposeth some one to be iudge betwixt God and him; which so being, God should be iustified in his sayings, and ouercome when he is iudged: who therefore entreth into iudgement that he may iustly punish. Then reckoning Abraham, and Isaac, and Iacob amongst them of whom the Prophet speaketh, he inferreth:Ergo nec ipsi Patriarchae iusti ficabuntur in cō spectu Dei. Stellae enim non sunt mundae in conspectu eius. Therefore not the very Patriarks themselues shall be found iust in the sight of God: for euen the starres are not cleane in his sight. What can be more plainely spoken, to shew that euen the most righteous and iust for want of puritie and iustice should iustly be punished, if God should enter into iudgment with them, and that if the very starres, not by their owne sinne, but by being in theRom. 8.20.21. bondage of our vanity and corruption be found vncleane before God, much more are we vncleane, for whose sake it is that that imputation doth lye vpon them? But to make it yet further to appeare what Hierome conceiued of those words, he saith in another place:Hieron. in Esa. lib. 6. cap. 14. Cùm dies iudicij vel dormitionis aduenerit, dissoluentur omnes manus, quia nullum opus dignum Dei iustitia reperietur, & non iustificabitur, &c. When the day of iudgement or death shall come, all hands shall be faint, because no worke shall be found worthy of the iustice of God, and no man liuing shall be iustified in his sight. Where he plainly teacheth, not onely as touching comparison to God, but as touching that a iust man in himself ought to be, that no man liuing, no [Page 594] not so much as in any one worke shall be iustified in Gods sight, but his hands, that is, all his workes shall faile if God enter into iudgement with him. The next that he citeth is Arnobius, who for one part of his exposition of these words, saith, that man is not to be found righteous if he be compared to God; thatArno. in Psal. 142. Omnis pulchritudo te praesēte deformis est: omnis fortitudo infirma; omnes diuitiae mendicitas omnis humaena iustitia iniustitia. all beauty in Gods presence is but deformity, all strength but weakenesse, all riches but beggerie, all righteousnesse but vnrighteousnesse. But hauing set downe this because this could not sufficiently expresse the meaning of the Prophet, he addeth further:Jbid. Et vt vicinā tuae iustinae iustitiam humanam exquirere desinas quaeso, quoniā persecutus est inimicus animā meā, &c. Tanta me obscuritate suae circū dedi [...] fraudis vt [...]ortuū me apud Deū credens, putarē me nullum [...]uperationis apud iustitiā tuā auditū inuenire: id [...]o anxiatus est in me spiritus meus And I pray thee that thou wilt cease to search out the righteousnesse that concerneth man, that should be neighbour to thy righteousnesse, because the enemie hath persecuted my soule, and compassed me about with such darknesse of his deceipt, as that beleeuing my selfe to be dead with God, I thought I should finde no hearing with thy righteousnesse for my recouerie: therefore is my spirit troubled within me. It is plaine then by the iudgement of Arnobius, that not onely in comparison of God, but euen by that righteousnesse that belongeth vnto man, no man liuing shall be found iust before the iudgement seat of God. Euthymius whom he alledgeth next, is as plaine to the same purpose. For although with Arnobius he on the one side denie iustification in comparison of God, in comparison of whom, saith he, not onely man, but neither the Angels themselues are iust, because it is he onely that is not capable of sinne, yet not contented herewi [...]h, he on the other side expoundeth the praier of the Prophet in this sort;Euthym. in Psal. 142. Id est, non districtè mecū agas in futuro: ad te fugio & non sum dignus vocari filius tuus, nec ego tecum intr [...]re in iudicium volo, nec constituo iustitiam meam quòd non iustificab [...]tur hic in carne vbi nemo hic viuen [...] p [...]enò mundus est. Enter not into iudgement, &c. that is, deale not strictly with me in the time to come: I flie vnto thee, and am not worthy to be called thy sonne, neither will I enter into iudgement with thee, neither do I set vp mine owne righteousnesse, because it shall not be iustified here in the flesh, where no man liuing is perfectly cleane. He further addeth reasons of the vsing of this praier,Ibidem. Quotidiè peccamus: Pauca bona facimus in comparatione comm [...]ssionis & omissionis: minima bona faci [...] in comparatione beneficiorum Dei. because we daily sinne; because we do few good deedes in comparison of that that we commit (in euill) and omit (in good): because we doe little good in comparison of the benefites of God. Now then what is become of Maister Bishops righteousnesse, so perfect as that it faileth not in anie dutie which wee are bound to performe; yea, such as by which we merit euerlasting life? Compare the one with the other, gentle Reader, and thou shalt see how well they agree. [Page 595] S. Austine in the place alledged, hath nothing at all concerning this text, nothing at all concerning the righteousnesse of man. Only he saith of the Angels, thatAugust. cont. Priscill. & Origen. ad Oros. cap. 10. Cuius participatione iusti sūt, eius cōparatione nec iusti sunt. although by participation of God they be iust, yet in comparison of God they be not iust. Now if the Prophets words be to be taken as M. Bishop construeth them, then this praier must be the praier of Angels as well as of men, because by the testimonie of Austine, which Euthymius also obserueth, the very Angels themselues are not iust in comparison of God. Now we do not any where finde that it belongeth to the Angels to pray in this sort, and therefore it must be so vnderstood as is proper vnto men. And that vnderstanding thereof, the same S. Austine declareth to vs writing vpon that Psalme:Jdem. in Psal. 142. Quantumlibet rectus mihi videor, producis tu de thesauro tuo regulam; coaptas me ad eam & prauus inuen [...]or. Howsoeuer I seeme to my selfe right and straight, yet thou bringest a rule out of thy treasurie; thou laiest me to it, and I am found faulty. The words therefore import that not only by comparison, but by rule of righteousnesse which God hath prescribed to man, euery man liuing is found failing of righteousnesse in the sight of God, euen as elsewhere he saith:Idē de peccat. mer. & remiss. li. 2. ca. 10. Quātū ad integerrimam regulā veritatis eius pertinet, non iustificabitur, &c. According to the most entire rule of his truth, no man liuing shall be iustified in his sight. Which he declareth yet more plainly in his foresaid exposition vpon the Psalme, when he teacheth that by the same defaults for which we pray daily vnto God, forgiue vs our trespasses, it commeth to passe that no man liuing shall be iustified in Gods sight,Idē In Psal. 142. Dicant Apostoli, dicant, Dimitte nobis, &c. Et cùm eis dictum fuerit, Quare hoc dicitu? quae sunt debita vestra? respondeant, Quoniam nō iustificabitur, &c. Let the Apostles themselues say, let them say, forgiue vs our trespasses. And when it shall be said vnto them, why do ye say thus? What are your trespasses? let them answer, Because no man liuing shall be iustified in thy sight. Gregories minde is sufficiently plaine by that that hath bene said before. For what though he say that the righteousnesse of men & Angels is nothing in comparison of God? Doth that import that there is nothing else meant by the Prophet, when he praieth vnto God not to enter into iudgement with him? By this then we may see the lewd consciences of these men in citing the authorities of the auncient Fathers. He hath brought vs here a great company of their names for him, when there is not one of them but speaketh expresly against him, and the most of them in the selfe same places whence he alledgeth them. But he telleth vs further, that his exposition is taken out of Iob, from whom he alledgeth these words;Iob. 9.2. I know truly it is euen so, that no man compared to God shall be iustified. In which sort it is true, that we also read [Page 596] the words in some of our translations, but it is true also that the word of comparison is not at all found in the Hebrew text. Therefore Arias Montanus translateth it ad verbum thus:Quid iustificabit se homo cū Deo? Why will a man iustifie himselfe with God? Pagnine thus;Quomodo instificabit se homo cum Deo? How will a man iustifie himselfe with God? S. Austine also readeth to the same effect,Aug. de pece. mer. & remiss. li. 2. ca. 10. Quē admodum iustus erit homo ante Deum? How shall a man be iust before God? Therefore these words of Iob haue nothing at all, whereupon that exposition of his may haue any ground, and though Iob had said, that man in comparison of God is not iust or cannot be iustified, yet it followeth not that that therefore should be all that Dauid meant in saying, that no man liuing shall be iustified in Gods sight. And that appeareth by S. Austine in the place now alledged, where bringing in the words of Iob; Iob. 20. If I shall call my selfe iust, my mouth shall speake wickedly; he expoundeth the same thus:August. ibid. Si me iustum dixero contra iudicium eius vbi perfecta illa iustitiae regula me [...]onmucit iniustum, profectò impie loquetur [...] me [...]. If I shall call my selfe iust against his iudgement where the perfect rule of righteousnesse prooueth me to be vniust, surely my mouth shall speake wickedly, and in respect hereof saith, that those words were vsed by Dauid: Enter not into iudgement, &c. For this cause then are we taught so to pray, because the perfect rule of righteousnesse prooueth vs to be vniust if God enter into iudgement with vs. By this place therefore we wholy ouerthrow the righteousnesse of man, and do firmely prooue, that no man liuing either generally in the course of his life, or in any particular act or acts can be iustified before God, if God call him to the trial of the precise & perfect rule of righteousnesse and truth. Yea, if no man can be found iust in the sight of God, then it must necessarily follow, that no act of man can be found iust, because the act must needes be according to the condition and quality of the man, so that vnlesse a man be fully and perfectly iust, no act fully and perfectly iust can proceede from him, but must needes haue a staine of that sinne which bereaueth him of the title of a iust man.
48. W. BISHOP.
One other ordinarie hackney of theirs, is that out of the Prophet. All our righteousnesse is as a menstruous or defiled cloath.Esay. [...]4. The which I haue alreadie rid to death in the beginning of the question of iustification, where it was alledged: The answer is briefly, that the Prophet praying for the sinnes of the people, speaketh in the person of [Page 597] the sinfull; such as the common sort of them were, who had more sinnes then good workes, and so their righteousnesse was like vnto a spotted and stayned cloath. Now this disprooueth not, but that their good workes although but few, yet were free from all spots of iniquitie: it onely prooueth, that with their few good, they had a great number of euill, which defiled their righteousnesse, and made it like a stained cloath.
R. ABBOT.
He hath so rid this hackney of ours, as that he hath pitifully galled himselfe in the riding of him. We do imagine that by that time he hath better aduised of this whole matter, he will thinke that some body did ride him when first he tooke this businesse in hand. We may here see the blinde insolencie of a presumptuous vaine man, who hauing said nothing but what is iustly to be derided and scorned, yet taketh vpon him as if he had giuen vs some very admirable and learned answer. Yea, in this very place he bableth as if his wits were to seeke, crossing and thwarting that in one line which he vttereth in another. He telleth vs that the words of Esay were spoken in the person of the sinfull, who had more sinnes then good workes, and so their righteousnesse was like vnto a spotted and stained cloath: and yet by and by he saith, that their good workes though but few, were free from all spots of iniquitie. Againe as vncertaine where to stand, he telleth vs, that their euill works defiled their righteousnesse, and made it like a stained cloath. If their good works were free from all spots of iniquity, how did their euil works defile them, and make them like a stained cloath? Or if their euill workes did defile their good, and make them like a stained cloath, how were they free from all spots of iniquitie? Againe, we would demaund of him, how sinfull, or as he hath called them before, euill and wicked men should do good workes free from all spots of iniquitie, seeing our Sauiour so plainly saith, thatMat. 7.18. Luk. 6.43. an euill tree cannot bring forth good fruite, no more then we can gather grapes of thornes or figges of thistles. S. Paul telleth vs, thatTit. 2.15. to them that are vncleane nothing is pure, their mindes and consciences being defiled. Which made S. Bernard to say, thatBern. in Cant. Ser. 71. Si fuerit n [...]us in conscientia, nec quod ex ea prodieri [...] carebit naeuo. if there be a blemish or blot in the conscience, nothing that commeth from it shall be without a blot. How then can it stand good which M. Bishop saith, that sinfull and [Page 598] wicked men do good workes which are free from all spots of iniquitie? But thus he turneth all vpside downe, and according to the present occasion, letteth goe whatsoeuer commeth next to hand, without feare or wit. But vpon the place I neede not to stand. I referre the Reader to that that hath beneSe [...]t. 3. before said thereof, where it hath bene shewed, that the Prophet by way of prophecie endited the praier in the name of the faithfull that were to liue in the desolations of Ierusalem and the Temple; that the praier of the Prophet Daniel, at that time fully expresseth the effect of the same praier of Esay: and therefore that it is the confession of the faithfull & godly, that their righteousnesse is as a stained cloth, and that the auncient Fathers haue vsed the place for proofe thereof.
49 W. BISHOP.
3. There is not a man who doth not sinne: And blessed is the man whose sinnes be not imputed to him; and such like. I answer that the best men sinne venially, and are happy when those their sinnes be pardoned: but all this is cleane besides this question, where it is onely enquired, whether the good workes that the iust do, be free from sinne, and not whether they at other times do sinne, at the least venially. This is all which M. Perkins here and there obiecteth against this matter: but because some others do alledge also some darke places out of the Fathers, I thinke it not amisse to solue them here together.
S. Cyprian saith: That the besieged minde of man, can hardly resist all assaults of the enemie: for when couetousnesse is ouerthrowne, vp starts lechery, and so forth.
Answer. All this is true, that the life of man is a perpetuall warfare: yet man assisted with the grace of God, may performe it most valiantly, and neuer take any mortall wound of the enemies: although through his owne frailty he may be somtimes foiled.
Dial. 1. cap. Pelag.S. Hierome affirmeth: That then we are iust when we confesse our selues to be sinners.
Answer. That all iust men confesse themselues to sinne venially: but neither of these places come neare the point in question, that not one good deede of the iust man, is without some spot or staine of sinne.
Epict. 29.S. Austine hath these words: Most perfect charity which cannot be encreased, is to be found in no man in this life: and as long as it [Page 599] may be increased, that which is lesse then it ought to be, is faulty, of which fault it proceedeth, that there is no man who doth good, and doth not sinne. All this we graunt to be true: that no man hath so perfect charity in this life, but that sometimes he doth lesse then he ought to do: and consequently doth not so well, but that now and then he sinneth at the least venially, and that therefore the said holy Doctor had iust cause to say: Woe be to the laudable life of a man,Lib. 9. confess. cap. 13. if it be examined without mercy. All which notwithstanding iust men may out of that charity which they haue in this life do many good workes, which are pure from all sinne as hath bene proued. They alledge yet another place out of S. Austine: Lib. 3. con. duas Epist. Pelag. cap. 7. That belongeth vnto the perfection of a iust man, to know in truth his imperfection, & in humility to confesse it. True: that is as he teacheth else-where. First, that the perfection of this life is imperfection, being compared with the perfection of the life to come. Againe, that the most perfect in this life, hath many imperfections, both of wit and will, and thereby many light faults.
Now come we vnto S. Gregory our blessed Apostle, out of whose sweet words ill vnderstood, they seeme to haue sucked this their poison. He saith: The holy man Iob, Lib. 9. moral. cap. 1. because he did see all the merit of our vertue to be vice, if it be straightly examined of the inward Iudge, doth rightly adde, if I will contend with him, I cannot answer him one for a thousand.
I answer, that by our vertue in that place, is to be vnderstood, that vertue which we haue of our owne strength, without the aide of Gods grace; which we acknowledge to be commonly infected with some vice: that S. Gregory so tooke it, appeares by the words, both going before and following: before he writeth thus: A man not compared to God, receiued iustice: but compared vnto him, he leeseth it. For whosoeuer compareth himselfe vnto the author of all good, leeseth that good which he had receiued: for he that doth attribute the good vnto himselfe, doth fight against God with his owne gifts: And after thus: To contend with God, is not to giue to God the glory of his vertue, but to take it to himselfe. And so all the merit of this our vertue, which commeth not of God, but is attributed vnto our selfe, as proceeding onely from our selues, is the very vice of pride, and cannot be preiudiciall vnto true good workes, all which we acknowledge to proceede principally from the grace of God dwelling in vs. He saith further with S. Augustine, that in this life we cannot attaine vnto perfect [Page 600] purity, such as shall be in heauen, reade the beginning of his first and second booke of Morals, and there you shall finde him commending Iob to the skies, as a good and holy man, by his temptations not foiled, but much aduaunced in vertue.
R. ABBOT.
These arguments the most of them are foisted in of his owne head, there being none of ours that alledgeth them to that purpose to which he produceth them. But thus because he would be taken for a valiant warriour, he maketh himselfe a man of straw to fight with, and with all his might bestirreth himselfe against a shadow. But the worth of his answers is first to be seene in that which he saith to the words of the Apostle;Psal. 32.2. Blessed is he to whom the Lord imputeth not sinne. The best men sinne venially, saith he, and are happy when those their sinnes be pardoned. Now the Apostle expoundeth the forgiuenesse, or not imputing of sinne there spoken of, to be the imputation of righteousnesse. But the forgiuenesse of their veniall sinnes, is not the imputation of righteousnesse, because without any forgiuenesse of veniall sinnes, a man continueth righteous and iust, as wherein there is no breach of iustice and righteousnesse, and notwithstanding the same a man is iust in the sight of God, as out of the Romish doctrine was shewed in the section last sauing one. Therefore forgiuenesse of sinnes spoken of in that place, cannot be vnderstood of veniall sinnes. Againe, he maintaineth in the question of Satisfaction, that forgiuenesse of sinnes taketh not away the temporall punishment of sinne. How then is a man happie, when those veniall sinnes be pardoned, if for want of satisfaction he remaine still to pay deare for them, as he speaketh in his Epistle, in Purgatory fire?
He bringeth in a place of Cyprian, as idlely as he did the former texts. To that which he saith we answer him, that it is by the grace of Christ through the forgiuenesse of sins, that the wounds which the faithfull man receiueth, be not mortall. His foiles and wounds of themselues are such, as that he must say with Dauid: Psal. 130.3. If thou, O Lord, be extreame to marke iniquities, who can stand? Aug. in Psal. 129. Vidit propè totā vitā humanā circūlatrari peccatis suit, accusari omnes cō scientias cogitationibus suis; non inueniri castum cor praesumens de iustitia sua. Si ergo cor castū non potest inuenirs, quod praesumat de sua iustitia prasumat omnium cor de miserecordia Dei, & dicat, si, &c. He saw, saith S. Austine, the whole life of man in a manner to be barked at on euery side with his sinnes; all consciences to be accused by their owne thoughts; [Page 601] that there is not a cleane heart found, that can presume of it owne righteousnesse; If then ther [...] cannot be found a cleane heart, which may presume of it owne righteousnesse, let the hearts of all presume vpon the mercy of God, and say, If thou markest iniquities, O Lord, who shall abide it? Let Maister Bishop marke it well, that in this warfare there is no heart cleane that can presume of it owne righteousnesse, and that we haue nothing to rest vpon, but onely Gods mercy.
To the place of Hierome, he saith, that all iust men confesse themselues to sinne venially. But iust men confesse their sinnes in the same meaning as they say, Forgiue vs our trespasses. They say, Forgiue vs our trespasses, as S. Austin saith the Apostles did, as we heard before, for those sinnes for which they say also, Enter not into iudgement with thy seruants, for in thy sight no man liuing shall be iustified. They confesse therefore such sinnes as hinder them from being iustified in the sight of God, which M. Bishop saith his veniall sinnes do not. The repeating of the whole sentence of Hierome, is a sufficient answer to him, the latter part whereof he concealeth, because it taketh away his glose vpon the former:Hieron cont. Pelag li. 1. Tunc iusti [...]umus quā do nos peccatores fatemur et iustitia nostra non ex proprio merito, sed ex Dei consistit miserecordia. Then are we iust when we cō fesse our selues to be sinners, and our righteousnesse standeth not vpon our owne merit, but vpon the mercy of God. If our righteousnesse consist in the acknowledgement of our sinnes, and in the mercy of God, pardoning and forgiuing the same, then is there in vs no such perfection as M. Bishop speaketh of, neither can any worke come from vs, that can haue the title of absolute and perfect righteousnesse before God. And this will be yet more by that that in the next place is alledged out of Saint Austine, who noting diuers degrees of charity, saith thatAug. epist. 29. Plenissima charitas qua iā augeri non potest quamdiu hìc homo vinit est in nemine. Quādi [...] autem augeri potest, profectò quicquid minus est quàm [...]ebet ex vitio est. the most perfect charity no further to be increased, is in no man so long as he liueth here, and so long as it may be increased, that that is lesse then it ought to be, is by reason of a corruption or default. Now hereto Saint Austine addeth, not onely that which Maister Bishop mentioneth, though he mention it also by halfe;Ex quo vitio [...] est iustu [...], &c. By reason of which Vitij nomen maximè solet esse corruptio. Aug. de li. a [...]i [...]. lib 3. cap. 14. corruption, there is not a man iust vpon earth, which doth good and sinneth not, but also another sentence which he concealeth,Ex quo vitio non iustifica [...] tur, &c. By reason of which corruption, no man liuing shall be iustified in the sight of God. Now if by reason of a corruptiō remaining in vs, there be such an imperfection of charity, which is the substance of inherent iustice, as that no man liuing shall be iustified [Page 602] in Gods sight, then can no good worke proceede from vs, which can be said to be perfectly and entierly go [...]d. For from an vnperfect cause, cannot come a perfect effect.Bern in Cant. ser. 71. Si radix in vitio & ramus. If the roote be faulty, the braunch also must be so. A lame legge cannot yeeld an vpright and stedfast gate. Therefore needes must there be a lamenesse and blemish in all the good workes that issue from vs. For charity is not such as it ought to be, till we loue the Lord our God with all our soule. ButAug. de perfect. iustit. Cum est aliquid concupiscentiae carnalis, &c. nō omnimodò ex tota anima diligitur Deus. so long as there is any carnall concupiscence, God is not loued with all the soule. And so long as we liue here, there is carnall concupiscence against the law of the minde. Therefore so long as we liue here, charity is neuer perfect in vs as it ought to be, neither can any perfect good worke be effected by vs. M. Bishop minceth and qualifieth the matter, that no man hath so perfect charity, but that sometimes he doth lesse then he ought to do. But the argument prooueth, that charity is alwaies vnperfect in this life, and therefore not sometimes onely, but alwaies a man doth lesse then he ought to do. There is alwaies a blot that staineth our charity,Hilar. apud August. cont. Julian. lib. 2. Supra sect. 44. by reason whereof we haue nothing in vs cleane, nothing innocent, as before was cited out of Hilary; and therefore it can yeeld no workes that are free from blot and staine. But the Reader is here to note the constancie of this man, who affirmeth here, that no man hath so perfect charity in this life, but that sometimes he doth lesse then he ought to do, whereas before he hath told vs of a righteousnesse so perfect in this life, as thatSect. 45. it faileth not in any duty which we are bound to performe. Thus giddily he runneth to and fro, being vncertaine what to say, and neuer knowing where he may stand sure. Now here he saith, that the other saying of Austine, Woe to the laudable life of man, if it be examined without mercy, is spoken in respect of veniall sinnes, wheras Austine vseth the words in respect of hell fire, which they say is not incident to their veniall sinnes. For hauing professed that he he durst not say, that after baptisme no word went out of his mothers mouth against Gods commaundement, and that Christ saith, that if a man say to his brother, foole, he is guilty of hell fire, he addeth these words;Aug. Confess. lib. 9. cap. 13. Vae etiam laudabili vitae hominum si remota misericordia discutias eam. And woe euen to the commendable life of man, if thou set aside mercy in the examining (or sifting) of it. To which purpose he saith also in another place;Idem. In Psal. 42. Quicun (que) hic vi [...] quantumlibet iustè viuat, vae illi si cū illa in iudicium intrauerit Deus. Whosoeuer liueth here, howsoeuer iustly he liue, woe vnto him, if God enter into iudgement with him. In which sort Arnobius also saith,Arno. in Psal. 135. Vae nebis si quod debemus exegerit; vae nobis si quod debet reddiderit. Woe vnto vs if he require what we owe to him; [Page 603] woe vnto vs if he pay what he oweth to vs. These woes are not vttered in respect of Purgatory or any temporall affliction, but in respect of the issue of that finall dreadfull iudgement, the sentence whereof shall stand for euer. Now if they haue learned by the word of God to denounce this woe, then woe to M. Bishop, that to the contrary defendeth a righteousnesse so perfect in this life, as that his righteous manSect. 4. needeth not greatly to feare the rigorous sentence of a iust Iudge, as who faileth not in any duty that he is bound to performe; who can keepe himselfe from all but veniall sinnes, which are easily forgiuenRhem. Testam. Annot. Mat. 10.12. Sext. Proaema [...]: glossa. by the Bishops blessing, by holy water, by knocking the brest, by saying a Pater noster, by extreame vnction, and some other such deuotions madly deuised to that end. As touching the other place of Austine, it hath bene already shewed, that our righteousnesse in this life is vnperfect, not onely by comparison, but simply in it selfe, and according to that that here is required of vs, The imperfections of wit and will, which M. Bishop speaketh of, are so great and so many, as that if he did but with a feeling heart and conscience consider the same, he would finde that there is small cause in the most perfect of this life, to pleade for that perfection that he maintaineth. But being a man of a frosen and dead heart, and neither knowing others nor himselfe, by the name of many light faults he passeth ouer those things which make the most righteous and iust to groane vnder the burden of them, and to say with Dauid, Psal. 38.4. Mine iniquities are gone ouer my head, and are like a sore burden, too heauie for me to beare: Psal. 40.12. My sinnes haue taken such hold vpon me, that I am not able to looke vp, they are moe in number then the haires of my head, and my heart hath failed me. Tush saith M. Bishop, what neede all this adoe? all these are but light and veniall faults; but hereby we conceiue that neither his will nor his wit haue indeede that perfection, that it were fit they should haue. His answer to the words of Gregory is ridiculous and childish. Gregorie forsooth by our vertue meaneth the vertue that we haue of our owne strength, when as Gregorie teacheth, that we haue no vertue of our owne strength, but onely by the gift of God.Greg. Moral. lib. 24. cap. 5. Iustitia nostra dicitur non quae ex nostro nostra est, sed quae diuina largitate fit nostra. It is called our righteousnesse, saith he in another place, not which is ours of our owne, but which by the gift of God becommeth ours. According to this meaning, he saith, thatIbid. li. 9 ca. 1. Sanctus vir quia omne virtu [...]is nostrae meritum vitium esse c [...]nspexit, si ab interno arbitro districté iudicetur, rectè subiungit. si voluero, &c. the holy man Iob, because he saw all the merit of our vertue to be vice if it be strictly iudged by the internall Iudge, did rightly adde, If I [Page 604] will contend with him, I shall not be able to answer him one for a thousand. He applieth his speech to Iobs righteousnesse, which he had no cause to imagine, that Iob alledged as attained vnto by his own strength. And shall we be so mad, as to thinke that if Iob had bene perfect by a righteousnesse receiued by the gift of God, he would say he could not therefore answer God, because he saw all the merit of the vertue that he had by his owne strength to be but vice? It is strange to see that these men should be so blinde, as not to see the grosse absurdity of these shifts. Gregory spake to the instruction of his hearers, whom surely he thought not to be worse then the Pharisee, but knew that they attributed their vertue and righteousnesse to the gift of God; and of that righteousnesse which they confessed to be Gods good gift, teacheth them to acknowledge, that through our weaknesse and frailty, it becommeth defectiue and faulty, if God call it to precise and strict examination & iudgement. Euen as elsewhere he saith againe;Ibid cap. 11. Omnis humana iustitia iniustitia esse c [...]nuincitur, si districtè iudicetur. Prece ergò post iustitiā ind [...]get, vt quae succumbere discussa poterat ipsa iudicis pietate conualescat. All the righteousnesse of man is conuicted to be vnrighteousnesse, if it be strictly iudged: it needeth therefore praier after righteousnesse, that that which being sifted might quaile, by the meere piety of the Iudge may go for good. Where I hope that M. Bishop, though he will say much, yet will not say, that Gregory meant that we should pray, that the righteousnesse which we do of our owne strength, by the piety and clemencie of the Iudge may stand for good. And if he dare not so say, then it followeth that of that righteousnesse, which in this life we attaine to by the gift of God. Gregory saith, that it is found to be defectiue, and to come short of perfect righteousnesse, and thereby to be vnrighteousnesse, if seuere and strict account be taken of it; which more peremptorily he affirmeth elsewhere, saying:Ibid. ca. 18. Si remota pietate discutimur, opus nostrum paena dignū est quod remunerari praemijs praestolamur, &c. Restat vt postquā bonū opus agitur lachrymae expiationis exqu [...]rātur quatenus ad aeterna praemia meritum recti operis subuebat humilitas postulationis. If we be iudged without mercy, our worke is worthy to be punished, which we expect to haue rewarded. Therefore the teares of expiation, as he speaketh, are required, that humble praier may lift vp the merit of our good worke, to the obtaining of eternall reward. So that howsoeuer he commend Iob, as well he might, sure I am that both Iob and he condemne M. Bishop, as a proud Pharisee, maintaining the righteousnesse of man against the righteousnesse of God, to the impeaching of the glory of God. Which he doth also by his quillet of attributing good workes principally to the grace of God, not wholy but principally, that so he may reserue some place at least to the free will of man, because [Page 605] he cannot endure that no part of glory should redound to man. To be short, it appeareth both by that that is said here, and that that hath beneSect. 4.44 45. before alledged, that Gregory doth not bereaue man only of that perfection that shall be in heauen, but also of that that is required, & by duty ought to be in him here vpon the earth.
50. W. BISHOP.
Now before I depart from this large question of iustification, I will handle yet one other question, which commonly ariseth about it: it is, Whether Faith may be without Charity.
I prooue that it may so be: first out of these words of our Sauiour: Manie shall say vnto me in that day, Lord, Lord, Math. 7. haue we not prophecied in thy name, haue we not cast out diuels, haue we not done many miracles? to whom I wil confesse, that I neuer knew you, depart from me all yee that worke iniquity. That these men beleeued in Christ, and perswaded themselues assuredly to be of the elect, appeareth by their confident calling of him, Lord, Lord, and the rest that followeth: yet Christ declareth manifestly that they wanted charity, in saying that they were workers of iniquity.
2. When the King went to see his guests, Math. 22. He found there a man not attired in his wedding garment, and therfore commanded him to be cast into vtter darknesse. This man had faith, or else he had not bene admitted vnto that table which signifieth the Sacraments: yet wanted charity, which to be the wedding garment, besides the euidence of the text is also proued, where in expresse termes, Apoc. 1 [...]. The garments of Christs Spouse is declared to be the righteousnesse and good works of the Saints. And that with great reason: for as S. Paul teacheth: 1. Cor. 13: Faith shall not remaine after this life: With what instrument then (trow you) will the Protestants lay hold on Christs righteousnesse?
That charity is that wedding garment, S. Hierome vpon the same place doth witnesse, saying: That it is the fulfilling of our Lords commandements. And S. Gregory doth in expresse words define it. H [...]m. [...]8. in Euang. Can. [...]2 in Mat. Tract [...]m Ma [...] Math. 25. What (saith he) must we vnderstand by the wedding garment but charity: So do S. Hilary, and Origen: and S. Chrysostome vpon that place.
3. The like argument is made of the foolish Virgins, who were part of the Kingdome of God, and therefore had faith, which is the gate and entrance into the seruice of God. Yea in the house of God, they aspired vnto more then ordinarie perfection, hauing professed Ʋirginitie, [Page 606] yet either caried away with vaine glorie, as S. Gregory takes it, or not giuing themselues to the workes of mercy, spirituall and corporall, as S. Chrysostome expounds it: briefly not continuing in their former charitie (for faith once had, cannot after the Protestants doctrine be lost) were shut out of the kingdome of heauen, albeit they presumed strongly on the assurance of their saluation, as is apparent by their confident demaunding to be let in: for they said, Lord, Lord, open vnto vs.
Iohn. 12.4. Many of the Princes beleeued in Christ, but did not confesse him: for they loued more the glory of men, then the glory of God. What can be more euident, then that these men had faith? when the holy Ghost saith expresly, that they beleeued in Christ, which is the onely act of faith: and yet were destitute of charitie, which preferreth the glorie and seruice of God, before all things in this world.
R. ABBOT.
That there may be faith without charitie we make no question, but the question is of that faith whereby we are iustified, or wherin standeth our iustification before God. It is to be knowne, that faith is of diuers sorts: there is a faith which is calledTit. 1.1. the faith of the elect, as being peculiar vnto them, and for which men are calledEphe. 1.1. faithfull: and there is a faith by which theIam. 2.19. diuels also are said to beleeue, and yet are not to be called faithfull. There is a faith whereby weIbid. beleeue that there is one God: and there is another faith, wherebyIohn. 14.1. we beleeue in God. There is a faith whereby Simon Magus Act 8.13.21. beleeued, whose heart was not right in the sight of God, and there is aAct. 15.9. faith whereby God purifieth the heart. There is aIam 2 20. dead faith, and there is aGal. 2.20. faith whereby we liue, and Christ liueth in vs. There is a1 Tim. 1.5. faith vnfained, and thereby we vnderstand, that there is also a fained faith. There is a faith that consiste [...]h inOecumen in Iac. ca. 2. De simplici assensu fidē dicere solemus, &c. Rursum cō secutionem ex affectu procedē tem cum firmo assensu nomine fidei vocamus. bare assent of the vnderstanding, and there is a faith that implyeth the affection of the heart and will. There is a faith wherebyIohn 3.15. he which beleeueth shall neuer perish: and there is a faith whereby some [...]k. 8.13. beleeue for a time, and in time of temptation go away. There is a faith which the world2. Tim. 2.18. destroyeth, and there is1. Iohn. 5.4. a faith which is our victorie, whereby we ouercome the world. According to these differences, there isIam. 2.14 a faith without workes, and there isGal. 5.6. a faith which worketh by loue. We affirme then of the faith of the elect, whereby we [Page 607] beleeue in God, to which the promise of iustification and eternall life is made, that it is a faith which cannot be separated from charity and good workes, but wheresoeuer it is, there is infallibly ioined with it the loue of God, bringing forthPhil. 1.11. the fruites of righteousnesse which are by Iesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God. Now as touching this faith M. Bishops arguments must be vnderstood, or else they are nothing against vs, and being so vnderstood, a man would wonder that a wise man should shew so much folly, to bring arguments so impertinent and friuolous, as he hath done. The first is taken from the words of reprobate hypocrites, whoMat. 7.22. at that day shall say vnto Christ, Lord, Lord, haue we not prophecied in thy name, &c. to whom he shall professe, saying, I neuer knew you, depart from me ye workers of iniquity. They shall say, Lord, Lord; therefore they beleeued in Christ, and were perswaded assuredly that they were of the elect; the conclusion as well agreeing to the antecedent, as a goose feather to a foxes taile. It is to be noted, that faith is grounded vpon the word of God, and the thing which it beleeueth, is that that God hath said. Thus the Apostle telleth vs, that,Rom. 10.17. faith is by hearing, and hearing by the word of God; and therefore calleth the word of GodVer. 8. the word of faith, because that is the obiect and matter of faith. Whatsoeuer we conceiue towards God beside the word of God, it is opinion, imagination, presumption, but faith it is not. Now the word of God denounceth, thatPsal. 11.6. the soule of the Lord hateth them that loue iniquitie; thatPsal. 92 9. all the workers of iniquity shall be destroied, that Christ shall say to them at the last day, Depart from me ye workers of iniquitie. If then there be no faith but by the word of God, and the word of God denounce destruction to the workers of iniquity, how can it be said that the workers of iniquitie haue faith to perswade themselues assuredly, that they are of the elect? S. Austine saith,Aug. de verb. Dom. ser. Qui fidem h [...]bet sine spe & dilectione Christū esse credit, non in Christum credit. He who hath faith without hope and charity, beleeueth that Christ is, but he beleeueth not in Christ. ForCyprian. de simplic. praelat. Credere se in Christum quomodo dicit qui non facit quod Christus facere praecepit? how doth he say that he beleeueth in Christ, saith Cyprian, who doth not what Christ hath commanded vs to do? How then doth M. Bishop say, that these beleeue in Christ, in whom he confesseth there is no charity, no loue to Christ to do those things which he commandeth? They of whom Christ speaketh as the words very plainly import, are heretikes, schismatikes, false Apostles, false teachers, yea and such also, as though they preach the truth of Christ, yet preach it not truly & [Page 608] sincerely, butPhil. 1.15.18. of enuie and strife, and vnder a pretence, who vnder the name of ChristGap. 2.21. seeke their owne, and not that that is Christs, making the word of God to serue them, & themselues not seruing it; vsing the Gospell for their purpose, when they haue no true purpose for the Gospel:Psal. 50.16.17 taking the testament (of Christ) in their mouthes, but hating to be reformed thereby; Tit. 1.16. professing to know God when by their deeds they deny him. To the name of Christ euen in the mouthes of such wicked men, God somtimes doth that honour, as that miracles are done thereby, diuels are cast out, & great effects are wrought, wherin they much glory, & in respect thereof assume much vnto themselues. These in the end, not of faith, but for feare, whē they shal see that which they beleeued not, thatPhil. 3.19. damnation is their end, shall in perplexity of mind cry vnto Christ, whō before they regarded not, and therefore by him now shall be reiected. Of such, though professing to know God, and prophecying in the name of Christ, yet the Apostle saith as the vulgar Latine translateth, and as the word well beareth, that they areTit. 1 16. vnbeleeuers, yea as Thomas Aquinas expoundeth it,Thom. Aquin. in Tit. 1. lect. 4. Non apti ad credendum. not fit to beleeue. And if they be vnbeleeuers, why doth M. Bishop say they haue faith? or if they haue faith, why doth the Apostle say that they are vnbeleeuers? Surely they that beleeue destruction to be the end of the works of iniquity, will be carefull to auoid the same. Cyprian truly saith:Cyprian. de simplic. praelat. Metueret conscientiae nostra si crederet; quia non credit omnino nce metu [...]t: si autem crederet & caueret. Si caueret, euaderet. Our conscience would be afraid if it did beleeue: because it beleeueth not, therefore it feareth not. If it did beleeue, it would take heede, and if it did take, it should auoide or escape, namely the punishments to come, whereof he speaketh in that place. The cause why menHeb. 4.2. profit not by the word of God, is because it is not mingled with faith in those that heare it. Where there is faith, men profit by it, and it is the2. Cor. 2.16. sauour of life vnto life; but where faith is wanting, it commeth to passe which Ambrose saith:Ambros in. 1. Thess. ca. 4. Trā seunt hinc in gehennam vt ediscant verum esse quod credere noluerunt. They go from hence to hell, that there they may learne that that is true which here they would not beleeue. Thus it commeth to passe with them of whom M. Bishop here speaketh, who either preach their owne deuices vnder the name of Christ, or mingle not that with faith in themselues, which they preach to be beleeued of other men. There is not so much as one word in the text whence he should conclude, that euer they were endued with true faith.
The next of his arguments is taken from the man that came to the wedding,Math. 22.11. not hauing on a wedding garment. This argument he [Page 609] handleth very learnedly. First, he saith, that this man had faith; which because he knew we would denie, therefore for proofe thereof, he addeth, that else he had not bene admitted to the table which signifieth the sacraments. But this needeth as much proofe as all the rest, nay it cannot be prooued at all. For men are admitted to the sacraments by men, and they are admitted for profession of faith, when they that admit them cannot tell whether they haue faith or not. For as Hilary saith,Hilar. in Mat. ca. 22. In fallendis hominibus plurimum artis solet habere simulatio. Et paulò post. Humana simplicitas difficilè fraudulentiam simulatae mentis intelligit. hypocrisie is wont to vse much art to deceiue men, and humane simplicity hardly perceiueth the fraud of a dissembling mind. Many pretend that which is not in them, and make profession of faith with the mouth, when in the heart they haue no faith at all.Aug. in Psal. 7. Postquam in tanto culmine nomen coepit esse Christianū, creuit hypocrisis; id est, simulatio eorum qui nomine Christiano malunt hominibus placere quàm Deo. Since the name of Christianity hath begun to be in so high regard, the hypocrisie of men hath increased; that is, the dissembling of them who by bearing the name of Christians, regard more to please men then God. Now sith all these are admitted to the sacraments, and yet2. Thess. 3.2. Tho. Aqui. ibid. Licet videantur habere eam, non tamen habent veram. all haue not faith, it followeth not, that because men are admitted to the sacraments, therefore they haue faith; nay, it is a very ridiculous and childish proofe. Wherefore as it is said, that this man wanted charity, so we say that he wanted also faith, and so M. Bishop is become as wise a man as he was before. Let him then expound the wedding garment to be charity, it shall hurt vs nothing. For we will answer him that he wanted the wedding garment of charity, because he wanted faith: for had he had true faith, he should also haue had loue, becauseGal. 5.6. faith worketh by loue. But the wedding garment is as well faith as loue. It is indeed Iesus Christ himselfe, of whom the Apostle saith;Rom. 13.14. Put ye on the Lord Iesus Christ; and againe,Gal. 3.27. so many as are baptized into Christ, haue put on Christ. Him we put on first by faith, thereby making him ours, and applying to our selues the benefit of his redemption, that appearing before God in the scarlet garment of his obedience to bloudshed & death, we may by forgiuenes of sinnes be accepted for his sake, & thenceforth the residue of our spirituall attire may be put vpon vs, whilest in putting on Christ, we put on Ephe. 4.24. the new man, which according to God is created in righteousnes & holinesse of truth; whilest weCol. 3.12. put on the bowels of mercie, kindnesse, humblenesse of mind, meekenesse, long suffering, whilest by growing and increasing, we are still1. Thess. 5.8. putting on the brestplate of faith, and loue, and the hope of saluation for an helmet. Thus Chrysostome truly and rightly saith, thatChrysost. Op. imperf. hom. 44. Nuptiale vestimentum est fides veraquae est per Iesum Christum & iustitia eiu [...], &c. the wedding garment is true faith, [Page 610] which is by Iesus Christ and the righteousnesse thereof, or his righteousnesse. And thus Ferus, one of M. Bishops owne Doctors hath taught vs, that the wedding garment which is Christ, is put on two manner of waies: Perus in Mat. cap. 22. Primo internè per fidē cum peccatu tuis superinduu Christi iustitiā, &c. Dein [...]e cùm externè charitatem eius aemulaeris. first inwardly by faith, when vpon our sinnes we put on his righteousnesse: then outwardly when we imitate his loue. The place which he alledgeth out of the Reuelation, containeth nothing to the contrary,Apoc. 19.8. The fine linnen (wherewith the bride and spouse of Christ is araied) is [...]. the righteousnesses of Saints, for so is the word in the plurall number. Here is then firstRom. 4.5.11 the righteousnesse of faith fully perfect in the bloud of Christ, by the imputation of his obedience and merits; and secondly the righteousnesse of good works and inward conformity vnto God begun in this life, and fully to be perfected at the resurrection of the dead, when Christ shall make his ChurchEphe. 5.27. a glorious Church; not hauing spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, but to be holy and without blame. But the exception which he maketh, why faith can be no part of this wedding garment, is worthy to be noted. He hath before told vs, that the wedding supper importeth the Sacraments, the vse whereof is onely in this life; and here saith, that faith cannot be the wedding garment, because faith remaineth not after this life. How many mile to London? a poke full of plummes. But howsoeuer that be, his wisedome might conceiue, that since the last iudgement dependeth respectiuely vpon that that hath bene precedent in this life, therefore as with him the righteousnesse and good workes of the Saints which they haue wrought here, are their wedding garment for the last day, so we may also truly say, that the faith whereby in this life we beleeue in Christ, shall be our wedding garment then, when as Saint Peter saith,1. Pet 1 [...]. we shall receiue the end of our faith, which is the saluation of our soules. He alledgeth Hierome for his purpose very falsly, or at leastwise very vainely. The words of Hierome are these:Hieron. in Math. cap. 22 Vestis nuptialis praecepta sunt Domini & opera quae complentur ex lege & Euā gelio, noui (que) hominis efficiunt vestimentum. The wedding garment are the commandements of the Lord, and the workes which are made vp of the law and the Gospell, and do make the garment of the new man. Why doth he alledge these words to exclude faith frō being a part of the wedding garment, when as one of the commandements of the Lord, as S. Iohn telleth vs is this,1. Iohn. 3.23. that we beleeue in the name of his sonne Iesus Christ; when asIohn. 6.29. this is the worke of God, as our Sauiour saith, that is, a worke that God hath commaunded, and wherein he is pleased, that we beleeue in him [Page 611] whom he hath sent: when as the workes that are made vp of the law and the Gospell, consist not onely in charitie but in faith also. I stand not vpon the rest of the testimonies which he bringeth: for though any do by occasion name charitie for the wedding garment, as men by diuers occasions speake diuersly thereof: yet no man was euer so absurd, as expresly to exclude true faith from being one part of it, as M. Bishop doth. And if any do speake sometimes of a faith without charitie and fruites of good workes, they speake thereof as we do, as being onely a bastard faith, a false and fained faith, an idle outward receiuing and professing of the faith, or doctrine of faith: not that true faith which the Apostle speaketh of, to which he assigneth our iustification in the sight of God.
The like foolish argument he maketh from theMat. 25.1. foolish virgins: he may well call it the like, because indeed they are all naught. They had faith, saith he: true, but they had not true faith; they had not that faith which the Apostle speaketh of, wherein our iustification is affirmed to consist. For of that faith the Protestants say truly, that it cannot be lost, because God hath made vnto it the promise of eternall life, and therefore Christ prayeth for it, that it may neuer faile. They had a forme or shew of faith, as they had2. Tim. 3.5. a forme or shew of godlinesse, but neuer knew the power thereof. His tale of perfection is an idle dreame, as we shall see hereafter, if God will. As for them that apply this text to the profession of virginitie, they do apparent wrong therein, the very text it selfe giuing to vnderstand, that therby is described the kingdome of heauen, by which in these parables euery where is vnderstood the whole state of the outward and militant Church professing to seeke the kingdome of heauen. To take it otherwise is to offer violence to a very plaine and manifest text. Vnder the name of Ʋirgins all are comprehended, who by profession and promise of faith and baptism, haue vndertaken to be2. Cor. 11.2. virgins, that is, entire and faithfull vnto Christ. By the lampe is imported that outward profession to men: the oyle signifieth true faith and a good conscience inwardly to God. Howsoeuer the lampes of foolish virgins, of idle and emptie professors giue them credit with men, so as that they are not barred from the companie and conuersation of the wise, yet in the sleepe of death they shall go out, and shall not serue to light them to go to God: then shall they too late seeke and wish for that, the oportunitie whereof before [Page 612] they carelesly omitted. Then shall they cry, Lord, Lord, as the other did before, but it shall not boot them to cry when the doores shall be shut against them. Thus doth Christ giue the same to vnderstand of hypocrites in generall, which before he had done of hypocriticall and false teachers, and what he saith here, he expresseth more fully by the other Euangelist, that when they shall cry,Luk. 13.25. Lord, Lord open to vs, and Christ shall answer vnto them, I know you not whence you are: then they shall begin to say: We haue eaten and drunke in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. Where we see them pleading that they haue heard Christ preach and they haue bene partakers of his Sacraments, but they cannot plead for themselues, that they haue beleeued in him: therfore he shall answer thē again: I tell you, I know ye not whence ye are, depart from me ye workers of iniquitie.
His fourth argument is ofIoh. 12.42. many amongst the chiefe rulers of the Iewes, who beleeued in Christ, but yet confessed him not, because of the Pharisees, lest they should be cast out of the synagogue: for they loued the praise of men, more then the prayse of God. Here we see faith indeed as he saith, but we see no necessitie that faith should be vnderstood here to be without charitie. Here is weake faith and weake loue, too much yet entangled and tyed in the nets of carnall and earthly respects, but he hath no ground to affirme that there is no loue. Yes, saith he, for charity prefers the glory and seruice of God before al things in the world, whereas these men were afraid to confesse Christ. Indeed1. Ioh. 4 18. perfect charitie casteth out all feare, and perfect faith breedeth perfect charity; but there is a beginning of true faith and loue, which being yet little and weake, and hauing not yet ouermastered all worldly regards, is for a time timorous and fearefull to confesse Christ, yet groweth to strength by litle and little, till it resolue to cleaue vnto him with losse of all other things. Such was the faith of Nicodemus and Ioseph of Arimathea, who were two of these chiefe rulers, the oneIoh. 3.2. coming to Iesus by night, the other a disciple also, Cap. 19.38. but secretly for feare of the Iewes, who yet afterwards being stirred vp with those things which they beheld & saw in the death of Christ, more boldly shewed themselues in his behalfe, and in the end forsooke all for the following of his seruice. In the meane time they shewed loue also to Christ, though weakly,Cap. 7.50.51. the one in speaking in his behalfe,Luk. 23.51. the other in withholding his consent from the counsell and deed that was acted against Christ; both in yeelding themselues [Page 613] to be his disciples, and to be instructed by him. Such was the faith and loue of the Apostles themselues, who were euery while affrighted, and in his greatest distresseMat. 26.56. all forsooke him and fled. But he thatCap. 12.20. breaketh not the brused reed, nor quencheth the smoaking flaxe, till he bring foorth iudgement into victorie, wheresoeuer he seeth true faith, and vnfained loue, though yet weake and feeble, watereth and cherisheth, and vndersetteth the same that it may grow to strength.Aug. in Ioan. tract. 53. Videte quemadmodum Euangelista notauerit & improbauerit qu [...]sdam, ques tamen in eum credidisse dixit, qui in hoc ingressu fidei si proficerent amorem quoque humanae gloriae proficiendo superarent. The Euangelist (saith S. Austin) noteth and reproueth some, of whom notwithstanding he saith, that they did beleeue in Christ, who if they did grow forward in this beginning of faith, wold by growing forward ouercome the loue of humane glory, which the Apostle had ouercome, who saith, God forbid, that I should reioyce but in the crosse of our Lord Iesus Christ. This growth there is wheresoeuer there is true and vnfained faith, and because it cannot grow without loue, it groweth to the ouercoming of all contrarie loue, til it cleaue wholy vnto God. Thus the Gospel expresly teacheth concerning some of these chief rulers, and we cannot doubt, but that the like befell in the rest of them that did truly beleeue in Christ. They beleeued, but their faith was weake, and their loue was according to their faith: til increase of faith brought further strength of loue, and they learned by faith and loue to preferre the seruice of Christ before all the glory of this world. Albeit, it is not to be omitted, that S. Iohn somtime following the Hebrew phrase, vseth the terme of beleeuing in Christ abusiuely, applying it to them who by the miracles of Christ, and his manifest declaration of the truth, were conuicted in conscience to acknowledge him to be of God, but yet did not at all in their hearts submit themselues vnto him. Thus he saith in another place, thatIoh. 2.23. many beleeued in the name of Christ when they saw his miracles which he did, to whom yet he did not commit himselfe, because he knew what was in them. Thus might it be said of some of those chiefe rulers, that they beleeued in Christ, that is, were perswaded in their minds that he spake the truth, but yet preferring their credit and reputatiō with men, gaue no regard vnto it. But that there is another manner of beleeuing in Christ, which is that wherof we speake, not incident to them who cōtinue wholy possessed with such respects, Christ himself sheweth, saying:Ioh. 5.44. How can ye beleeue which receiue honor one of another, & seek not the honor that cometh of God alone? They might therfore in some meaning be said to beleeue in Christ, when [Page 614] yet they had no true faith which as appeareth by these words cannot be separated from loue, and seeking of the honour that cometh of God alone: which wheresoeuer it is begun, beginneth to looke vnto God, and winding by degrees out of all other regards, yeeldeth it selfe entirely to follow him. Therfore the distinction of faith being obserued, which the Scripture it selfe enforceth vpon vs, M. Bishop hath yet alledged nothing to proue, that true faith and charitie may be diuided, or that any man may be said truly to beleeue in whom there is not also loue to righteousnesse and good works.
51. W. BISHOP.
Cap. 2.5 This place of S. Iames, (What shall it profit my brethren, if any man say that he hath faith, but hath not works: what, shall his faith be able to saue?) supposeth very plainly, that a man may haue faith without good workes, that is, without charitie, but that it shall auaile him nothing: Caluin saith, that the Apostle speakes of a shadow of faith, which is a bare knowledge of the articles of our Creed, but not a iustifying faith. Without doubt he was litle acquainted with that kind of faith by which Protestants be iustified: but he directly speakes of such a faith, as Abraham was iustified by, saying, That that faith did worke with his works, and was made perfect by the workes. Was this but a shadow of faith? But they reply, that this faith is likened vnto the faith of the Diuell, and therefore cannot be a iustifying faith: that followeth not: for an excellent good thing, may be like vnto a bad in some things as Diuels in nature are not onely like, but the very same as Angels be: euen so a full Christian faith may be well likened vnto a Diuels faith, when it is naked and voyd of good works, in two points: first, in both there is a perfect knowledge of all things reuealed: secondly, this knowledge shall not stead them any whit, but only serue vnto their greater condemnation, because that knowing the will of their master, they did it not. And in this respect S. Iames compareth them together: now there are many points wherein these faiths do differ, but this one is principall: that Christians out of a godly and deuout affection, do willingly submit their vnderstanding vnto the rules of faith, beleeuing things aboue humane reason, yea such as seeme sometimes contrary to it. But the diuell against his will, beleeues all that God hath reuealed, because by his naturall capacitie he knowes that God cannot teach, nor testifie any vntruth. Againe, that faith may be without charitie, is proued out of these words of the [Page 615] same 2. chapter. Euen as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead. Hence thus I argue: albeit the body be dead without the soule, yet it is a true natural body in it selfe: euen so faith is perfect in the kind of faith, although without charity it auaile not to life euerlasting. Lastly, in true reason it is manifest, that faith may be without charity, for they haue seuerall seates in the soule, one being in the will, and the other in the vnderstanding: they haue distinct obiects, faith respecting the truth of God, and charity the goodnesse of God. Neither doth faith necessarily suppose charity, as charity doth faith, for we cannot loue him of whom we neuer heard. Neither yet doth charity naturally flow out of faith, but by due consideration of the goodnes of God, and of his benefits and loue towards vs, into which good and deuout considerations few men do enter, in comparison of them who are led into the broad way of iniquity through their inordinate passions. This according to the truth, and yet more different in the Protestants opinion: for faith layes hold on Christs righteousnes, & receiues that in: but charity can receiue nothing in, as M. Perkins witnesseth, Pa. 85. but giues it selfe forth in all duties of the 1. and 2. Table. Now sir, if they could not apply vnto themselues Christs righteousnes without fulfilling all duties of the 1. and 2. Table, they should neuer apply it to them: for they hold it impossible to fulfill all those duties: so that this necessary lincking of charity with faith, maketh their saluation not only very euill assured, but altogether impossible: for charity is the fulnesse of the law, which they hold impossible, Rom. 12. and then if the assurance of their saluation must needs be ioyned with such an impossibility, they may assure themselues, that by that faith they can neuer come to saluation.
R. ABBOT.
That faith may be without charitie and good workes, it is true, and we doubt not thereof, according to the meaning of faith of which S. Iames speaketh, which Caluin very iustly and rightly saith, is but a shadow of faith. For it plainely appeareth by the text, that he speaketh of faith, as only professed before men, as before hath bene alledged. Therefore he compareth itIam. 2.16. to the good words of him, that wisheth wel to the poore man, but doth nothing at all for him. To this tendeth his question,Ver. 14. What auaileth it though a man say that he hath faith? and his other demand,Ver. 18. shew me thy faith? The vttermost that he extendeth it to by instance, is a meere historicall faith:Ver. 19. Thou beleeuest that there is one God. His purpose is to shew, that [Page 616] faith if it be truly professed hath a root within, from whence spring by obedience the fruites of al good workes, and if it giue not foorth it selfe by workes, it is no true faith. Whereas M. Bishop saith, that S. Iames speaketh directly of such a faith as Abraham was iustified by, he saith very vntruly and absurdly: for S. Iames bringeth the example of the true, and liuely, and workfull faith of Abraham, as opposite to that idle and dead faith, concerning which he propounded that question of faith and workes. Yea of Abrahams faith he sheweth that it was said,Ver. 23. Abraham beleeued God, and it was counted vnto him for righteousnesse, which was neuer said of any man for saying that he had faith, for beleeuing that there is one God, for that faith that consisteth onely in profession before men. Now the faith of Abraham whichVer. 22. wrought with his workes, and was made perfect by his workes, Beda in Epist. Iac. cap. 2. that is, saith Beda, was proued by the performance of workes to be perfect in his heart, this faith of Abraham, I say, is it whereby the Protestants hope to be iustified in the sight of God, as Abraham was, becauseRom 4.23. it was not written for him onely, that it was imputed to him for righteousnesse, but also for vs, to whom it shall be imputed beleeuing in him that raised vp Iesus our Lord from the dead. We alledge further, that the faith whereof S. Iames speaketh, is likened to the faith of diuels, and therefore that it cannot be the same with that which the Scripture nameth for a iustifying faith. M. Bishop answereth, that that followeth not, and for auouching thereof, maketh Abrahams faith not onely the same with the faith of hypocrites and false Christians, but also with the faith of diuels. He would qualifie the matter in shew, but in truth maketh no difference. An excellent good thing may be like vnto a bad in some things, saith he. True, but yet the bad cannot be like the good in that wherin standeth the goodnesse and excellencie of the good. Now he maketh the Hypocrites faith, if we consider the very act of faith, the same that Abrahams faith was, which was reputed vnto him for righteousnesse, and for which the Scripture setteth him foorth as an excellent patterne of faith to be followed of all beleeuers. But to auoyde the odiousnesse hereof, he sophisticateth the matter, and so much as in him lyeth, blindeth his reader. They are like (saith he) in two points: where in the first point, he comprehendeth the fulnes and perfection of that which he calleth Catholike and Christian faith, consisting (as here absurdly he saith) in the perfect knowledge of all things reuealed, as if [Page 617] euery one that hath their Catholike faith, haue the perfect knowledge of all things reuealed, but as more plainly he hath deliuered his mind beforeSect. 18. in beleeuing all to be true that God hath reuealed. No more is there in Abrahams faith, if we keepe within the compasse of the nature of faith, & no lesse in the diuell, & the same in euery Catholike Christian, and so the diuel is become a Catholike whether he wil or not. Come on M. Bishop, rid vs of this doubt, for we cannot find by you, but that the diuell by Catholike faith is become a Catholike. He goeth on: Secondly this knowledge shal not steed them any whit. But that is nothing to the very nature of faith, whether is steede or not steed. The essence & act of faith whether it steed or not steed, is no more but this, to beleeue generally all to be true which God hath reuealed, and therefore whether with good works or without, the faith of the Catholike Christian in the act of faith, is no other but the diuels faith. Now albeit he say, that these faiths differ in many points, yet of those many he nameth but onely one, and that nothing to the purpose. For if he will shew a difference of faith betwixt Christians and diuels, he must take it from faith it selfe, and not from those things which to the nature of faith are meerely accidentall. Christians, saith he, out of a godly and deuout affection, do willingly submit their vnderstanding to the rules of faith. But this is not to make a difference, but to adde charity vnto faith. This godly and deuout affection, and willing submission, is an act of charity, and not of faith: an act of the wil and affection wherein charity is seated, not of the vnderstanding, wherin he saith is the seat of faith. And in this affection and submission, faith it selfe still is no more then it was before, to beleeue all to be true that God hath reuealed. The diuel then still pleadeth for himselfe, that if the Catholike faith which M. Bishop hath described, do make a Catholike, there is no reason to except against him for being a Catholike, because he beleeueth all to be true which God hath reuealed. Or if he wil say that true Christian faith doth alwaies actually & necessarily imply this godly & deuout affection and willing submission of the vnderstanding to the rules of faith, then because this cannot be without charity, let him grant the question, let vs trauell no further about this point, but let him say as we say, that the true Christiā faith wherby it is said we are iustified cā neuer be separate frō charity & good works. Thus he casteth himself into he knoweth not what Labyrinths & mazes, & cannot tell how to get out. How [Page 618] much better were it for to acknowledge the simple and plaine truth of God, then to intricate himselfe in these perplexities, wherin he can find no place to stand secure. But yet out of the words of S. Iames, As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead, he will further prooue, that faith may be without charitie, and yet perfect in the kind of faith. Now this is it that hath bene said, that in the kind of faith, considering faith intirely in it selfe, he maketh Abrahams faith and the diuels faith to be all one. As touching the words of S. Iames sufficient hath bene said before. If faith be considered as outwardly professed to men, as he intendeth it, good workes are the life of faith. If it be considered as it is inward in the heart to God, good workes cannot be the life thereof, because that which is without cannot giue life to that that is within. Whereas he turneth workes into charitie, he playeth the Sophister: for it is one thing to talke of charitie, another thing to talke of workes; the one being in habite, the other in act; the one inward, the other outward; the one the tree, the other the fruite; the one the spring, the other the streame. But letting this passe as handled before, let vs see how he argueth from the place of Iames: Albeit the body be dead without the soule, yet is it a true naturall body in it selfe. But that is not true, for a true naturall body is that onely, which hath the true members and parts of a naturall bodie, which a dead bodie hath not.Arist. Polit. lib. 1. cap. 1, When the body is dead, saith Aristotle, there shall be neither foote nor hand, but onely by semblance of name, as a man tearmeth a hand of stone; for in like sort is a dead hand: for all parts of the bodie are defined by their office and facultie. Therefore when they lye dead they are not the same, but retaine onely the shew and shadow of the name. The argument therefore must be turned against himselfe, that as the dead body is not a true naturall bodie, but onely by equiuocation is so called: euen so a dead faith is no true faith, but onely by equiuocation for some semblance to men it carieth the shew and shadow of the name of faith. Yet he will not so giue ouer, but as hauing set the stocke vpon it, he will winne it in this period, or else he will loose all. Indeed he is like a sheepe tangled in the briars, the more he struggleth and striueth, the faster he tyeth himself. He saith, that faith & charity haue seueral seats in the soule, faith in the vnderstanding, and charity in the will. But that is not so: for as hath bene before said, true and vnfained faith which the [Page 619] Scripture commendeth, for iustification is a mixt action of the vnderstanding and will. Yea the Apostle expresly placeth faith in the heart, which is the seate of the affections.Rom. 10.10. With the heart (saith he) man beleeueth vnto righteousnesse: If thou confesse with thy mouth the Lord Iesus, and beleeue in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saued. No maruell that M. Bishop cannot tell what true faith is, who knoweth no other faith but onely a faith of the head, consisting in speculatiue fancies and imaginations of the braines, and descending no lower then the tongue: whereas the Apostle speaketh of a faith of the heart, a feeling faith, which by feeling gathereth to it the affection and will; which is not onely an act of knowledge and vnderstanding, as M. Bishop dreameth, but implieth an affecting, desiring, embracing, seeking of that which it beleeueth, a ioying and reuiuing of it selfe therein. So I alledged before out of Oecumenius, that the faith whereof Saint Paul speaketh is not a bare assent, as is the faith of diuels and M. Bishops Catholike faith, butOecumen. in lac. cap. 2 Consecutionem ex affectu procedentē. hath some further consequence arising from the affection. Againe, they haue distinct obiects, saith he, faith respecting the truth of God, and charitie the goodnesse of God. Indeed the truth of God is the obiect of our faith; but what is the matter of that truth, but the promise of God concerning his goodnesse towards vs?Psal. 27.13. I should vtterly haue fainted (saith Dauid) but that I beleeue verily to see the goodnesse of the Lord in the land of the liuing. Ferus in Mat. ca. 8. Fides quam Scriptura commendat nihil aliud est quàm fidere gratuita Dei miserecordia The faith (saith Ferus) which the Scripture cōmendeth, is nothing els but to trust to the free mercie of God. So then the goodnesse & mercy of God is properly and truly the obiect of our faith. Yea and how should the goodnesse of God be the obiect of our charitie, but by being first the obiect of our faith? For therefore do we loue the goodnesse of God, or loue God for his goodnesse towards vs, because first we beleeue the same, neither can we so loue but by beleeuing. For charitie consisting simply in affection, apprehendeth nothing in God of it selfe, but receiueth all from faith, which is it as Chrysostome noteth,Chryso in Rom. hom. 8. Conuenientem de Deo opinionē accipit. whereby we conceiue a due and conuenient opinion concerning God. Loue is not a reciprocall action; the passage thereof is meerely from him that loueth to the thing that is loued. Thus therefore it is in our loue to God, but what we conceiue backe againe of him towards vs, it is by faith and not by loue. Yea M. Bishop himselfe verifieth this, in that he saith, We cannot [Page 620] loue him of whom we neuer heard. For what is all our hearing, but onely by beleeuing that which we heare? First therefore we heare of Gods goodnesse, his mercy, his truth, &c. and by beleeuing that which we heare, our affections are drawne vnto him. First therfore all these are the obiects of our faith, and consequently become the obiects of our loue. His next difference is a meere begging of the question. We say, that faith though it do not presuppose charitie as a thing precedent, yet alwayes supposeth and inferreth it as an immediate and necessary consequent. For faith receiueth ChristEphes. 3.17. to dwell in our hearts, who commeth not but accompanied with grace and with the fruites of the spirit, which alwayes grow and increase according to the increase and growth of faith. Great faith hath feruent loue, weaker faith hath weaker loue, but alwayes hath a measure of loue answerable to it selfe. Now by this that hath bene said, it appeareth how vntruly M. Bishop saith for his last difference, that charitie doth not naturally flow out of faith, whereas indeed common sence in diuinitie doth instruct him, that the original thereof is from thence and onely from thence. For if we cannot loue God but by hearing & beleeuing him to be that that he is, then it is faith which setting God before vs such a one as he is, wise, mighty, iust, merciful, louing and gracious vnto vs, enamoreth our hearts, and breedeth in vs affections correspondent to his grace, neither is there any spark of loue but what ariseth from this ground. Yea M. Bishop himselfe confesseth so much, but that his wits are so besotted with his minion of Rome, that he knoweth not what he saith. Charitie (saith he) doth not naturally flow out of faith, but by due consideration of the goodnesse of God, and of his benefites and loue towards vs. Which is as much as if he should say, it doth not naturally flow out of faith, but doth naturally flow out of faith. For whence is this consideration of Gods goodnes, &c. but from faith? Do we consider these things any otherwise but as by faith we first apprehend and beleeue the same? It is faith (as hath bene said) which affecteth and seasoneth the hart with the sweet tast and feeling of those considerations, and thereby allureth and draweth vs to love him of whom we haue receiued so great loue. And for want of faith it is that it cometh to passe which M. Bishop to make vp his sentence impertinently complaineth of, that few men enter into these good and deuout considerations; yea he and his by oppugning and destroying true faith, do helpe [Page 621] to draw men backe from considering of these things. Now all that hitherto he hath sayd, he telleth vs is according to the truth, whereas indeede there is not a word true, as hath appeared: and if it had beene true, yet he had gained nothing thereby, because it followeth not, that those things which are deuided in facultie and vse, are therefore deuided in the subiect, or may be the one without the companie of the other, as by infinite examples may be seene. But he maketh faith and charitie more different yet in the Protestants opinion. And how? For faith (sayth he) layeth hold of Christs righteousnesse, and receiues that in; but charitie receiueth nothing in, but giueth it selfe forth in all duties of the first and second table. But what of this? Will he conclude thus, There is a difference betwixt faith and charitie, therefore faith may be without charitie? No forsooth: but vnlesse faith may be without charitie, the Protestants saluation is vnpossible. And why so? Marrie charitie is the fulnesse of the law, and the Protestants hold it vnpossible to fulfill the law, therefore they can haue no charitie; and therefore by their owne doctrine they can haue no faith, because without charitie there is no faith. What a horrible disputer M. Bishop is? how deepe a reach hath he into hell, that hee can fetch from thence these profound conclusions against the Protestants? The Protestants answer to his ridiculous and childish collections, is easie and ready. True and liuely faith, by the consideration of the goodnesse and mercy of God towards vs in Iesus Christ, enkindleth in our hearts true charitie and loue towards God, and towards our brethren and neighbours for Gods sake. The ayme and marke of which charitie, is to giue foorth it selfe in all duties of the first and second table. But charitie so long as here we liue is vnperfect in all men, and but vnperfectly attaineth to that that it aymeth at. Some attaine in some good sort to the performance of some duties, others to the performance of some other duties, but none attaineth to all, asHieron. aduer Pelag. lib. 1. Nullus in isto corpusculo cunctas potest habere virtutes, &c. Hierome well noteth against the Pelagian heretickes: yea and in those that we do attaine vnto, there is also some weaknesse and default, some blot and staine, as hath bene shewed by the corruption of sinneHeb. 12.1. that hangeth so fast on, and presseth vs downe whilest we are labouring and striuing to ascend vpward vnto God. Thus therefore faith and charitie go together, weake faith, and charitie vnperfect, [Page 622] running in the way, but oftentimes through frailtie stumbling and falling; striuing to the keeping of all Gods commandements, but yet forced to say with the Apostle,Rom. 7.19. The good that I wold, I do not, but the euill that I would not, that I do: I delight in the law of God as touching the inner man, but I see another law in my members rebelling against the law of my mind, and leading me captiue to the law of sinne. But faith is our comfort, that God for Christs sake, and for his righteousnes sake which he hath wrought for our redemption, accepteth vs as perfectly righteous in him, that he forgiueth all our sins, winketh at all our imperfections, and will heale all our wounds and infirmities, that what is now impossible through the weaknesse of the flesh, may be made expedite and readie vnto vs, when there shall be no longer the flesh lusting against the spirit, but sin and death and all enemies shall be destroyed, and1. Cor. 15.28. God shall be all in all. Thus the linking of faith and charitie maketh no impossibilitie of our saluation, but it is the spirit of error that hath dazeled M. Bishops eyes, that he cannot discerne how one truth agreeth and standeth with another.
52. W. BISHOP.
Let vs annex vnto these plaine authorities of holy Scripture, one euident testimonie of antiquitie: that most incorrupt iudge S. Augustine saith flatly, Lib. 15. de Trin. ca. 17. con. Cresc. lib. 1 cap. 29. that faith may wel be without charity, but it cānot profit vs without charitie. And, That one God is worshipped sometimes out of the Church, but that vnskilfully, yet is it he. Also that one faith is had without charitie, and that also out of the Church, neither therefore is not faith. For there is one God, one Faith, one Baptisme, and one immaculate Catholike Church: in which God is not serued onely, but in which onely he is truly serued: neither in which alone faith is kept, but in which onely faith is kept with charitie. So that faith, and that only true faith, Ephes 4. of which the Apostle speaketh, One God, one faith, may be, and is in many without charitie.
R. ABBOT.
The former of these two places which he citeth out of Austin, is answeredSect. 22. before. The faith of which he speaketh, is not [...] true iustifying faith, but onely the outward profession of the [Page 623] doctrine of faith. That is plaine by the second,August. cont. Crescon. lib. 1. cap. 29. One faith is had without charitie, euen without the Church, that is, one doctrine of faith: euen as the Apostle meaneth, when he saith, One faith, one baptisme, &c. Thus Saint Austin declareth it, when he calleth itIbid cap. 28. Fides qua creditur Christum esse filium Dei vi [...]i. Et cap. 29. Fides qua co [...]fitemur Christum esse filium Dei viui. the faith whereby it is beleeued that Christ is the Sonne of the liuing God: the faith whereby we confesse Christ to be the Sonne of the liuing God: and in other meaning he could not say there is but one faith, because of the faith of particular consciences the Scripture saith, that euery man shallHabac. 2.4. liue by his owne faith. That that he maketh the matter of faith, the diuels acknowledge and confesse, who yet cannot truly say, I beleeue in God, I beleeue in Iesus Christ, which is the voice and profession of a true iustifying faith, and cannot be separated from hope and charitie, as hath bene before made manifest by the acknowledgement of Austin himselfe: yea and the doctrine of faith, though in generall termes it may be sometimes found amongst heretikes, yet according to the substance and true meaning thereof, it is not to be found with them, as the same Saint Austin acknowledgeth, saying,August. Enchirid. cap. 5. Si diligenter quae ad Christum pertinem cogitētur, nominetenus inuenitur Christus apud quoslibet haereticos, qui se Christianos vocari volunt, te verò ipsa non est apudeos. If diligently those things be considered which belong to Christ, Christ is found, as touching his name, amongst all sorts of heretikes, who will needs be called Christians, but indeed he is not with them. So as then there may be the true faith of Christ in generall words, where the true meaning of the faith of Christ is denied, and there may be the true meaning of the faith of Christ in the profession of the mouth, when the same faith is not truly and effectually imprinted in the heart. And in this sort there may be indeed faith without charitie, but not the iustifying faith, as hath bin often said. If there be that faith concerning which it is said of Abraham, Gen. 15.6. He beleeued the Lord, and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse: there followeth alwayes charitie as a necessary and infallible consequent and companion thereof.
53. W. BISHOP.
The Protestants bold asseuerations, that they cannot be parted, are great, but their proofes very slender, and scarce worth the disprouing.
The first, He that hath not care of his owne, hath denied his faith:1. Tim. 5. therefore faith includeth that good worke of prouiding for our owne.
Answer. That faith there seemes to signifie, not that faith whereby we beleeue all things reuealed, or the Protestants the certaintie of their saluation: but for fidelitie, and faithfull performance of that which we haue promised in Baptisme, which is to keepe all Gods commandements: one of the which, is to prouide for our children, and for them that we haue charge of: so that he who hath no such care ouer his owne charge, hath denied his faith, that is, violated his promise in Baptisme. There is also another ordinary answer, supposing faith to be taken there for the Christian beliefe, to wit, that one may deny his faith two wayes: either in flat denying any article of faith, or by doing some thing that is contrarie to the doctrine of our faith. Now he that hath no care of his owne, doth not deny any article of his faith, but committeth a fact contrary to the doctrine of his faith: so that not faith, but the doctrine of faith, or our promise in Baptisme, includeth good workes.
Ioh [...].2 There are among you that beleeue not; for he knew who beleeued, and who was to betray him: Opposing treason to faith, as if he had said: faith containeth in it selfe fidelitie. This argument is farre fetched, and little worth. For albeit faith hath not fidelity and loue alwaies necessarily ioyned with it, yet falling from faith, may well draw after it hatred and treason: yea ordinarily wickednesse goeth before falling from the faith, and is the cause of it: which was Iudas case, whom our Sauiour there taxed, for he blinded with couetousnesse, did not beleeue Christes doctrine of the blessed Sacrament, and by incredulitie opened the diuell a high way to his heart, to negotiate treason in it.
[...] Ioh 2.3. They obiect that: Who saith he knowes God, and doth not keepe his commandements, is a lyer.
Answer. He is then a lyer in graine, who professing the onely true knowledge of God, yet blusheth not to say, that it is impossible to keepe his commandements: but to the obiection, knowing God in that place, is taken for louing of God, as: I know ye not: that is, I loue you not. Our Lord knowes the way of the iust, Math 7. & 25. Psal. 1. Ioh. 14. that is, approues it, loues it: so he that knowes God, keepes his commaundements, as Christ himselfe testifieth: If anie loue me, he will keepe my word. And he that loueth me not, will not keepe my words.
Lastly, they say with S. Paul: That the iust man liueth by faith. But if faith giue life, then it cannot be without charitie.
Answer. That faith in a iust man is not without hope and charity, by al which conioyned he liueth, and not by faith alone. But faith is in a sinful [Page 625] and vniust man, without charity: who holding fast his former beliefe, doth in transgressing Gods commandements, breake the bands of charity. And so it remaineth most certaine, that faith may be and too too often is without the sacred societie of charitie.
R. ABBOT.
The Protestants asseuerations are indeed very bold, but not vpon slender proofes. Their proofes are stronger then that any such silly disputers as M. Bishop is, shall be able to disproue them. As for his proofes to the contrarie, thou hast seene gentle Reader, how miserable, and poore, and beggerly they be. See now what choise he maketh of our arguments, culling out those that he was best able to deale with, and what slender shifts he maketh to auoid them.1. Tim. 5.8. He that prouideth not for his owne, saith S. Paul, and namely for them of his houshold, he denieth the faith, and is worse then an infidell. It must follow therefore, that there can be no faith where this worke of charitie is wilfully cast off. M. Bishop telleth vs, that by faith is here meant either fidelitie as touching the performance of that we haue promised in baptisme, or else the doctrine of faith. But let him expound it as he list, of either of them it shall yeeld an illation & consequence of that which we affirme. For seeing the introduction of iustifying faith isMark. 1.15. repentance from dead workes, iustifying faith must alwayes imply a conscience and care of conforming a mans selfe to the doctrine of the Gospell, and to the promise and vowe that he hath made in baptisme of obedience vnto God, and therefore where dead workes still raigne, it cannot be said that iustifying faith hath there taken anie place. Therefore he that shaketh off the yoke of the doctrine of the Gospell, and by his conuersation disclaimeth the promise that he made in baptisme, plainely sheweth that howsoeuer he professe the faith, yet that he hath no true faith abiding in him. And this the Apostle teacheth of him who is so inhumane and barbarous, as that the commandement of God cannot moue him to prouide for them, the care of whom euen infidels by instinct of nature do know and conceiue to belong vnto them. But we would gladly vnderstand how M. Bishop diuideth the articles of faith from the doctrine of faith. For what do the articles of faith containe but onely the doctrine of faith? That then [Page 626] contrary to the doctrine of faith, must needs also be contrary to the articles of faith. He therfore that by his deeds denieth the doctrine of faith, denieth in effect also the articles of his faith, howsoeuer with his tongue outwardly to men he make shew to confesse the same. M. Bishops answer then taketh not away the strength of this argument, but rather addeth further force and strength vnto it. But it is plaine by the very words, that the Apostle vnderstandeth faith as it is opposed to infidelitie, affirming that such, though they beHieron in 1. Tim. cap. 5. Fideles nomine. beleeuers in name, as Hierome speaketh, yet in deed are not beleeuers. Therefore Chrysostome expounding the words by that saying of the same Apostle,Tit. 1.16. They professe that they know God, but by their deeds they denie him, inferreth,Chrysost. in 1. Tim. hom 14. Quomodo hutu [...]nodicredit qui Deum ab [...]egauit [...] How doth he beleeue that hath denied God? The argument therefore is firme and sure, that howsoeuer there may be an outward profession of faith, yet indeed there is no faith wheresoeuer there wanteth a correspondence of good workes.
In the second place, it is strange to see how M. Bishop making choise of his aduersaries weapons, yet is foyled in his owne choise. The argument he saith 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: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 [Page 627] 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, thatIoh. 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 thatIoh. 6.64.65. come vnto him by the same gift, whom being come, he neuerVer. 37. casteth away againe, and therefore they neuer lose that which they haue receiued.
Thirdly, he citeth for vs the words of Saint Iohn, 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 bareThom. Aqu [...]n. 21. art. 2. ad 2. Duplex est cognitio diuinae bonitatis vel voliitatis vna q [...]idem speculatiua, &c. Alta est affectiua siue experimentalis dum quis experitur in seipso gustum diuinae dulcedinis & complecentiā 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: 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, that2. Pet. 1.23. grace and [Page 628] 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 himHieron. ad Cresiphon [...]. Profer [...]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 turne. Because he had [Page 629] no great skill to answer, he thought it wisedom to take heed what he did obiect. But yet out of that sentence truly alledged, we may take somewhat to this point. The words are,Gal. 3.11. The iust shall liue by faith. According to these words, true faith is said alwayes to imply and containe eternall life. Our Sauior Christ speaketh as of a thing presently had:Ioh. 3.36. He that beleeueth, hath eternall life; Cap. 5.24. he is passed from death to life. But without charitie there can be no state of eternall life, because1. Ioh. 3 14. he that loueth not, abideth in death. If then wheresoeuer there be true faith, there be eternall life, and without charitie there can be no eternall life, it must necessarily follow, that wheresoeuer there is true faith, there is also charitie, and loue bringing forth the fruites of good workes, and seeking to winne others by example of iust and holy life. M. Bishops answer we see giueth checke to the holy Ghost. The holy Ghost saith, The iust shall liue by faith. Not so, saith M. Bishop: he liueth by faith, hope and charitie, and not by faith alone. Further I trouble not my selfe with his idle words, which containe nothing but a begging of the matter in question, and are applied onely to an argument of his owne deuice.
CHAPTER 5. OF MERITS.
1. W. BISHOP.
OBserue that three things are necessary to make a worke meritorious: First, that the worker be the adopted sonne of God, and in the state of grace. Secondly, that the work proceed from grace, and be referred to the honour of God. The third, is the promise of God through Christ to reward the work. And because our aduersaries, either ignorantly or of malice do slaunder this our doctrine, in saying vntruly that we trust not in Christs merits, nor need not Gods mercy for our saluation, but wil purchase it by our owne works: I wil here set downe what the Councell of Trent doth teach concerning Merits: Sess. 6. cap. vlt. Life euerlasting is to be proposed to them that work wel, and hope wel to the end: both as grace, of mercie promised to the sonnes of God through Christ Iesus, and as a reward by the promise of the same God to [Page 630] be faithfully rendred vnto their workes and merits. So that we hold eternall life to be both a grace, as well in respect of Gods free promise through Christ, as also for that the first grace (out of which they issue) was freely bestowed vpon vs. And that also it is a reward in iustice, due partly by the promise of God, and in part for the dignitie of good workes vnto the worker, if he perseruere and hold on vnto the end of his life, or by true repentance rise to the same estate againe. In infants baptized, there is a kind of merit, or rather dignitie of the adopted sonnes of God, by his grace powred into their soules in baptisme, wherby they are made heires of the kingdom of heauen, but all that arriue to the yeares of discretion, must by the good vse of the same grace either merit life, or for want of such fruite of it, fall into the miserable state of death.
R. ABBOT.
M. Bishop setteth downe three things which he saith are necessary to make a work meritorious, but giueth vs no ground at all whereby we may rest perswaded, that where those three things do concurre, a man may be said to merit or deserue at Gods hands. He leaueth vs still to wonder, that a sinfull wretch offending and prouoking God from day to day, should dare to talke of merite and desert with God, but that we know that heresie and ignorance make men bold to frame the maiestie of God to their owne brainsicke and senslesse conceits. The conditions and circumstances by him mentioned, we alwayes teach and require in our doctrine of good workes, but farre are we from finding merit in any of them. For first the adopted sonne of God standeth bound by dutie to do all things to the honor of his Father, and there can be no merit in doing that which a man by dutie is bound to do. Secondly, if the worke proceed from the grace of God, the work is Gods and not mans, and therfore man can therby merit nothing. Thirdly if the reward depend vpon promise, then it ariseth not of the merit or worth of workes, especially there being by the frailtie of the worker and the bountie of the promiser that disproportion betwixt the worke and the reward, as that it is meerly absurd to imagine that the one should be merited and deserued by the other. These things (God willing) shall further appeare in the processe of [Page 631] this question. In the meane time M. Bishop here challengeth vs for slaundering their doctrine with some matters of truth, as that they trust not in Christs merits, that they need not Gods mercy for their saluation, but will purchase it by their owne workes. Now we wote well that they vse speech of Christes merits, and Gods mercie, and of trusting therein, because they know that if they abandoned the mention hereof, they would soone grow odious and hatefull to all men. For the cuppe of poison of the whore of Babylon they must vse a couer of such good words, least they make men loth to drinke thereof. But let it be examined how they teach these things, and their falshood will soone appeare. By trust in Christs merits, men conceiue the placing of the confidence of saluation immediatly therein, as the proper cause for which God accepteth vs to eternall life, who our selues are miserable sinners, and altogether vnworthy thereof. But their trust in Christs merits, is that he hath purchased for vs grace, if we list by free will to merite heauen for ourselues, thereby to be iust before God in our selues, and worthy of the kingdome of heauen, as M. Bishop in the former question ofSect. 2. Iustification hath declared. So then the effect of Christs merits is tied onely to this life, and thenceforth we are to depend vpon that which here we do for our selues, by wel vsing that grace which the merits of Christ first purchased for vs. Therefore one Richard Hopkins translating into English a booke of Granatensis, as touching prayer and meditation, giueth it one where for a marginall note, that our Sauiour Christ is our Aduocate for the time of this life, but after our departure out of this life he is no more our Aduocate, but our Iudge, for the time is past (saith he) of dealing with God by an Aduocate, &c. and we shall haue our definitiue sentence according to our workes. Whereby it appeareth what reckoning they make of the mercie of God, which they also pen vp within the compasse of this life, and denie it that place which the Apostle giueth it,2. Tim. 1.18. at that day. Yea so little vse is there with them of Gods mercie, as that M. Bishop doubteth not to demaund,Cap. 4. Sect. 4. What need any iustified man greatly feare the rigorous sentence of a iust Iudge? Hence are those most insolent speeches of theirs, that good workes areRhem. Annot. 2. Tim. 4.8. truly and properly meritorious, and fully worthy of euerlasting life; that heauen is the due and iust stipend which God by his iustice oweth to the persons working by his grace; that we haue [Page 632] a right to heauen, and deserue it worthily; that it is our owne right, bargained for and wrought for, and accordingly payed vnto vs as our hire: Ibid. Heb. 6.10 that good workes be so farre meritorious, as that God should be vniust if he rendered not heauen for the same. Thereupon Tapper sticketh not to say,Ruard. Tapper. in explic. art. Louan. tom. 2 art. 9. Absit vt iusti vi tam aeternam expectent sicut pau per eleemosynam: Multò namque glori [...]sius est ipso [...] quasi victores & triumphatores eam possidere tanquam palmā suit sudoribus debitam. God forbid that the iust should expect eternall life as the poore man doth an almes: for it is much more glorious that they should haue it as conquerers and triumphers, as the prize due vnto their labours. Thus you your selues haue written M. Bishop, and do we slaunder you in reporting truly what you haue written? No, no, your speeches are impudent and shamelesse in this behalfe, and such as we wonder that your foreheads serue you to auouch. Why doth it not suffice you to preach good workes simply, as Christ and his Apostles did, with commendation of Gods mercy in rewarding the same? What need this vaine foolery of merite, so improbable, so absurd, so impossible, whereby you do not magnifie God, but set vp the righteousnesse of man against the grace of God? As for the definition of the Councell of Trent, we esteeme it not, knowing the same for the most part to haue bene but a conuenticle of base Italianate Machiauels, who by equiuocations and sophistications haue deluded the world, and by casting the chaffe of some phrases of the Fathers vpon the meeres and puddles of the schoolemen, haue laboured to couer and hide the filth and mire thereof, and indeed haue left them still to serue by false confidence and trust for gulfes and whirlpools to swallow vp and deuoure the soules of men. Although the words of the Councell may beare some good construction according to the auncient fathers meaning of the name of merites, yet by them they are deceitfully set downe, to leaue open a gappe to the absurd and intollerable presumption of men, in aduancing and lifting vp the desert of mens workes, as if God were thereby greatly bound and beholding vnto them. How farre their meaning extendeth, will appeare by M. Bishop, who will not haue vs thinke that he will speake any thing but by the authoritie of that Councell. And first he telleth vs, that they hold that eternall life is a grace; which indeed they dare not denie, because the Scripture expresly so affirmeth,Rom. 6.23. Eternall life is the grace (or gift) of God through Iesus Christ our Lord. But he addeth to grace a supply of workes, quite contrary to the Scriptures; for it is expresly sayd,Chap. 11.6. If it be of grace, it is not of works, [Page 633] otherwise grace is no grace. August. contra Pelag. & Celest. lib. 2. ca 24. Non enim gratia Dei gratia erit vllo modo, nisi fuerit gratuita omni modo. Grace (saith Saint Austin) is not grace in any sort, if it be not free in euery sort. It is of grace, saith M. Bishop, and yet it is of workes also. But still to make a shew of vpholding grace, he telleth vs that though eternall life be by workes, yet the first grace, out of which those workes do issue, is freely bestowed vpon vs. Which he saith only as ashamed to deny grace altogether, and not of any conscience that hee maketh faithfully to auouch the same. For if the grace, whence those workes do issue, which is the grace of iustification, be freely bestowed vpon vs, why doth he before labour to approue that we are iustified by workes? Or if we obtaine the grace of iustification by workes, how doth he say that the same is freely bestowed vpon vs? The plaine truth is, that by their works of preparation they make a man at least in some sort, as we haue heard before out of Bellarmine, to merit and deserue euen the first grace, if by the first grace we vnderstand the grace of their first iustification, as M. Bishop vsually doth. But beside grace, it is also a reward due in iustice, saith he. And how so? Marry partly by the promise of God. Now if he rested here, we would not contend with him. For promise is indeed grace, and iustice in respect of promise is nothing but truth in the performance thereof, neither is here any impeachment of the free gift of God. But not contented herewith, he addeth, that it is due in part also for the dignitie of good workes. And thus he confoundeth those things which the Scripture still very precisely distinguisheth, aduertising vs thatRom. 4.14. if they which are of the law (that is of workes) be heires, then is faith made voide, and the promise is made of none effect: and againe,Gal. 3.18. if the inheritance be of the law (that is of workes) it is no longer by promise. To be inheritors by workes, and to be inheritors by promise, are things so opposite as that the one wholly excludeth the other, neither can they possibly stand together. As for that which he saith of infants merite and dignitie, it is also the schoolemens fiction and deuice. Remission of sinnes is their saluation as it is ours, and in them it standeth good which the Apostle saith,Rom. 5.2 [...]. As sinne hath raigned (ouer them) vnto death, so grace also raigneth by righteousnesse (that is, by imputation of righteousnesse) vnto eternall life, not by any dignitie in them, but through Iesus Christ our Lord. But as touching them that arriue to yeares of discretion, he telleth vs that either they must by good vse of grace merite life, or for want of such fruite [Page 634] fall into the miserable state of death. A very hard sentence for himselfe; for if he neuer haue life till he merite and deserue it, we can well assure him that he shall go without it. And I wonder that his heart did not tremble at the writing hereof, but that he hath hardened the same against the truth, and writeth but only for maintenance of that occupation and trade, that must yeeld maintenance backe againe to him. What will he say in the end, when he shall lie wrastling with death, and readie to resigne his soule into the hands of God? Will he then craue for mercie, who writeth now so earnestly for merite? Let him take heede that God do not then answer him,Luk. 19.22. Out of thine owne mouth will I iudge thee, thou euill seruant. Thou hast despised my mercie. Thou hast defined, that euery one that doth not merite life must fall into the state of death. Thy sentence shall stand good against thy selfe: thou art farre off from meriting life, and therefore thy iust portion shall be euerlasting death. Let him learne in time to feare this doome, and leaue off by this wilfull oppugning of the faith and doctrine of Christ to rebell against God.
2. W. BISHOP.
With this Catholike doctrine M. Perkins would be thought to agree in two points: First, That merits are necessary to saluation: Secondly, That Christ is the roote and fountaine of all merit. But soone after like vnto a shrewd cow, ouerthrowes with his heele the good milke he had giuen before: renouncing all merits in euery man, sauing onely in the person of Christ: whose prerogatiue (saith he) it is, to be the person alone in whom God is wel pleased. Then he addeth, that they good Protestants, by Christs merits really imputed to them, do merite life euerlasting. Euen as by his righteousnesse imputed vnto them, they are iustified and made righteous.
To which I answer, that we most willingly confesse our blessed Sauiours merits to be infinite, and of such diuine efficacie, that he hath not onely merited at his Fathers hands both pardon for all faults, and grace to do all good workes, but also that his true seruants workes should be meritorious of life euerlasting. As for the reall imputation of his merit to vs, we esteeme as a fained imagination, composed of contrarieties. [Page 635] For if it be really in vs, why do they call it imputed? and if it be ours only by Gods imputation, then is it not in vs really. Further, to say that he onely is the person in whom God is well pleased, is to giue the lye vnto many plaine texts of holy Scriptures. Iac 2. Eccles. 45. Act. 13. Ioh. 16. Rom. 1. Abraham was called the friend of God; therefore God was well pleased in him: Moyses was his beloued: Dauid was a man according vnto his owne heart: God loued Christs Disciples, because they loued him. Briefly, all the Christians at Rome, were truly called of S. Paule the beloued of God. And therefore although God be best pleased in our Sauiour, and for his sake is pleased in all others, yet is he not onely pleased in him, but in all his faithfull seruants. Now to that which he saith, that they haue no other merit then Christs imputed to them, as they haue no other righteousnesse but by imputation, I take it to be true: and therefore they do very ingeniously and iustly renounce all kind of merits in their stained and defiled workes. But let them tremble at that which thereupon necessarily followeth. It is, that as they haue no righteousnesse or merit of heauen, but onely by a supposed imputation, so they must looke for no heauen but by imputation: for God as a most vpright iudge, will in the end repay euery man according to his woorth: wherefore not finding any reall worthinesse in Protestants, but onely in conceipt, his reward shall be giuen them answerably, in conceipt onely: which is euidently gathered out of S. Augustine,Lib. 1. de mori. Eccles. cap. 25. where he saith: That the reward cannot go before the merit, nor be giuen to a man before he be worthy of it: for (saith he) what were more iniust then that, and what is more iust then God? Where he concludeth that we must not be so hardie as once to demaund, much lesse so impudent as to assure our selues of that crowne, before we haue deserued it. Seeing then that the Protestants by this their proctor renounce al such merit and desert, they must needes also renounce their part of heauen, and not presume so much as once to demaund it, according vnto S. Augustines sentence, vntill they haue first renounced their erronious opinions.
R. ABBOT.
M. Perkins hath indeed giuen good milke, as M. Bishop saith, euen1. Pet. 2.2. the syncere milke of the word, which he had drawne fromAugust. in Ioan. Epist trac. 3. Est mater Ecclesia; & vbera eius du [...] Testamenta Scripturari, [...] narū. the brests of the Church, the old and the new Testament, the writings of the Apostles and Prophets, which areEphes. 2.20. the foundations whereupon the house of God is built. He plaid not the shrewd cow, to ouerthrow it when he had giuen it, but what he gaue M. Bishop seeketh to corrupt [Page 636] by blending and mingling with it, not the leauen onely, but the very poison of humane traditions. He renounceth, and so do we, all merit but what is in the person of Iesus Christ for vs, and thereby onely do we lay hold of eternall life, acknowledging that not for any thing that we do, but onelyMat. 3.17. in him the Father is well pleased towards vs, and accepteth vs to be his children, and heires of his kingdome. Whereas in his pleasance he tearmeth vs good Protestants, I must tell him as before, that if the Protestants do not exceede the goodnesse of them who will be taken to be the very best amongst the Papistes, without question they are very bad: and I doubt not but he himselfe will acquit the Protestants from being so bad as he and his fellowes haue told vs that their good maisters the Iesuites be. But for answer he saith, that Christ did merit for his, not onely pardon of all faults, and grace to do all good workes, but also that their workes should be meritorious of life euerlasting. A strange speech, and such as the Apostles and Primitiue Church were not acquainted with. Forsooth Christ did not merit eternall life for vs, but he merited for vs grace, that so we might merit eternall life for our selues. Now M. Bishop hath taught vs before, that grace is nothing, but as Free will adioyneth it selfe vnto it, and so the conclusion is, that the grace of God doth not saue man, but man by the helpe of grace doth saue himselfe. Thus the matter resteth vpon vs, Christ offereth vs grace; we may receiue it, if we will; and when we haue it, we may, if we will, thereby deserue eternal life, otherwise we go without it. But the Scripture teacheth vs farre otherwise, that1. Ioh. 5.10.11 the record that God hath witnessed of his Sonne is this; that God hath giuen vs eternall life, and this life is in his Sonne. Here is no record, that God hath giuen vs grace to deserue eternall life, but that he hath giuen vs eternall life; nor that this life is in our merits, but that this life is in his Sonne, so as thatIoh 3.36. he that beleeueth in the Sonne, hath euerlasting life, and1. Ioh. 5.13. they that beleeue in the name of the Sonne of God, are to know, that they haue eternall life, God by the beginning giuing them certificate and assurance of the end. The reall imputation of Christs merits to vs, is no fained imagination, but a cleare truth, as hath bene before shewed. The contrarietie and opposition that he conceiueth therin, is his owne fond dreame, no doctrine of ours. We do not say, that Christes merits are really in vs, neither did Master Perkins [Page 637] giue him any word whereof to imagine it, but onely that by imputation they are made really ours, because they were vndertaken and done for vs, euen as Christ the doer thereof is become really ours, euen Ierem. 23 6. the Lord our righteousnesse. Whereas he saith, that to say, that Christ onely is the person in whome God is well pleased, is to giue the lye to many texts of Scripture, which testifie, that God hath bene pleased towards Abraham, Moses, &c. we suppose he doth not well vnderstand himselfe. It is said of many, that God was pleased with them, or they pleased God, but the question is, in whome, for whose sake, by whose mediation God was well pleased towards them, and that was onely in Christ, onely for Christs sake, accordingly as the Apostle Saint Paule saith of all the elect:Eph. 1.6. He hath made vs accepted in his beloued, and Saint Peter, that our1. Pet. 2.5. spirituall sacrifices are acceptable to God by Iesus Christ. And this prerogatiue the voyce of the Father giueth him from heauen:Mat. 3.17. This is my beloued Sonne in whom I am well pleased: namely, towards Abraham, Isaac, Iacob, Moses, Dauid, and all towards whom he is well pleased. Which seeing it was the plaine meaning of M. Perkins, and M. Bishop acknowledgeth it to be true, that Christ is he, for whose sake God is pleased in all others, what is it but childish and idle cauilling to make a question there, where by his owne confession none is to be made? Now where we say, that we haue no righteousnesse to iustifie vs before God, but only the righteousnesse of Christ, nor any merit whereby to presume of heauen, but onely the merit of Christ, all our owne works being blemished and stained with sinne, he biddeth vs tremble at that which thereupon necessarily followeth. And what is that? Marry, that as we haue no righteousnesse but by imputation, so we must looke for no heauen but by imputation. But why should we not thinke, that the merit of Christs obedience and righteousnesse is of sufficient value and estimation to purchase for vs the kingdome of heauen, and euerlasting glorie? Is it sufficient to purchase grace for vs to merit heauen for our selues, and is it not sufficient it selfe to merit heauen for vs? And if we haue no merit of our owne, what should hinder but that we may say with Saint Bernard: Bernard. in Cant. Ser. 61. Ego fidenter quicquid ex me mihi deest, vsurpo mihi ex visceribus Domini: quoniam misericordia effluunt, &c. Meritum proinde meum miserationes Domini. Non planè sum maritiinops, quamdiuille miserationum non fuerit. Quòd si misericordiae Domini multa, multus nihilo minus ego in meritis sum. Whatsoeuer is wanting [Page 638] to me of my selfe, I boldly take it vnto me out of the bowels of the Lord, for they flow out with mercy. My merit is the Lords mercy: I am not poore in merit, so long as he is not poore in mercy: and if he be rich in mercie, then am I also rich in merits. Yea Bellarmine M. Bishops maister after that he hath swet and trauelled mightily to auouch the righteousnesse and merit of workes, in the end being quite spent is content to retire into our port, and draweth to this conclusion, thatBellar. de iust. lib. 5. cap. 7. Propter incertitudinē propriae iustitiae, & periculum inanis gloriae tutissimum est fiduciam totam in sola Dei misericordia & benig nitate reponere. because of the vncertaintie of our owne righteousnesse, and the perill of vaine glory, the safest way is to repose our whole trust in the onely mercy) and goodnesse of God. Now if there be no saluation, no heauen without merits, and a man haue no merits of his owne, by what merits shall the mercy of God saue him, but onely by the imputation of the merits of Christ? And will M. Bishop say of him, that as he hath no merits but by imputation, so he shall haue no heauen but by imputation? Shall this be all the comfort of that which Bellarmine commendeth for the safest course, to flie to the sole and onely mercie and goodnesse of God? Yea, saith M. Bishop: for God as a most vpright iudge will in the end repay euery man according to his woorth. What, and do you M. Bishop expect, that God in the end should repay heauen to you according to your woorth? Go foole, go, leaue off this talke of merit and woorth: learne to know God, learne to know thy selfe, learne to say with Chrysostome: Chrysost. in Coloss. hom 2. Nemo talem vitae conuersatio nem ostendit, vt regno dignus esse possit, sed totum donum est ipsius D [...]. No man sheweth such conuersation of life, as that he may be worthy of the kingdome, but it is wholy the gift of God. Was notMar. 1.7. Iohn Baptist worthie to loose the latchet of Christs shoe, and dost thou thinke to be worthie to raigne with Christ? But I leaue him here to be whipped with his own rod: his owne conscience wil one day sting him sufficiently with the remembrance of these assertions. As for the Protestants, let him take no care for their worthinesse. We beleeue that there is for vs in Christ a reall worthinesse, for which we shall receiue a reall heauen. But let him take heed, lest whilest he feedeth himselfe with a conceipt of woorth where there is none, he be deluded with a conceipt of heauen in his end, and indeed find none, nor euer attain to that which is prepared for them that maintaine the truth of the Scripture, and glorie of God to their owne comfort. But of worthinesse there will be further occasion to speake hereafter. As for the place of Austine which he alledgeth as good to stand for him, it was written by him when he was newly conuerted from the [Page 639] heresie of the Manichees in such words and phrases as seeme plausible to humane vnderstanding and iudgement, which comparing one man with another, expresseth to it selfe the difference by termes of worthie and vnworthie, deseruing and hot deseruing, howsoeuer to the sight and iudgement of God woorth & desert are farre from all. The purpose of S. Austine in that place, is to shew the ordinarie course that God taketh, that he will first haue vs to trauell in his seruice, before we receiue the reward thereof, as the Apostle declareth in saying,2. Tim. 2.6. The husbandman must labour before he receiue the fruites. But that S. Austine in maturitie and ripenesse of iudgement was very farre from M. Bishops fancie of merit, may sufficiently appeare by one sentence of his where he saith,August. in Psal. 109. Promisit hominibus diuinitatem, mor talibus immortalitatem, peccatoribus iustificationem, abiectis glorificationem. Quicquid promisit, indignis promisit, vt non quasi merces operibus promitteretur, sed gratia à nomine suo gratis daretur, quia & hoc ipsā quód iustè viuit, inquantum homo potest iustè viuere, nō merite humani, sed beneficij diuini est, God promised to men participation with God, immortalitie to mortall creatures, iustification to sinners, glorification to abiects and cast-awayes. Whatsoeuer he promised, he promised to men vnworthie, that it might not be promised as a reward to workes, but being grace might according to the name be freely giuen; because to liue iustly, so farre as man can liue iustly, is not a matter importing mans merit, but the benefite and gift of God. Where plainely he sheweth, that whatsoeuer God hath promised, it is his meere and onely gift; that to speake simply thereof, it is to be bereaued of the title of a reward of workes, because God promised the same when we had no workes: that it is not giuen for our woorth, because it was promised when we had no woorth: yea and that we haue any good workes, it is an effect of the same promise; it cannot be thought to make any merit on our behalfe, but to set foorth grace and mercie on Gods behalfe: so that all is free gift, all is grace and mercie, and the adding of one gift, and grace, and mercie to another, howsoeuer sometimes in some respects, as hereafter we shall see, the gift of God is set foorth vnto vs vnder the name of recompence and reward. In a word, by that that followeth, I doubt not but it will appeare, that the Protestants Proctor, if he must needes be so tearmed, hath said nothing in this behalfe, but what by S. Austine and other auncient Fathers may well be defended against this Romish prater, who hath great insolencie of words, but sound matter of proofe he can find none at all.
3. W. BISHOP.
But M. Perkins will neuerthelesse prooue, and that by sundry reasons, that their doctrine is the truth at selfe, and ours falshood.
First, by a sorry short syllogisme containing more then one whole page. It is taken out of the properties of a meritorious worke: which must be (saith he) foure: first, That the worke be done of our selues, without the helpe of another: secondly, That it be not otherwise due debt: thirdly, That it be done to the benefit of another: fourthly, That the worke and reward be equall in proportion. These properties he sets downe pythagorically without any proofe: but inserreth theron, as though he had proued them inuincibly, that Christs manhood separated from the Godhead cannot merit: because whatsoeuer he doth, he doth it by grace receiued, and should be otherwise due. He might in like manner as truly say, that Christs manhood vnited to the Godhead, could not merit neither: for he receiued his Godhead from his Father, and whatsoeuer he doth, is therefore his Fathers by due debt. And so the good man, if he were let alone, would disappoint vs wholly of all merits, aswell the imputed of Christs, as of all ours done by virtue of his grace. Wherefore we must a little sift his foure forged proprieties of merit: and touching the first, I say, that one may by the good vse of a thing receiued by free gift, merit and deserue much euen at his hands that gaue it. For example, the farther bestowes a Farme vpon his sonne freely; who may by often presenting his Father of the pleasing fruits growing on the same, deserue his further fauour: yea, he may by the commodities reaped out of that farme, buy any thing that it shall please his father to set to sale, as well as if he had neuer receiued the farme from his fathers gift. Which is so common a case, and so sensible, that euery man of meane wit, may easily reach vnto it: euen so by good manuring the gifts which God freely bestoweth vpon vs, we may both merit the increase of them, and according to his owne order and promise, purchase thereby the kingdome of heauen: which is plainely proued by that parable, Of the talents giuen by a king to his seruants;Mat. 25. the which they employing well and multiplying, were therefore esteemed worthy of farre greater, and withall to be made partakers of their Lords ioyes.
M. Perkins then was not a litle ouerseene, to put for the first proprietie of merit, that it must be done by a man, and of a man himselfe.
R. ABBOT.
M. Perkins saith very truly vpon noting the conditions necessarily required in a meritorious worke, that the manhood of Christ considered a part from his Godhead, because it is but a creature, and hath all by the gift of God, and doth all by bond of necessary dutie, cannot merit at Gods hands: Whereas M. Bishop against this saith, that he might in like manner as truly say, that Christs manhood vnited to the Godhead could not merit neither, because he receiued his Godhead from the Father, and therefore whatsoeuer he doth is his Fathers by due debt, he bewrayeth his notable and absurd ignorance. For Christ receiueth his Godhead of the Father to be equall to the Father, not inferiour; to be the same in substance, and maiestie, and glorie, that the Father is. Now duty and debt do necessarily enforce minoritie and subiection. Seeing therefore there is no minority or subiection in the Godhead of the Sonne towards the Father, there can be no debt or dutie of the Sonne in that respect towards the Father. Thus the good man, to repay him with his owne stoute, is taken before he is aware in the nets of the Arian heresie, which made Christ as God inferiour, and subiect to the Father. The merit of Christ therefore consisted in this, as S. Paule noteth, that being equall to God his Father, and owing no debt or dutie, did voluntarily humble himselfe to obedience and duty for our sakes. So then M. Perrkins, indeed a good man, as M. Bishop shall one day see, hath not by his assertion bereaued vs of the merits of Christ, but hath taught how rightly to vnderstand the same. But now he will a litle sift, as he saith, the foure forged proprieties of merit, which M. Perkins hath set downe. Whether they be forged or not, will appeare by the sequele; in the meane time his answers to them may seeme rather to haue come from the Smiths forge, then out of the studie, and from the learning of a Doctor of Diuinitie. The first condition required in a meritorious worke, properly so to be called, to which by dutie, debt and right for the workes sake, reward is to be yeelded, is, that a man do it of himselfe, and by his owne power. For so saith Hilary: Hilar. de Trin. lib. 11. Mereri eius est qui ipse sib [...] meriti acqui rendi author existi [...]. It is for him to merit, who himselfe is to himselfe the author of getting his merit. Therefore S. Bernard hauing said, thatBernard. in A [...] c [...]at. ser. 1. Non talia sunt hominum merita [...]i propter ea vita aeterna debeatur ex [...]ure, &c. Nam merita omnia Dei donu sunt, & ita homo magis propter ipsa Deo debitor est quàm Deus hom [...]. the merits of men are not such, as that life eternall by right is owing [Page 642] for them, giueth this for one reason thereof, because all merits are the gifts of God, and so man is rather a debter to God for them, then God to man. So Origen saith, thatOrigen. in Ro. cap 4. Vix mihi su [...]deo vllum opus esse posse, quod ex debito remunerationē Dei deposcat, eùm etiam hoc ipsum quòd agere aliquid possumus, vel cogitare vel proloqui ipsius do [...] & larguione faciamus. he can hardly be perswaded, that there can be any worke, which by debt may require reward at Gods hands, in asmuch as it is by his gift that we are able to do, or thinke, or speake any thing that is good. By this reason S. Austine, though according to the language of his time, he vseth the name of merit, yet taketh away the true nature of merit, by bereauing the righteousnes of man of hauing any thing due vnto it. Aug. Epist. 105. Tibi tanquā debita redderetur si ex te tibi esset iustitia cu [...] debetur. Nunc de plenitudine eius accepimus non solùm gratiam qua nunc iustè in laboribus vs (que) in finē viuimus, sed etiam gratiā pro hac gratia vt in requie posteà sine fine viuamu [...]. Eternall life (saith he) shold be rendred as due vnto thee, if of thy selfe thou hadst the righteousnesse to which it is due: but now of his fulnesse we receiue not onely grace now to liue iustly in our labours to the end, but also grace for this grace, that afterwards we may liue in rest without rest. Here is then nothing due vnto vs, and therefore no merit, because whatsoeuer righteousnes is in vs, it is onely Gods gift vnto vs. This reason in sundry places he giueth against opinion of hauing GodIdem in Psal. 32. & in Ioan. tract. 3. a debter vnto vs by our doings, against the conceipt ofIn Psal. 43. in fine. our worthinesse, or thinking that we haue any thing due vnto vs for the good workes that we performe, because of God it is that we haue all. But M. Bishops head is sufficient to answer this, and that with greater depth of wit assure your selfe, then is to be found in the heeles of any Protestant whatsoeuer. A man (saith he) may by the good vse of a thing receiued by free gift, merit and deserue much euen at his hands that gaue it. For example forsooth: The father bestowes a Farme vpon his sonne freely, who may by often presenting his Father of the pleasing fruites thereof, deserue his further fauour, yea by the commodities thereof he may grow to be able to buy any thing that his father shall set to sale. Surely this reason is very farmerlike, and smelleth more strongly of the cart, then it doth of the Bible. But for answer, if a man bestow a thing vpon another, and the same can make no good vse thereof, but by his hand and helpe that gaue it him, is he not in all that redoundeth to him bound to him, by whose gift he first enioyed that which he hath, and by whose onely hand he maketh vse and profite of it? If a father bestow a farme on his sonne, and the sonne can do no good therewith but by the father: if he increase nothing, raise nothing, but what is raised and increased to him by his father: if he be not able of himselfe so much as to stirre a hand to helpe himselfe, but his father doth all for him, shall we [Page 643] thinke that by the increase and profit that ariseth therof, the sonne meriteth and deserueth any thing at his fathers hands? can he giue the Father any thing, but what was first the fathers gift to him? Euen so is the case with vs. God hath bestowed vpon vs his calling and grace; but what are we the neerer, if his hand do not stil work for vs who hath said,Iohn. 15.5. Without me ye can do nothing; who in the beginning and to the endPhil. 2.13. worketh in vs both to will and to do; so thatRom. 15.18. we haue nothing to speake of, but what Christ hath done by vs; Cyprian. ad Quirin. lib. 3. ca. 5. De nullo gloriandum quando nostrū nihil est. nothing to reioice or glory of, because we haue nothing of our owne, Aug in Ioan. tract. 5. Nemo habet de suo nisi mendacium & peccatum. nothing of our own but lying and sinne, so that we can yeeld nothing to God but what is his,Esa. 26.12. who hath wrought all our works for vs, Rom. 11.36. of whom, and for whom, and through whom are all things, that he may be blessed for euer. Therfore the auncient Church taught against Pelagius the heretike, that Aug. epist. 106. Gratiam Dei & adiutorium eius etiam ad singulos actus dari. the grace of God is giuen to euery seuerall action. Hieron. ad Ctesiphont. Sciamus nos nihil esse nisi quod donauit, in nobis ipse seruaue [...]it, &c. semper largitor, semper donator est. Non sufficit mihi quod semel donauit, nisi semper donauerit: Peto vt accipiam, & cum accepero, rursus peto. We must know, saith Hierome, that we are nothing if he himselfe do not keepe in vs that which he hath giuen. God is still giuing, still bestowing: it sufficeth me not that he hath once giuen, vnlesse he be still giuing: I pray to receiue, and when I haue receiued, I pray againe. This is it that we are here to vnderstand, that not onely the first grace, but whatsoeuer consequently we haue or do towards God, it is altogether and wholy of the gift of God, and therefore in nothing can we be said to merit or deserue at Gods hands, because we cannot binde God as a debtor vnto vs, by any thing that is his owne. But Maister Bishop maketh no more account but this, that God hath giuen him a Farme, and by the well husbanding of it he must grow rich, and then make a further purchase of God againe. His Farme is the grace of God, which he must manage by free will, and so fill his bagges with merites, that when God shall set heauen to sale, he may be able at once to buy a whole Kingdome for himselfe. But if this be all, let him take heede least of a rich Farmer he become a poore begger, and his purchase be to be turned out of doores. Let him thankfully acknowledge the gift of God, but if he thus braue the matter with God with termes of purchase, he will prooue like the Laodiceans, of whom the holy Ghost saith;Apoc. 3.17. Thou saiest, I am rich and increased with goods, and want nothing, and knowest not how thou art wretched and miserable, and blind, and naked. God will haue vsBernard in Cant. Ser. 50. to know at that day that not for the workes of righteousnesse which we haue done, but of his owne [Page 644] mercy he hath saued vs, and thatAug. in Ioan. tract. 3. Quòd praemiū in. mortalitatis postea tri [...]uit, coro [...]at dona sua, non merita tua. in giuing the reward of immortality, he crowneth not our merits but his owne gifts. As for that which he alledgeth of those that receiued the talents, and for the well vsing thereof were so bountifully rewarded, it prooueth that God doth well requite the good vsage of the gifts that he bestoweth vpon vs, but well he knoweth that of woorth, of merit, and desert, there is nothing spoken there. The talent is Gods gift, and the well vsing of the talent is Gods gift, and therefore the reward commendeth the mercy of God, but can in no sort approoue any merit or desert of man. But of reward more hereafter: in the meane time M. Bishops sensible case is become sencelesse in this case. M. Perkins like a Diuine, hath set downe this first condition of merit, and he hath answered it like a Farmer, as being more sensible to make vse of a peece of ground, then to dispute a question of the word of God. Let vs see now whether he haue any better successe against the second.
4. W. BISHOP.
The second, That a man must do it of his own free will and pleasure, and not of due debt: carieth in shew an opposition, but in deede there is no contradiction in it: for a man may, and euery honest man doth of his owne free will and pleasure, pay his due debt: but let vs pardon the disorder of words: his meaning being nothing else, but that the payment of that which is otherwise due debt, cānot be any meritorious work, to which S. Austine doth answer in these words: Ser. 3. De verb. Apost. O great goodnesse of God, to whom whē we did owe seruice by condition of our estate, as bond-men do to their Lord, yet hath he promised again & again the reward of friends. In which there is couched a comparison, which being laid in the light, will much helpe to the vnderstanding of this matter. He that hath a slaue, or bond-man, may lawfully exact of him all kind of seruice without any wages: Bread and a whip (saith a Philosopher) serue for a slaue. Now suppose the Maister to be soueraigne gouernour of a state: then if it please him to make his man free, and withall a member of his common-weale, the same man by performing many good offices to the state, may iustly deserue of his Prince as great reward and promotion, as any other of his subiects: and yet may his Lord and olde Maister say truly to him, all this that thou hast done, or could do, is but due bebt vnto me, considering that thou wast my bond-man. So fareth it [Page 645] with vs in respect of God: all that we can do is due debt vnto him, because he hath made vs, and endowed vs with all that we either be, or haue: yet it hath pleased him, as a most kinde Lord, to set vs at liberty through Christ, and to make vs Citizens of the Saints, and as capable of his heauenly riches, as the Angels, if we will do our endeuour to deserue them: and whereas he might haue exacted all that euer we could do, without any kind of recompence: yet he of his inestimable goodnesse towards vs, doth neither bind vs to do all we can do; and yet for doing that little which he commandeth, hath by promise bound himselfe to repay vs a large recompence: by which we may well vnderstand those words of our Sauiour: Luk. 17. When you haue done all these things that are commanded you, say that you are vnprofitable seruants: we haue done that we ought to do. True. By our natiue condition we were bound to performe, not only all these things that be now commanded, but whatsoeuer else it should haue pleased God to command: and this we must alwaies confesse, to preserue true humility in vs: yet God hath bettered our estate through Christ, and so highly aduaunced vs, that we not onely be Citizens of the Saints, but his sonnes and heires, and thereby in case to deserue of him a heauenly crowne, and this is S. Ambrose exposition vpon the place. S. Chrysostome pondering these words, let vs say, taketh it for a wholsome counsaile for vs to say, that we be vnprofitable seruants, least pride destroy our good works: and then God will say, that we be good and faithfull seruants, as it is recorded. Mat. 25. Vers. 21.
Againe, we may truly say, when we haue done all things commanded, that we are vnprofitable seruants, as venerable Bede our most learned countriman interpreteth: Because of all that we do,In Luc, 17. no commodity riseth vnto God our Lord in himselfe: who is such an infinite ocean of all goodnesses, that he wanteth nothing: Whereupon Dauid saith, That thou art my God,Psal. 15. because thou standest in neede of no good that I can do.
R. ABBOT.
That that shall merit, must be a worke done of a mans owne free will and pleasure, and not of due debt. The opposition of these termes is plaine and pregnant, and M. Bishops instance to the contrary is absur [...]. A man doth willingly pay his debts, but not vpon his own [...] will and pleasure. For what a man doth of his owne free will [Page 646] and pleasure, it is at his owne choise to leaue it vndone if he list, but it is not at an honest mans choise to pay his debts or not to pay, but by necessary duty he is tied to the payment thereof. There is no man but in common course of speech vnderstandeth a contradiction in those words, but M. Bishop cannot let a rush go by him, but he will be seeking a knot in it, and being sicke of Pisoes disease, albeit he know not how to speake, yet he can by no meanes hold his peace. But to shew that the paiment of that which is due debt, may be a meritorious worke, he alledgeth a testimony of S. Austine, importing no such matter.Aug. de verb. Dom. ser. 3. O magna bonitas Dei, cui cum pro conditione obsequia redilere debeamus vtpote ser [...] Domino, famuli Deo, subiecti potenti, mā cipia redemptori, aemicitiarū nobis praemia repromittit, vt à nobis obsequia debita seruitutis exterqu [...]at. O the great goodnesse of God, saith he, to whom whereas by our condition and state, we are of duty to do seruice as bondmen to their Lord, and as seruants vnto God, as subiects to a Potentate, and slaues to him that ransomed them, yet doth promise vnto vs the reward of friendship, that he may wrest or draw from vs the duties of seruice which we owe. All is but this, that God of his mercy by promises of reward, draweth vs on to the performance of our duty towards him. I doubt not but the Reader will wonder what should moue M. Bishop here to alledge this place to that purpose that he doth, and yet he needeth not wonder that seeth still his manner of idle and impertinent allegations. Very common sence teacheth that I am not bound to a man, for the doing of that which he standeth bound to do for me. There is no merit in the doing of it, but trespasse if he do it not. Yet he telleth vs, that in S. Austines words there is a comparison couched that will put this matter out of doubt. Which indeed is so closely couched, as that in S. Austines words we can see no token of it, and full ilfauouredly doth he deale with S. Austine therein to serue his owne turne. For whereas the godly Father vseth the words to set forth Gods mercy, that he vouchsafeth to promise reward for workes of due seruice, this cosening impostour chargeth God hereby with duty of iustice bound to paiment of wages for merit and desert of workes. But in the comparison by him laid downe, there are many differences to be obserued, which do lay open vnto vs the absurdity of it. First of the infinite disproportion betwixt God and man it ariseth, that no man by bondage or villanage can be bound in that high degree to another man, as euery man is bound to God; and therefore though one man being by cō munity of nature the same that another is, may deserue at the hands of another man, yet it followeth not therefore that a man may deserue [Page 647] or merit at Gods hands. Secondly, manumission and freedome with men extinguisheth bondage and seruice, but liberty and adoption to Godward, are a bettering of the condition of our seruice, but no discharge at all of the duty of it; nay, we are freed by liberty from sinne, from death, and from the diuell, but we continue still bond & seruants vnto God. So doth the Apostle tel vs, that therby we are madeRom. 6:18.22: seruants vnto righteousnesse, seruants vnto God. Therefore doth he write himselfePhil 1:1: the seruant (or bondman) of Christ, and S. Peter teacheth vs to acknowledge our selues1. Pet. 2.16. the seruants (or bondmen) of God. Yea, and S. Austine in the place cited, calleth our workesObsequia debita seruitutis. duties of seruice (or bondage) that are owing vnto God, which being the last part of the sentence, M. Bishop very guilefully left out, because it wholy ouerthroweth that which he saith of the changing of our former state. Thirdly, the Prince is in some sort tied to the subiect, as well as the subiect to the Prince. For as the subiect hath neede of the Prince, so hath the Prince also of the subiect; as the subiect standeth by the Prince, so doth the Prince by the subiect, and therefore by necessity is tied to reward the seruice of the subiect, for the securing of his owne estate. But it is not so with God; we do nothing to benefit him, he needeth vs not, and therefore it is his meere mercy to vouchsafe any countenance to our seruice. Fourthly, there is some proportion betwixt temporall seruice & temporall reward, and yet such is the magnificence of Princes, as that for small seruice they giue great reward, farre beyond the woorth of the worke which they reward; but there is no proportion as shall be shewed betwixt out temporall seruice to God, and his eternall rewards to vs, and much more roiall and magnificent is he to reward farre beyond all possibility of desert. Last of all, adde concerning M. Bishops free man, that that was said before concerning his farmer, that in the seruice of his Prince he is able to do nothing but by the helpe of his Prince, so that what is done, is indeede his Princes doing for him, and not his owne for himselfe, yea and that in his Princes seruice he commit so many defaults, as that if he be questioned he be not able for a thousand to answer one, and we shall leaue the free man & the farmer both alike, both disclaiming merit and pleading mercy, content to take that of free gift which M. Bishops pride will not take but by desert. Now therfore briefly to touch his application: all that we can do, saith he, is due [Page 648] debt vnto God. True, but not onely by state of our creation, but also in that liberty wherewith he hath set vs free in Christ, because by our liberty we are free from sinne and death, but still continue bond to God. In this liberty he saith, that God hath made vs capable of heauenly riches, if we endeuour to deserue them, but no where hath God set them forth with that condition, and after all our endeuour we are very farre from deseruing. God, he saith, doth not binde vs to do all that we can do. A lewd man, who cannot but know that we cannot by many degrees do that that we are bound vnto, and seeing he bindeth vs to giue himMar. 11.30. all the heart, all the soule, all the minde, all the strength, how can he say that God doth not binde vs to all that we can do? Againe, by the same spirit he termeth the commaundements of God that little that he commaundeth. A foolish and sencelesse man, a meere Pharisee not knowing the power of Gods law; otherwise if he had grace and spirit to conceiue it, he would by the law, as the Apostle did, finde himselfeRom. 7.10. dead in himselfe, and acknowledge that which now seemeth to him but little, to be a burden beyond his strength. At length he telleth vs, that God by promise hath bound himselfe to repay vs a large recompence. But if by promise, then of mercie on his owne part, not of merit on our part. By promise he bindeth himselfe, but by merit we binde him to vs. It is in his owne power to promise, and without promise he should be tied to nothing; but whether there be promise or not, he is tied in iustice to render for merit and desert. Now because Maister Bishop in the issue of his comparison, can finde nothing but promise, the end of his comparison must be, that merit and desert is altogether to be excluded. But by that that he hath said, he telleth vs that we may well vnderstand those words of our Sauiour, Luk. 17.20. When ye haue done all those things which are commaunded you, say, We are vnprofitable seruants, we haue done that which was our dutie to doe. And how then are we to vnderstand them? Marry by our natiue condition we were bound to performe all the commaundements of God, and this we must confesse to preserue true humility in vs; yet God hath bettered our estate in Christ, and made vs thereby in case to deserue of him. But what, in this better state are we not still bound to performe that which God commaundeth? doth our high aduauncement to be the children of God, take away the obligation of our dutie towards God? If it [Page 649] doe not so, (and surely we are so farre from opinion of taking it away, as that rather it doth increase it) then what shall become of Maister Bishops answer? We were bound before to the keeping of Gods commaundements, and we continue bound still; what merit can there be more now in the doing of them, then there was before? What, Maister Bishop, did our Sauiour meane that by our natiue condition we were to say, We are vnprofitable seruants, we haue done but our dutie, and did he meane that in our better condition of grace in Christ we are not to say so? See, gentle Reader, this is one of them who take vpon them to be the onely Maisters of the world; and as if all learning and truth were locked vp in their Schooles. But had he not so much reason, as to consider that Christ taught his Disciples this lesson, when they were now partakers of that better state? In this betternesse of condition and estate, Christ teacheth them, that when they haue done all that is commaunded, they should say, Wee are vnprofitable seruants, yea and by the comparison precedent, setteth them foorth still in condition of seruants vnto God, and sheweth that they cannot of dutie expect so much as thankes for all that they haue done. Doth a man thanke his seruant, because he doth that which was commaunded him? I trow not. So likewise ye when ye haue done all, say, we are vnprofitable seruants, &c. As if hee should say, Because you are seruants, learne you to conceiue in like sort of your seruice. Now Maister Bishop hauing set downe that goodly commentarie, addeth, And this is Saint Ambrose his exposition vpon the place. But why doth he not set downe the words of Ambrose? why doth he seeke to steale away onely with setting downe his name? Let Saint Ambrose himselfe speake, and hee saith to his purpose not one word, nay he speaketh against him.Ambros. in Luc. lib. 8. cap. 17. Nemo in operibus glorietur, quia iure Domino debemus obsequium. Agnosce te esse seruum plurimis obsequijs defaeneratum. Non te praeferas quia filius Dei diceris: agnoscenda gratia sed non ignoranda natura: ne (que) te iactes si benè s [...]ruisti quod facere debuisti. Let no man reioice, saith he, or glorie in workes, because by right wee owe dutie to the Lord. Acknowledge thy selfe to be a seruant that art indebted in manifold seruice. Do not set vp thy selfe, for that thou art called the childe of God: thou art to acknowledge grace, but not to be ignorant of nature: and doe not vaunt thy selfe, that thou hast serued well vvhich thou wast bound to doe. In which words he giueth plainely to vnderstand, that our natiue condition of seruice continueth still, and is not [Page 650] taken away by the state of the grace of God, and that we are still to remember that we do but out duty; we do but what we are bound to do in all that we can do. Now further he alledgeth Chrysostome, but where is the place? We doubt him to be as false in Chrysostome as he was in Ambrose, and yet in that which he citeth what is there for merit, or what against debt and duty of seruice vnto God? Chrysostome taketh it for wholsome counsell for vs to say, that we be vnprofitable seruants, least pride destroy our good workes. But what, was it Chrysostomes minde that we should say so and not thinke so? Did he meane that by lying we should auoide pride? S. Austine well asketh the question;Aug. de verb. Apost. ser. 25. Propter humilitatē ergò mentiris. Wilt thou then lye to shew humility? S. Bernard hauing cited those words of Christ, addeth thus,Berna. de tripl. custod. Sed hoc, inquies, propter, humilitatē monuit esse dicendū. Planè, propter humilitatem sed nunquid cō tra veritatem? But thou wilt say that Christ hath taught so to say for humilities sake. True, saith he, it was for humility indeede, but what, against truth? What Chrysostome conceiued of the words, it may appeare when he saith:Chrysost. ad pop. Antioch. hom. 53. Omnia quae facimus, aginius debitum implentes. Propterea & ipse dicebat &c. All that we do, we do as fulfilling duty; therefore Christ said, When ye haue done all, say, We are vnprofitable seruants, &c. In another place he gathereth thereof, thatIdem de paenitent. Qui omnia faciunt, parua fecisse computabuntur. they which haue done all, shall be reckoned to haue done but little: and againe, that Christ thereby commandeth vsIdē de paenit. & confess. Obliuion [...] tradere bona opera. to forget our good workes, namely as not woorth the remembrance and reckoning of, howsoeuer God in fauour & mercy do accept them. But most directly he speaketh to our purpose, where hauing set downe the words before alledged,Chrysost. ad Coloss. hom 2. Supra sect. 2. No man sheweth such conuersation of life, as that he can be worthy of the Kingdome, &c. he addeth, Wherefore Christ saith, When ye haue done all, say, We are vnprofitable seruants, &c. This is it then that our Sauiour Christ would signifie in those words, that a man by doing whatsoeuer he can do, cannot attaine to be worthy of the Kingdome of Christ, but that it is to vs altogether the gift of God. To which purpose Marke the auncient Hermite notably applieth the same words;Marc. Heremit. li. de bis qui se putant operib. iustificari. Dominus totius legis debitores nos esse iudicari volens, & filiorū adoptionem proptio sanguine nobis gratuitò datam, inquit, Cùm omnia feceritis, &c. Proptereà regnum coelorū non est merces eperū sed gratia Domini fi [...]clilus seruis praepara [...]a. Our Lord, saith he, willing to shew that we are debtors of the whole law, and that the adoption of children is freely giuen to vs by his bloud, saith, when ye haue done all things that are commanded you, say, we are vnprofitable seruants, &c. Therefore the Kingdome of heauen is not the reward (or wages) of workes, but it is the grace (or gift) of God prepared for his faithfull seruants. On euery side therefore those words of Christ are taken to import somewhat against merit and woorth, yet M. Bishop by meanes that his minion of Rome hath hoodwinked his eies, cannot [Page 651] see so much, but he is still doting vpon that which he can no where finde. Which the more plainly to shew, he citeth Bede for another construction of these words of Christ, that therefore we are to account our selues vnprofitable seruants, because of all that we do, there ariseth no profit to God; but why did he leaue out that which Bede there addeth, as giuing to vnderstand that that former was not the whole meaning of Christes words;Beda in Luc. cap. 17. We are vnprofitable seruants, because the sufferings of this time, are not worthy of the glory to come, as in another place, which crowneth thee in mercy and compassion. He saith not, in thy merits, because by whose mercy we are preuented that we may humbly serue him, by his gift we are crowned to reigne with him. What M. Bishop, no more faith, no more trust in you? do you alledge Authors, when they condemne your doctrine, euen in the places whence you cite them? Leaue of, leaue of;Act. 26.14. it is hard for you to kicke against the prickes. You fight against the Gospell of Christ, against the truth of God, and do not you doubt but it will preuaile against you, and the conquest thereof shall be your vtter confusion if you hold on your course.
5. W. BISHOP.
And thus we fall vpon the third property of M. Perkins meritorious worke, which is, That it be done to the profit of another: and say that albeit God in himselfe receiue no profit by our workes, yet doth he in the administration of his holy common-weale the Church, wherein good mens seruices do much pleasure him. And in this sence it is said of S. Paul, That by cleansing our selues from wicked workes,2. Tim. 2. Math. 5. we shall become vessels sanctified, and profitable vnto our Lord. Againe, God is glorified by our good workes. That seeing your good workes, they may glorifie your Father which is in heauen. Finally, God doth reioyce at the recouerie of his lost children.Ioh. 15. ver. 8. Luk. 15. If then good men trauailing painfully in Gods Vineyard, do yeeld him outwardly both honour, ioy, and commoditie: that may suffice to make their worke meritorious.
R. ABBOT.
As touching this condition, we contend not with Maister Bishop concerning his exposition thereof. Merit must be done by the [Page 652] will, and for the vse and behoofe of him at whose hands it must merit. So Christes obedience by the will of the Father, to the praise of the glory of his grace, did merit and deserue at his Fathers hands in our behalfe. Onely it is to be added, that it must fully satisfie the vse and behoofe whereto it is intended, and not faile in any point thereof. Now becauseAug. Eu [...]hirid. cap. 64. Sic spiritu Dei extitantur vt etiam spiritu suo, &c. tanquā filij hominū quibusdā motibus humanis deficiant ad seipses, &c. the children of God are so moued by the spirit of God, as that by their owne spirit as the sonnes of men through humane motions and affections, they sometimes faile and fall backe to themselues, and therefore do not so entirely and perfectly serue the vses of the Lord, to yeeld either glory to God, or loue to their brethren as they ought to do, therefore neither do they attaine to this condition of merit, nor can in any sort bind God to repay them for that broken seruice that they haue done, nay if he would call matters to strict reckoning and account, he hath rather occasion of quarell against them, for disgracing and defiling the works that he hath wrought in them.
6. W. BISHOP.
M. Perkins fourth property is, That the worke and reward be equall in proportion: If he vnderstand Arithmeticall proportion, that is, that they be equall in quantity, to wit, the one to be as great, or of as long continuance as the other: then we denie this kinde of equality to be requisite to merit: there is another sort of proportion, called by the Philosopher 5. Ethic. Geometricall: and the equality of that is taken by a reasonable correspondence of the one vnto the other: as when a good office is giuen vnto a Citizen of desart, it may be that the honour and commodity of the office is farre greater, then was the merit of the man: yet he being as well able to discharge it as another, and hauing better deserued it, is holden in true iustice worthie of it: In like manner in a game where maisteries are tried, the prize is giuen vnto him that doth best, not because the value of the reward is iust as much woorth, as that act of the man who winneth it: but for that such actiuitie is esteemed woorthy of such a recompence. Now the crowne of heauenly glory, is likened by Saint Pule, vnto a Garland in a game: where he saith, 1. Cor. 9. 2. Tim. 2. That we all runne, but one carieth away the prize. And, he that striueth for the maisterie, is not crowned, vnlesse he [Page 653] striue lawfully. It is also resembled vnto places of honour: Math. 25. Ioh. 14. I will place thee ouer much. And, I go to prouide you places.
Grace is also in many places of Scripture compared to seede: Math. 13. 1. Ioh. 3. For the seed of God tarieth in him. But a little seed cast into good ground, and well manured, bringeth forth abundance of corne. Briefly, then such equality as there is betweene the well deseruing subiect and the office, betweene him that striueth lawfully and the crowne, betweene the seede and the corne, is betweene the reward of heauen, and the merit of a true seruant of God.
And thus much of M. Perkins first Argument, more indeede to explicate the nature and condition of merit, then that his reason nakedly proposed, did require it.
R. ABBOT.
The proportion that maketh merit or desert, must be Arithmeticall, wherein the worke must fully equall the reward, though not in greatnesse and continuance, yet in value and woorth. If the one in that sort do not counterpoise the other, the one cannot be said to be deserued by the other. But there is no proportion at all either Arithmeticall or Geometricall, betwixt that that is finite and that that is infinite; therefore none at all betwixt the worke of man and the reward of heauen, the one being euery way finite, the other in continuance infinite. So then Maister Bishops Geometricall proportion and reasonable correspondence is excluded also, becauseFulgent. ad Monim. lib. 1. Tantū ibi graetia diuinae retributionis exuberat vt inceparabiliter at (que) ineffabiliter omne meritū quamuis bonae & ex Deo datae humanae voluntatis & operationis excedat. the grace (or gift) of Gods reward, as Fulgentius saith, doth so much there abound, as that incomparably and vnspeakeably it exceedeth all the merit of the will and worke of man, albeit it be good and giuen vnto him of God. There is no reasonable correspondence where the one incomparably and vnspeakeably exceedeth all the merit and desert of the other. The same is imported by Saint Bernard, who hauing said, that mens merits are not such as that life eternall is due vnto thē of right, giueth reason therof, beside that that I mentioned before:Ber. in Annunciat. Ser. 1. Quid sunt omnia merita ad tantā gloriam? For what are all merits to so great glory? M. Bishop will haue vs think that he did amisse to aske such a questiō, because there is as he saith such a reasonable correspōdence betwixt the one & the other, as that the one cōtrary to S. Bernards sentēce, is iustly & duly deserued by the other. And in the same sort doth he controll Macarius, [Page 654] who affirmeth, thatMacar. homil. 15. Siqui [...] abeo tempore quo cō ditus est Adam vs (que) ad finē mū di militasset cō tra diab. lum & omnes dolores cruciatus (que) perrulisset, nihil magnum fecisset respectu gloriae quā cōsecuturus est, & in qua infinitu seculu cū Christo regnabit. though a man from the time that Adam was created euen to the end of the world, were in warfare against the diuell, and did suffer all afflictions and sorowes, yet should he do no great matter in comparison to the glory which he shall receiue, being to reigne with Christ world without end. Now thē because all reasonable correspondence is quite sunke, Maister Bishops merit is quite drowned, and his deuice of Geometricall proportion will not serue his turne. But we are here to note the notable stupiditie of this merit-monger Pharisee, who maketh the like correspondence betwixt the merit of man and the reward of heauen, as is betwixt the well deseruing subiect, and an office bestowed on him, betwixt him that striueth lawfully and the crowne; betwixt the seede and the corne increasing thereof. Who would thinke that he could be so absurd, so basely to proportion those1. Cor. 2.9. good things which neither eie hath seene nor eare hath heard, nor haue entred into mans heart, which God hath prepared for them that loue him. And yet euen in these comparisons how farre is he beside the stoole. For first we know that subiects do not chalenge offices at their Princes hands, by right and title of merit and desert, but by request of fauour and grace. Whatsoeuer a man hath done, he hath done the duty of a subiect, and it is at the discretion and pleasure of the Prince, to consider of that he hath done, and what is it to him, if his Prince bestow the office which he desireth, vpon a man of meaner quality and woorth then he thinketh himselfe to be? But if the honour and commodity of the office be farre greater, as M. Bishop saith, thē the merit of the man, shall we not think that he meriteth a dagger & a bell, that will go about hereby to approoue a title of merit and desert with God? For if the reward of heauen be farre greater then the merit of man, why doth he seeke to make good our meriting thereof? As touching his second comparison of games & triall of maisteries, he might easily conceiue, that the prize ex condicto standeth good to him that winneth it, but there is no question of the value or worth of it, which haply is much lesse then to counteruaile the labour & paines that is bestowed for the gaining of it. As in the games of Olympus, the most famous that euer were in the world, the prize was but an Oliue garland, nothing for worth in cōparison of the pains & expence mē were at, to prepare thēselues, & to trauell for the obtaining therof. So that Tigranes whē Mardonius had perswaded Zerxes [Page 655] to warre against the Grecians, hearing thereof said vnto him,Polydor. Virgil. de inuent. rerum. lib. 2. ca. 13. Good Lord, Mardonius, what kinde of men hast thou brought vs to fight against, who trie maisteries not for gaining of money, but for shewing of prowesse and valour? So that the correspondence betwixt the gamester and the prize may be this, that the labour and paines on the one side is much, and the prize on the other side woorth iust nothing, nor is esteemed at all for the value and woorth of it, and yet hereby forsooth Maister Bishop will set forth vnto vs a correspondence betwixt the merit of our workes, and the reward of heauen. As for the places of Scripture that he citeth hereof, the Apostle thereby setteth foorth the consequence and order of the worke and the reward, God hauing designed the one to the other, as the prize is proposed in the game, but as touching value and woorth, as touching merit and desert he intendeth nothing therein. His third comparison is, that the grace of God is compared to seede, as where Saint Iohn saith:1. Iohn. 3. [...]. His seede remaineth in him. In which place Saint Iohn hauing said, that he that is borne of God sinneth not, that is, finally and vtterly, giueth reason thereof; for that being once borne of God, though he do greeuously fall, as did Dauid and Peter, and many other, yet there is still a seede remaining in him, which albeit for the time it seeme couered and dead, yet shall reuiue and spring againe, and bring forth fruit vnto God; and what is this to M. Bishops merit? He telleth vs, that by seede is imported the grace of God, but he doth not shew vs, that by seede is imported the merit of man. To what end then is this brought in, but to let vs see that his head is idle, and doth not well aduise what he hath to say? Well, we must conceiue his meaning by that he saith, that a little seede bringeth foorth abundance of corne. But we must aske him whether there be that reasonable correspondence betwixt the seed and the increase, as that the one in woorth should be esteemed with the other? If M. Bishop should offer that correspondence to the husbandman for his crop, would he not iudge him with his Geometricall proportion to be scarcely correspondent to a wise man? Shall we then think him wel in his wits, that thinketh the seed of his merits to be a valuable consideration for the receiuing of the crop of heauenly rewards? Again, the husbandmans increase of his seed whence proceedeth it? Doth he by sowing his seed, expect it as a matter of merit & desert? Is it not wholy the blessing of God [Page 656] that sendeth the early and latter raine, and giueth strength to the earth to bring forth increase thereof: Euen so is it in all the reward that God bestoweth vpō vs. We sow the seed of our good works, but of thēselues they yeeld vs no fruit; there is no worth or merit in them to require wages at Gods hands, but it is only the mercy and bounty of God whereby we shall reape the increase that we expect thereof. Thus M. Bishop can finde no meanes to thriue. He hath bene a farmer, and a free-man, and an officer, and a gamester, and a seedman, and yet euery where he is crossed in his merit, and can no where light vpon a foundation to set it firme and sure. And yet marke, gentle Reader, how with his reasonable corespondence he minceth the matter, ouer that other his fellowes do. The Rhemistes speake plaine English, as we haue heard before, and tell vs that their works are truly and properly meritorious, and not onely reasonably, but fully worthy of euerlasting life, that they haue a right to heauen and deserue it worthily, and that God by his iustice oweth it vnto them. These are downe-right lads, that sticke not to vtter their mindes, but M. Bishop he commeth in paltring with his Geometricall proportion, and reasonable correspondence, and like a young nouice is abashed to say all, and by that meanes if good heede be not taken, is likely to marre the market of merit, to the harme of himselfe and the rest of them. Hitherto then it appeareth, that M. Perkins did rightly assigne those foure conditions or circumstances to be required in a meritorious work; which standing good as they do, there can be no merit; because all the good that we do is Gods, because in all we do but our duty, because that that we do doth not fully satisfie our duty, nor hath any due proportion or correspondence to the reward of heauen.
7. W. BISHOP.
Exod. 20. His second testimonie is, God will shew mercy vpon thousands, in them that loue him and keepe his commandements. Hence he reasoneth thus: Where reward is giuen vpon mercy, there is no merit: but reward is giuen vpon mercy, as the text proueth, ergo.
Answere. That in that text is nothing, touching the reward of heauen which is now in question: God doth for his louing seruants sake, shew mercy vnto their children or friends, either in temporall [Page 657] things, or in calling them to repentance, and such like: but doth neuer for one mans sake, bestow the kingdome vpon another, vnlesse the party himselfe be first made worthy of it.
That confirmation of his, that Adam by his continuall and perfect obedience, could not haue procured a further increase of Gods fauour, is both besides the purpose, and most false: for as well he, as euery good man sithence, by good vse of Gods gifts, might day by day increase them: And that no man thinke that in Paradise it should haue bene otherwise, S. Augustine saith expresly, That in the felicity of Paradise,Jn E [...]chir. cap. 25. righteousnes preserued, should haue ascended into better. And Adam finally, and all his posterity (if he had not fallen) should haue bene from Paradise translated aliue into the Kingdome of heauen: this by the way.
R. ABBOT.
What, when God promiseth mercy to thousands in them that loue him and keepe his commandements, doth he meane his mercy to their children only, and not to themselues? and is the mercy that is promised only for earth, and not for heauen? Here M. Bishop as it appeareth, was hardly bested, when he could find no way to get out, but by such a sencelesse and absurd shift. But to take away that corrupt glose of his, the Prophet Dauid expresly referreth all reward to Gods mercy.Psal. 62.12. Thou O Lord art mercifull, or mercy O Lord is to be ascribed vnto thee, for thou rewardest euery man according to his work. Which words are generall of euery man, not signifying that which God doth to some for others sake, but that which euery man receiueth for his owne worke, and import not onely reward of temporall things, because they are the words which the Scripture euery where vseth to signifie the reward that shall be giuen at that day. Now then there is no merit either in things temporall or eternall, because it is of mercy that God rewardeth euery man according to his workes. And thus of Gods eternall mercy, the same Prophet alluding to the words of the commaundement, saith in another place:Psal. 103.17. The mercy of the Lord is for euer and euer vpon them that feare him, and his righteousnesse towards their childrens children, euen such as keepe his couenant, and thinke vpon his commandements to do them. It is Gods mercy then whereby to them that feare him and keepe his commaundements, he giueth reward for euer and euer, [Page 658] shewing himselfe iust also in performance of the same promise of his mercy to their childrens children. But could not the blind man here see, how by his owne answer he doth circumuent himselfe? The place he saith must be vnderstood of temporall graces and benefits, not of the reward of heauen. So then by mercy God bestoweth the reward of temporall benefits, but by merit he bestoweth the Kingdome of heauen. Now how strange a thing is it and improbable, that merits should extend to the purchase of the Kingdome of heauen, and yet should not serue to purchase temporall benefits here vpon the earth?Hieron. Si tanti vitrū, quanti pretiosissimum margaritum? If glasse be of so great price, how much more woorth is a most pretious iewell? If earth be so much woorth, as that mercy onely can yeeld it, shall we thinke that we haue merit to deserue heauen? But we will leaue the man to his folly: it may be when he hath better considered of the matter, we shall haue of him some wiser answer. In the meane time we acknowledge, that God doth not for one mans sake bestow the Kingdome of heauen vpon another, but yet of mercy he bestoweth it both vpon the one and vpon the other, both vpon the fathers and vpon the children, euen all that feare him and keepe his commaundements. And fith of mercy he bestoweth it, certaine it is that they haue no merit to deserue and chalenge it, whosoeuer they be that loue him and keepe his commaundements. That which he saith of Adam, he saith it without booke, and hath no warrant for that he saith. As for the place of Austine, though it containe nothing but what is probable, yet we answer to it by a rule which the same S. Austine hath prescribed otherwhere, thatAug de peccat. mer & remiss. lib. 2. ca. 36. Vbi de re obscurissima disputatur, nō adiuuantibus diuinarum scripturarum certis claris (que) documentu, cohibere se debet hum [...]a praesumptis, nihil faciins in alteram partē declinando. where there is controuersie of a very obscure matter, there being no certaine & cleare instructions of holy Scriptures to helpe vs therein, humane presumption is to stay it selfe, doing nothing by inclining either way.
8 W. BISHOP.
Now to the third Argument.
Rom. 6.Scripture condemneth merit of works: The wages of sinne is death. True. But we speake of good workes, and not of bad, which the Apostle calleth sinne: where were the mans wits? but it followeth there, That eternall life is the grace or gift of God. This is to purpose: but answered 1200. yeares past, by that famous Father Saint Augustine, [Page 659] in diuers places of his most learned Workes. I will note one or two of them.
First, thus here ariseth no small doubt, De grat. & lib. arb. cap. 8. which by Gods helpe I will now discusse. For if eternall life be rendred vnto good workes, as the holy Scripture doth most clearly teach, (note) how then can it be called grace? when grace is giuen freely, and not repayed for workes: and so pursuing the points of difficultie at large, in the end resolueth: that eternall life is most truly rendred vnto good workes, as the due reward of them: but because those good workes could not haue bene done, vnlesse God had before freely through Christ, bestowed his grace vpon vs, therefore the same eternall life, is also truly called grace: because the first roote of it was Gods free gift.
The very same answer doth he giue, where he hath these words: Epist. 106. Eternall life is called grace, not because it is not rendred vnto merits: but for that those merits to which it is rendred were giuen, in which place he crosseth M. Perkins proportion most directly, affirming, that S. Paule might haue said truly, eternall life is the pay or wages of good workes: but to hold vs in humilitie partly, and partly to put a difference betweene our saluation and damnation, chose rather to say, that the gift of God was life eternall: because of our damnation, we are the whole and onely cause, but not of our saluation, but principally the grace of God, the onely fountaine of merit, and all good workes.
R. ABBOT.
M. Perkins alledged the whole words of the Apostle, not to argue onely from the assertion expressed in the latter part, thatRom. 6.23. eternall life is the gift of God, but also from the connexion of the whole sentence, that whereas it being said, that the wages of sinne is death, the sequele of the speech, if there were any merit in our workes, should haue bene, The wages of righteousnesse is eternall life, he saith not so, but the gift of God is eternall life: and so both by that which he doth not say, and also by that which he doth say, sheweth, that there is no place to be giuen to the merit and desert of man. Now Maister Bishop taketh the first part of the sentence by it selfe, The wages of sinne is death, as if Master Perkins had thence argued against merit, and asketh, Where were the mans wits? Surely his owne wits were not so farre from home, but that [Page 660] he well knew wherein the proofe stood, but we see he is disposed sometimes to shew his apish trickes, that we may see how he can skippe and leape about the chaine, howsoeuer he aduantage himselfe nothing at all thereby. But at his pleasure he produceth the words which M. Perkins properly intended, Eternall life is the gift of God through Iesus Christ our Lord. He telleth vs, that the place is answered 1200. yeares past by S. Austine in diuers places of his works. Now indeed it is true, that S. Austine in diuers places of his works hath handled those words, but the spite is, that in none of all those places he hath said any thing to serue M. Bishop for an answer. This may appeare by that that he saith in the very same booke, and very next Chapter to that that M. Bishop citeth:August. de gr [...] & [...] arbit. cap. 9. C [...] posse [...] dicere & rectè dicere, Sti [...]end [...]m iustitiae vita et [...]rn [...], malu [...] [...]ē dicere, Gratia Dei, &c. vt intelligantus non pro merit [...] nostru Deum nos ad vitam aeternā se [...] pro miseratione sua perducere, de quo, &c. Whereas the Apostle might say, and rightly say, The wages of righteousnesse is eternall life, yet he chose rather to say, The grace of God is eternall life, that we may vnderstand, that not for our merits, but for his owne mercies sake he bringeth vs to eternall life, whereof it is said in the Psalme, He crowneth thee in mercie and compassion. Hereby it may seeme, that S. Austine meant to yeeld M. Bishop small helpe by his expounding of this place to the maintenance of their merits. But in the Chapter cited by M. Bishop, she propoundeth the questionIbid. cap. 8. Si vita aeterna bonus operibus redditur sicut apertissi [...]è dicit Scriptura, Quoniam Deus red [...]es, &c quomodo gratia est vita aeterna, cum gratia non operibus reddatur, sed gratis detur, &c. how eternal life should be called the grace of God, seeing that it is elsewhere said, that God will render vnto euery man according to his workes. The difficultie he sheweth to arise of this, that that is called grace, which is not rendred vnto workes, but is freely giuen. Whereof he citeth the words of the Apostle: If it be of grace it is not of workes; otherwise grace is no grace. Then he solueth the question thus, thatIntelligamus & ipsa bona opera nostra quibus aeterna redditur vita ad Dei gratiam pertinere. we must vnderstand that our good workes to which eternall life is rendred, do belong also to the grace of God, signifying that God of his mercie intending to giue vs eternall life, doth by the same mercie giue vs those good workes to which he will giue it. For conclusion of that Chapter, he saith consequently: thatVita nostra bona nihil aliud est qu [...]m Dei gratia sine dubio & vita aeterna quae bonae vitae redditur Dei gratia est: & ipsa enim gratis [...]ata est, quia gratis data est illa cui datur: sed illa cui datur, tantum. modo gratia est; haec autem quae illi datur quomā praemiū eius est, gratia est pro gratia, tanquam merces pro iustitia, vt verum sit, &c. because our good life is nothing else but the grace of God, therefore vndoubtedly eternall life, which is rendred vnto good life is the grace of God: for that is freely giuen, because that is freely giuen to which it is giuen. But good life to which eternall life is giuen, is onely grace; eternall life which is giuen to good life, because it is the reward thereof, is grace for grace, as it were a reward for righteousnesse, that it may be true, as it is true, that God will render to euery man according to his workes. In all which discourse plainely he sheweth, [Page 661] that good life is the grace and gift of God, and when God rendreth thereto eternall life, he doth but adde one grace to another grace, which although it be as it were a reward for righteousnesse, yet is indeed but grace for grace. Which fully accordeth with that that was cited out of him before, thatSupra Sect. 2. August. in Psal. 109. Whatsoeuer God promised, he promised to men vnworthy, that it might not be promised as a reward to works, but being grace, might according to the name be freely giuen, because to liue iustly, so farre as a man can liue iustly, is not a matter of mans merit, but of the gift of God. So that although eternall life be as it were a reward of righteousnesse in consequence and order, yet absolutely to speake it is not so, because both the one and the other are only the grace and gift of God. Now if God by his free gift intending to vs eternall life, do giue vs his grace to leade a iust and holy life, that thereto he may giue it, haue we reason hereupon with M. Bishop, of mercie whereby we shold glorifie God, to build vp merit and desert for the glorifying of our selues? or shall we rather subscribe that which S. Austine saith for conclusion of that whole disputation cō cerning that place of the Apostle, as before I cited, that it is not for our merits that God bringeth vs to eternall life, but for his owne mercies sake. The other place cited by M. Bishop is wholly to the same effect:Idem Epist. 105. Cùm Deus coronat merita nostra, nihil aliud coronat quàm munera sua, sicut enim ab initio fidei mi sericordiam consecuti sumus, non quia fideles eramus, sed vt essemus, sic in fine corona bit nos in miseratione & misericordia. Vnde & vita ipsa aeterna gratia nuncupatur, non ob aliud nisi quia gratis datur nec ideò quia meritis non datur, sed quia data sunt & ipsa merita quibus datur. When God crowneth our merits, he crowneth nothing else but his owne gifts. For as from the beginning we obtained mercie to be faithfull, so in the end he shall crowne vs in compassion and mercie. Whence eternal life is called grace for no other cause, but because it is freely giuen, not for that it is not rendred to merits, but for that the merits themselues are giuen to which it is giuen. In which there is nothing that giueth any shew of fauor to M. Bishop but the very name of merits, but that that helpeth him nothing shall appeare hereafter, S. Austine meaning thereby meerely good workes, without any conceipt of merit as it is now vnderstood in the Church of Rome. Yea and that appeareth plainely here also: for if God in crowning merits, crowne nothing but his owne gifts, then those merits are not truly and properly so called, because a man cannot properly merit at Gods hands by that that is to him nothing else but the gift of God. And this S. Austin sheweth further in that that followeth:Ibid. Cui debetur vita aeterna vera iustitia est. Si autem vera iustitia est ex te non est: desursum est, descendens à Patre luminum, &c. Qua propter, ô homo si accepturus es vitam aeternam, iustitiae quidem stipendium est, sed tibi gratia est, [...]ui gratia est & ipsa iustitia. Tibi enim tanquam debita redde: redderetur, si ex te tibi esset iustitia cui debetur. Nunc ergo, &c. vt supra Sect. 3. It is true righteousnes [Page 662] to which eternall life is due. But if it be true, it is not of thy selfe, it is from aboue, descending from the Father of lights: that thou mightst haue it, if at least thou haue it, verily thou hast receiued it. For what hast thou that thou hast not receiued? Wherefore ô man, if thou be to receiue eternall life, it is indeed the wages of righteousnes, but to thee it is grace to whom righteousnesse it selfe also is grace. It should be rendred as due vnto thee, if of thy selfe thou hadst the righteousnesse to which it is due. Now therfore of his fulnesse we receiue not only grace, &c. but also grace for grace, &c. If eternall life be merited and deserued by vs, then to vs it is the wages of righteousnesse; then it is rendred as due vnto vs. But S. Austine though he confesseth, that it may be said, that it is the wages of righteousnesse, yet denieth it to be so to vs; and denieth that it is rendred as due vnto vs. Therfore it must necessarily be granted, that it is not merited and deserued by vs: it can no way be auoyded, but that if it be deserued by vs, it is due vnto vs: but it is not due vnto vs, saith S. Austine, because the righteousnesse is none of ours. There is therefore on our behalfe no merit, no desert to which it should be accounted due. Thus S. Austine wholly bendeth himselfe to establish the truth of the grace of God, against the Pelagian heretickes, and saith nothing whereof M. Bishop may inferre the doctrine of merit, which he together with them maintaineth against the grace of God. But for the further declaring of S. Austines mind, I will obserue that one sentence of his vpon the Psalmes:Aug. in Psal. 144. Data est venia peccatori, datus spiritus iustificationis, data est charitas & dilectio, in qua omnia bona faci a [...] super haec dabit & vitam aeternam & societatem Angelorum: totum de misericordia. M [...]rita tua nusquam iactes, quia & ipsa sua merita illius dona sunt. To thee being a sinner is granted forgiuenesse; the spirit of iustification is giuen thee; there is giuen thee charitie and loue, whereby to do all good things: and beyond all these things, he will giue thee also eternall life, and the societie of the Angels, all of mercy. Do not talke of thy merits any where, because euen thy merits also are his gifts. In which words it plainely appeareth, that albeit S. Austine vseth the name of merit, according to the language of his time, yet he did it not in any such sence, but as still intending, that both in the beginning, and in the proceeding and in the end all is wholly and onely to be ascribed vnto Gods mercie. But M. Bishop telleth vs here, that S. Austine crosseth M. Perkins proportion, in that he affirmeth, that S. Paule might haue said, that eternall life is the wages of good workes. Wherein he doth but deceiue himselfe; because to speake simply it is true, that eternall life is the stipend and wages of true and perfect righteousnesse, according to the sentence of the law:Gal. 3 12 He that [Page 663] doth these things shall liue in them; and yet it is so but onely by couenant and condition, not by merit, because in doing all we should do but that that we are bound to do. But as hath bene already said, S. Austin, though he graunt that simply it might haue bene so tearmed, yet denieth it to be so to vs. It is indeed the stipend or wages of righteousnesse, but to thee it is grace, that is, to thee it is no stipend. Now this is spoken vpon a supposall of entire and perfect righteousnesse, but take withall the exceptions that S. Austine putteth in by the way, as we haue seene:Si tamen habet Epist. 105. if at least thou haue it; and againe,Inquantum homo potest iustè vinerean Psal. 109. so farre as a man can liue iustly, and let it be considered herewith, which out of Austine hath bene abundantly declared in the former question, that there is no righteousnesse so perfect in this life, as that therby we can be found iust in the sight of God, and then merit and stipend shall be excluded, not onely for that our righteousnesse is the gift of God, but also for that we haue not that righteousnesse to which the stipend and wages of righteousnesse should be due. But let vs here consider the reasons which M. Bishop setteth downe in S. Austines name, why he did not say: The wages of righteousnesse is eternall life: partly, saith he, to hold vs in humility. Well, but yet it was not S. Austins meaning, that the Apostle wold keep vs in humilitie by cōcealing that that is true, but by withholding vs from conceiuing proudly of our selues that that is not true:Ne iustitia de humano se extolleret bono merito lest (saith S. Austin) righteousnesse should aduance it selfe as of any merit that man should haue thereby. Againe, partly (saith he) to put difference betweene saluation and damnation. This reason he maketh of his owne, S. Austin hath it not: but what is that difference? Obserue it well, gentle Reader, for herein is the secret, and thou shalt see the lewdnesse of there wretched men in abusing the name of S. Austin to the colouring of their falshood. We are (forsooth) the whole and onely cause of our damnation, but not of our saluation, but principally the grace of God. The grace of God he saith is principally the cause of our saluation, but not the whole and onely cause: for we must vnderstand, that we our selues by our Free will are a part of the cause of our saluation. Yea vpon Free will they hang the effect of the grace of God, and from thence do they deriue vnto man that merit wherby he doth deserue eternall life. For they know well, that man cannot be said to merit any thing by that that is wholy the gift of God: and therefore for the vpholding of merit and desert, they are so [Page 664] eager and earnest for the maintenance of free will. They walke in this behalfe in the very steppes of the Pelagian heretickes, who as Prosper recordeth, alledged for defence of Free will, Prosper de li. arbit. Asserunt nec laudem ha b [...]re eos, nec meritum qui ex dono gratiae sunt fide [...]es. that men can haue no commendation nor merit, who are faithfull by the gift of grace. So S. Hierome bringeth in the Hereticke saying resolutely:H [...]r [...]n. aduer. Pelag [...] Mihi [...]ullus [...]nf [...]re pe [...]erit arbitrij libertatem, ne si in operibus m [...]s Deus adiutor extu [...]rit nō mihi debeatur merces sed ei qui in me operatus est. No man shall take away from me free will, lest if God be my helper in my workes the reward be not due to me, but to him that worketh in me. Euen so Popish merit standeth vpon free will: forRhemish Annot. in Rom. 9.14 men, say the Rhemists, worke by their owne Free will, and thereby deserue their saluation. So saith Alphonsus de Castro, Alphons. de Castro adu haere. lib. 7 in Gratia. Ex hoc quòdnos monitio [...] illius consentimus, qui tamen dissentire poteramus, debetur nobis merces & praemium & inde meritum nostrum. In that we by free will consent to Gods monition, who yet had it in our power to dissent, a reward and wages is due vnto vs, and thence is our merit. In like sort Andradius telleth vs, thatAndrad. Orth. explicat. lib. 6. Nostra merita dicuntur quia liberè & spontè illas actiones suscipimus quibus apud Deum promeremur. they are called our merits, because we freely and voluntarily vndertake those actions whereby we merit with God. Now of this poisonfull doctrine whereby man is made partaker with God in the glorie of our saluation, they would make S. Austine a partaker and patron with them, who in condemning the Pelagian heresie, condemned the same, and challengeth our good workes which he calleth merits, wholy and onely vnto God. So he saith, thatAugust. Epist. 105. Omne bonū meritum nostrū non in nobis facis nisi gratia. all our good worke or merit is wrought vnto vs by grace onely, thatJdem Hy [...]og. lib. 3. Iustorum per totam seculi vitam meritum em [...] est gr [...]tia. all the merit of the iust through the whole life of this world is grace. De ve [...]. Dom. S [...]rm. 7. Totum reputa quòd iustus es pietati. That thou art iust, saith he, repute it wholy to mercie. De verb. Apost Ser. 16. Totum quòd sumus & quòd habemus boni ab illo habemus. That that we are and haue in goodnesse, we haue it wholy of him. To that purpose he alledgeth against the Pelagians a speech of Cyprians, requiring thatIdem de bo [...]o perseu. cap. 6 ex Cypriano de Orat. Dom. Nequis sibi superbè arroganter (que) aliqu [...]d assumas, nequis aut confessionis aut passionis gloriam suam dicat, &c. vt dum praecedit humilis & submissa confessio, & datur totum Deo qu [...]cquid suppliciter cum Dei timore petitur, ipsius pretate praestetur. no man proudly and arrogantly assume any thing to himselfe, nor call the glorie of confessing or suffering his owne, that whilest humble and lowly confession goeth before, and all wholy is yeelded vnto God, it may be granted vnto vs by his mercie, whatsoeuer we humbly request in the feare of God. Now according to those words of yeelding or attributing all wholy vnto God, he saith in the same place,Jbid Tutiores viuimus si totum Deod [...]us, & non nos illi ex parte, & notis ex parte committimus. We liue more safely if we attribute all wholy to God, and do not commit our selues partly to God and partly to our selues. For reason whereof he saith anone after, thatJbid cap. 7. Post casum hominis nonnifi ad gratiam suam Deus pertinere voltus, vt homo accedat ad eum; ne (que) nisi ad gratiam suam pertinere volunt, vt homo non recedat ab eo. after the fal [...] of man, God would not haue it belong to any thing but to [Page 665] his grace that we come vnto him, nor wold haue it to belong to any thing but his grace, that we do not depart from him. And to those words of Cyprian he alludeth in diuers and sundry places, as namely, where he saith, thatEnchir. cap. 32 Proptereà dictū Nō volentis, &c. vt detur totum Deo. See of Free-will, Sect 15. therefore the Apostle saith, It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercie, that all wholy may be attributed vnto God, discoursing at large, that our willing and our running is not to be diuided betwixt the will of man and the mercie of God, because then as it is said on the one side, It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercie, because the will of man alone suffiseth not, so on the other side it may be said, It is not of God that sheweth mercie, but of him that willeth and him that runneth, because the mercie of God alone sufficeth not. Now it were wickednes thus to crosse and contradict the Apostles words, and therefore doth he conclude, that al is wholy to be ascribed vnto Gods mercie. See then the good dealing, or rather the lewd falshood of M. Bishop and his fellowes who teaching for the maintenance of their doctrine of merits, that good works are principally indeed of God, but yet partly of our selues, do alledge S. Austine for the defence thereof, who constantly teacheth to the vtter ouerthrow of merits, that our good workes are wholy and onely of the grace of God, and in no part of our selues. This is one thing for which we iustly detest them, as setting vp the glorie of man in stead of the glory of God; the righteousnesse of man in stead of the righteousnesse of God, and so by bearing men in hand with a merit of eternall life, do bereaue them of Gods mercie, by which onely they should attaine the same. And yet all this is graced and shadowed with goodly faire words, as we see here by M. Bishop, who hauing said that the grace of God is principally the cause of our saluation, and therein implied that our free will also is partly though not principally a cause thereof, yet addeth, that the grace of God is the onely fountaine of merit and all good workes. If grace be the onely fountaine of all good workes, then all good workes proceed onely from grace, and if onely from grace, then what can we merit or deserue thereby? If we merit and deserue thereby, then they are partly of vs, and of our free will, & then grace is not the only fountaine of merit and all good works. Therfore let him not lye in this sort; let him speake as he meaneth, & acknowledge that which they al maintaine, that good works are therfore our merits, because they [Page 666] proceed from our Free will, and are no otherwise our merits, neither do we otherwise deserue by them, but as they proceed from our free will. Yea when the grace of God hath done all that appertaineth to it to do, all is nothing with them vnlesse man adioyne thereto the worke of his owne free will. Either let him renounce his doctrine of Free wil, or else let him leaue with colourable words thus to delude and mocke the simple and ignorant reader, in saying that which he thinketh not, that the grace of God is the onely fountaine of merit and all good works.
9. W. BISHOP.
Ad Eph. 2. Ad Tit. 3. Now to those texts cited before about iustification, We are saued freely, not of our selues, or by the workes of righteousnesse, which we haue done. I haue often answered that the Apostle speakes of workes done by our owne forces, without the helpe of Gods grace: and therefore they cannot serue against workes done, in and by grace.
R. ABBOT.
The oftennesse of his answer sheweth the corruption of his conscience, that was not moued with so often repeating a manifest vntruth. What, was it the Apostles meaning to teach the Ephesians, that they were not saued by the workes which they did, when they yet wereEph. 2.1. dead (as he saith) in trespasses and sinnes, or had the Ephesians any such opinion that the Apostle should need to reforme in them? Did they renounce their former workes to come to Christ that they might be saued by him, and did they afterwardes grow againe to a conceipt of being saued by their former workes? These are grosse and palpable vntruths, neither hath the Scripture any thing at all, that may giue any shew for warrant of such constructiō. Nay, as hath bene before said, when the Apostle hauing said,Ver. 9. Not of workes lest any man should boast, addeth as a reason and proofe hereof:Ver. 10. for we are his workmanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good workes, &c. as if he should haue said, We cannot be said to be saued by workes, because our workes are none of ours, but Gods works in vs, he plainely sheweth, that not onely workes before grace, but after also are excluded from being any cause of our saluation. The place to Titus likewise resteth our saluation only vponTit. 3.5. Gods mercy, [Page 667] and therefore leaueth no place to our good workes, and therefore it is vsed by S. Bernard not only in this day for an exception against workes before grace, butBernard. in Cant. ser. 50. that we may know at that day, that not for the workes of righteousnesse which we haue done, but of his owne mercie he hath saued vs.
10. W. BISHOP.
Now to that text which he hudleth vp together with the rest, although it deserued a better place, being one of their principall pillars in this controuersie: it is, Rom. 8. The sufferings of this life are not worthy of the glorie to come. The strength of this obiection lieth in a false translatiō of these words, Axia pros tein doxan equall to that glory, or in the misconstruction of them: for we grant (as hath bin already declared) that our afflictions and sufferings be not equall in length or greatnesse with the glorie of heauen; for our afflictions be but for the short space of this life, and they cannot be so great as will be the pleasure in heauen; notwithstanding we teach that this shorter and lesser labour, imployed by a righteous man in the seruice of God, doth merite the other greater and of longer continuance, and that by the said Apostles plaine words, 2. Cor. 4. for (saith he) That tribulation which in this present life is but for a moment and light, doth worke aboue measure exceedingly an euerlasting waight of glory in vs. The reason is, that iust mens works issue out of the fountaine of grace, which giueth a heauenly value vnto his workes. Againe, it maketh him a quicke member of Christ, and so receiuing influence from his head, his works are raised to an higher estimate: it consecrateth him also a temple of the holy Ghost, and so maketh him partaker of the heauenly nature, as S. Peter speaketh: which addes a worth of heauen to his works. 2. Pet. 1. Neither is that glory in heauen, which any pure creature attaineth vnto of infinite dignitie, as M Perkins fableth, but hath his certaine bounds and measure, according vnto each mans merits, otherwise it would make a man equall to God in glorie: for there can be no greater then infinite, as all learned men do confesse.
R. ABBOT.
These words of S. Paule to the Romanes,Rom. 8.18. The afflictions of this time are not worthy of the glorie that shall be reuealed vpon vs, are verie directly cited, and are as pregnant to the matter here in hand. [Page 668] M. Bishop saith, that that text is one of our principall pillars in this controuersie; and indeed it is so strong a pillar, as that all M. Bishops strength is not able to shake it from vpholding that which we professe to teach by it. But yet pro forma he chargeth vs with false translation and misconstruction. He telleth vs, that we should not say, worthy of the glory, but equall to the glory. The Greeke word, as Gramarians note, doth by his originall signifie those things which being put into the ballance, are of equall waight and poise one to the other, and from thence is it taken to signifie worth or worthinesse, because there is a full correspondence of value betwixt that that is said to be worthy, and the thing that it is worthy of. And according to this vsuall signification of the word, do we translate, not worthy of the glory, &c. and though we should translate not equal, yet must we perforce vnderstand it as touching equalitie in worth. And herein their own vulgar translation doth iustifie vs, Non sunt condignae passiones huius temporis ad futuram gloriam, &c. that is, as the Rhemists translate it, The passions of this time are not condigne to the glorie to come, &c. for what is condigne but equall or comparable in worth; whence they take their meritum condigni or ex condigno, to be that which in value and worth is fully equiualent to the reward. Therefore Arias Montanus ad verbum readeth it thus, Non dignae passiones nunc temporis ad futuram gloriam, &c. The sufferings of this time are not worthy to the glorie to come: which what is it but the same as to say, they are not comparable in worth to the glory to come? Now then why doth he go about to impeach our translation, when it is thus approued by their owne? But that it may plainly appeare that we haue no way falsified or misconstrued this text, let vs see in what sort the auncient Fathers haue cited and applied the same. Saint Austin readeth the words thus,August. lib. 83. quaest. 67. Jndignae sunt passiones huius temporis, &c. The sufferings of this time are vnworthy to the glorie to come: and saying in another place, thatIdem de Ciuit. Dei. lib. 5. cap. 18. Nullo mods superbiant sancts Martyres, tanquam dignum aliquid pro illius patriae participatione fecerint, vbiaterna est & vera foelicitas. Et sub finem: superbia ne extollamur; Quoniam sicut dicit Apostolus, Indigna, &c. the holy Martyrs are not to be proud as if they did any worthy matter for the participation of that countrey where is eternall and true happinesse: alledgeth afterwards for reason hereof these words, Because as the Apostle saith, the sufferings of this time are vnworthy, &c. In the very same sort dothAmbros. de Iacob. lib. 1. cap. 6. & de Interpellat. Job. lib. 1. cap. 1. & in Psal 118. ser. 19. Ambrose cite the same words in sundry places, and although [Page 669] in the text inserted in his commentarie vpon the Epistle to the Romanes, he reade as the vulgar Latine doth, yet in expounding the next verse he expresseth the effect thereof thus,Idem in Rom. 8. Praesentu temporis passiones indignas dixit ad futuram gloriam. The Apostle hath said that the sufferings of this time are vnworthy to the glorie to come. Therefore elsewhere alluding to those words, hee sayth that the SaintsIdem de bono mortis. cap. 2. Gloriosam mercedem laboris exigui incipientes recipere cognoscent indignas esse passiones huius temporis, quibus remunerationis aeternae gloria tanta refertur. when they shal begin to receiue the glorious reward of their smal paines, shall know that the sufferings of this time are vnworthy to haue so great glorie of eternall reward yeelded vnto them. And againe in another place,Idem de interpellat. Dauid ca. 2. Indigna sunt quae in hoc corpore sustinemus remuneratione futurae gloriae. The things which we suffer in this bodie, are vnworthy of the reward of the glory to come. Hierome vpon that place sayth, thatHieronim. in Rom. 8. Reuereà nihil posset homo condignum pati gloriae coelesti etiamsi talis esset ilia qualis modo est vita. &c. a man could do nothing comparable in worth to the heauenly glorie, albeit it were but euen such as this life is. For whatsoeuer a man shall suffer before death, it is no more then he deserued before by his sinnes. But now both his sinnes be forgiuen him, and then eternall life shall be giuen, the company of Angels, the brightnesse of the Sunne, &c. Oecumenius expoundeth it, thatOecumen. in Rom. 8. Non possumus quiequam futura retributione condignum aut pati aut ad illam conferre. we cannot suffer any thing worthy of the reward to come, or helpe any whit thereto. Fulgentius hauing sayd thatFulgent. ad Momin. lib. 1. supra sect. 6. the gift of Gods reward doth incomparably and vnspeakeably exceed all the merit of the good will and worke of man, bringeth for proofe hereof these words of the Apostle, The sufferings of this time, &c. Bernard likewise affirming thatBernard. in Annunciat. ser. 1. supra sect. 3. the merits of men are not such as that eternal life may be due vnto them of right: & asking, what are all merits to so great glorie: for confirmation citeth also the same words, and addeth,Nec si vni [...] omnes sustineat. No not if one man did endure them all. By all which it may appeare how truly M. Bishop and his fellowes make construction of this place, that the sufferings of this time are not equall in length and greatnesse to the glorie to come, but yet for value and worth they be equall to it, and the one doth merite the other, expresly contrary to their owne text and translation. But to proue this, he alledgeth further that the Apostle saith, that2. Cor. 4.17. this momentany and light tribulation worketh vnto vs a farre most excellent and eternall waight of glorie. Yet we find not here the thing that he would proue, that this short and light tribulation doth merite and deserue that most excellent and eternall waight of glorie: nay who doth not see, that it is plainly excluded by the words? For if our sufferings and good workes be but according to the scant and small measure of our fraile and weake condition, short in time, and light in burden, [Page 670] and on the other side, the glorie to come be exceedingly or beyond measure excellent, surely then apparent it is, that the littlenesse and lightnesse of the one can neuer in worth attaine to the vnmeasurable excellencie of the other. But he will say, the one worketh the other, the affliction worketh vnto vs the glorie. True, and what then? Doth the one therefore merit and deserue the other? Surely as it is sayd of affliction, so it may be sayd of them that afflict vs, that they worke vnto vs an excellent and an eternall weight of glorie; and yet it cannot be said that they deserue the same for vs. Affliction worketh vnto vs glorie, onely as an instrumentall cause, which beyond the nature thereof God vseth amongst other means to prepare vs and fit vs to be partakers of his glorie. He therebyIob 33.16.17 openeth our eares, and subdueth our pride, andOsc. 14.5. healeth our rebellions, and frameth vs to vnderstanding, andHeb. 12.10. maketh vs partakers of his holinesse, and2. Cor. 4.16. whilest our outwardman is corrupted, our inner man is renewed from day to day. In a word,1. Cor. 11 32. when we are iudged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Chrysosan Gen. hom. 25. Afflictiones nos inducūt vt operemur bona Deo (que) gratae opera. Afflictions (saith Chrysostome) do induce vs to those things that are good and acceptable vnto God. And thus the Apostle telleth vs, thatRom. 8.28. all things worke together for good vnto them that loue God: yea saith Saint Austin, August. sol [...]leq. cap. 28. Quibus omnia cooperantur in bonū etiā ipsa peccata. vide de corrept. & gratia. cap 9. euen their very sinnes: and yet M. Bishop will not say, that all things and specially their sinnes do merite and deserue the same good vnto them. Yea the diuell himselfe, by the ouerruling hand of God, is made to worke vnto vs our saluation and glorie, whilest (as Ambrose saith)Ambr. de poenit. lib. 1. cap. 13. Ipse se morsu suo vulnerat et contra se armas, quē debilitandum pu rauit, &c. Imperante Christo & diabolus ipse fit praede suae custos. he armeth vs against himselfe, and by the commaundement of Christ is made the keeper of him whom he would make a prey; whilest by being exercised with his temptations, we grow stronger in faith, and patience, and obedience, and so more and more able to resist him. Therefore neither haue these words of the Apostle any thing for M. Bishops turne, that our sufferings here doe merite the glorie of the life to come. Yet, as if he had very firmely proued his merite, he goeth on to tell vs how it commeth to passe that our workes haue this vertue, because they issue out of the fountaine of grace, which giueth a heauenly value vnto them. To which purpose their Andradius sayth, thatAndrad. Orthod. explic. lib. 6. Diuinitatem quandā habeant necesse est, &c. Tantum promerentur, quantum spiritus quo ducuntur dignitas atque amplitudo postulat. our workes haue a kinde of diuine qualitie, and wee deserue so much thereby, as the dignitie and excellencie of the spirit requireth, by which we are led. But if we haue this heauenly value, no otherwise [Page 671] but as they proceed from the grace of God, what haue wee thereby to challenge to our selues? how should wee be sayd to merite by that that is none of ours? It hath bene already shewed that it cannot be ascribed as a merite vnto vs, which is wrought of God in vs. And it is worth the while to note here the giddinesse of these men. The heauenly value and merite of their workes commeth of the grace of God, and yet forsooth they merite nothing by them but as they proceed from their owne free will. Why are they thus warbling and turning to and fro? Either let them say that the value of good workes is wholly of the grace of God, and then what is the worth thereof to them; or if they will say that they merit thereby, let them say that they haue a value and worth from them, whereby they deserue for them? But what will they say to Fulgentius and Bernard, who expresly say, as we haue heard, of the good workes that are giuen of God, that Gods reward doth incomparably and vnspeakably exceed all the merite thereof, and that they are not such as that by any right eternall life should be due vnto them. And when Austine and Ambrose say, that the afflictions of this life are vnworthy to the glorie to come, of whose afflictions or sufferings do they speake but of the Saints, euen as the Apostle doth, who suffer by the gift and grace of God, are members of Christ and temples of the holy Ghost, euen of those sufferings wherein they suffer with Christ; of which Saint Ambrose yet further saith, to shew the meaning of the words here in hand,Ambr. epis. 22. Conglorificatur ille qui patiendo pro ipso compatitur ei. & vt hortetur ad passionē adiungit quoniā minora sunt omnia quae patimur & indigna pro quorū laboribus tanta rependatur futurorum merces bonorum. He is together glorified, who in suffering for him suffereth with him: and that the Apostle may exhort vs to suffering, he addeth, that all those things which we suffer, are too little and vnworthy, that for the paines thereof so great reward of good things to come should be returned vnto vs. As for the infinitenesse of the glorie of heauen, M. Bishop well knoweth, but that his idle head delighteth to make matter to talke of, that M. Perkins was neuer so idlely conceited, as to imagine it according to his construction, that any pure creature enioyeth the same in infinite extent of measure and greatnesse, but onely of time and continuance, because it hath no end. Now infinite in what sort soeuer, cannot be answered but by that that is infinite. The trespasse of man against the infinite maiestie of God, could not sufficiently be answered but by the infinite punishment, which because it could not be in greatnesse, whereof a creature could not be capable, [Page 672] was therefore supplied and made infinite by continuance. For the taking away thereof, there was to be yeelded an infinite satisfaction, which the Sonne of God yeelded by the infinitenesse of his person, though by onely temporarie sufferings and death. As then to take away a punishment not infinite in greatnesse, but in continuance there was necessarily required the merite of an infinite person, so to purchase the glorie of heauen, which to the Saints is infinite in continuance onely, not in greatnesse, there is likewise required the merite of an infinite person, which is onely the merite of Iesus Christ; so farre are we from doing any thing that may carrie any semblable proportion of merite and desert. Now infinitenesse of glorie as touching continuance, doth not make a man equall to God, nay it doth not make the Saints of God equall one to another, who are different in measure of glorie, though euery one enioyeth the measure that he hath infinitely and without end. Thus M. Bishop like a drunken man is still offering to stand vp, but at euery next step tumbleth downe againe, and can say nothing, but what still redoundeth to his owne harme. The pillar wee see standeth firme and sure, and hee can finde no meanes to throw it downe.
11. W. BISHOP.
M. Perkins fourth reason. Whosoeuer will merite, must fulfill the whole Law: for if we offend in one commaundement, we are guiltie of the whole Law; but no man can fulfill the whole Law. ergo.
Answer. I denie the first proposition: for one good worke done with his due circumstances, doth bring forth merite, as by all the properties of merite may be proued at large, and by his owne definition of merite set downe in the beginning. Now if a man afterward fall into deadly sin, he leeseth his former merit: but recouering grace, he riseth to his former merit, as the learned gather out of that saying of our Sauiour, in the person of the good father, Luc. [...]5. Do on him (that is on his prodigall sonne returning home) his former garment. His second proposition is also false, as hath bene proued at large in a seuerall question. To that of Saint Iames, although it belong not to this matter, I answer, that he who offendeth in one, is made guiltie of all, that is, hee shall be as surely [Page 673] condemned, as if he had broken all: See Saint Augustine.Epist. 29. ad Hieron.
R. ABBOT.
M. Perkins saith, that he that will merite must fulfill the whole Law. M. Bishop denieth that, and saith that one good work done with his due circumstances doth bring forth merite. Now happie men are they with whom one good worke is of so great worth. But what doth a man merite by that one worke? Surely if it be a merite of heauen, I doubt not but M. Bishop for his part in that meriting facultie wherein he liueth, hath in his opinion by many merits deuoured a number of the heauens of Democritus his innumerable worlds. But I pray you tell vs M. Bishop, if he beGal. 3.10. cursed that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the Law, how should any man merite by performing onely one thing? If life be tied onely to the doing of all, why do you make so many merites of that which by the sentence of the Law can yeeld onely one? Nay S. Iames plainely telleth vs, as M. Perkins alledgeth, thatIam. 2.10. he that keepeth the whole Law, and yet faileth in one point, is guiltie of all, that is, he is in generall guiltie of breaking the Law, and therefore lieth vnder the curse that is pronounced by the Law. But this place M. Bishop saith belongeth not to this matter, and why, but because he knew not what to say vnto it? for that that he doth say, doth fully make against himselfe. For how should one worke done with his due circumstances bring forth merite, when notwithstanding the doing of many workes with their due circumstances, a man for offending in any one is as surely to be condemned as if he had broken all? Marry saith he, a man may merite, and after by falling into any mortall sinne, he loseth his merite. But that cannot be: for the Law as hath bene said, maketh no promise but to him that fulfilleth all; and therefore till a man haue fulfilled all, he can merite nothing; and therefore hath merited nothing by any former act or acts, if afterward he fall into any trespasse of the Law. Now therefore there can be no rising againe to former merit, where there is no merite at all, and the place which he citeth in that sort as he citeth it, may import a renewing to the former estate; but as touching merit, it importeth nothing at all. But whether those words of S. Iames belong to this matter or not, let S. Ierom tel him, who thereupon infers thus, [Page 674] Hieron. aduer. Pelag. lib. 2. Quis nostrū aliquando non peccauit? Si autem peccauit (quod negari nou potest) & per vnum peccatum omnium est reui peccatorum, non suis viribus sed Dei misericordia saluatur. Which of vs hath not sometime sinned? And if he haue sinned (which cannot be denied) and by one sinne be guiltie of all sinnes, then is he not saued by his owne power but by Gods mercie. The place then by his iudgement, taketh away from man all power of being saued by any thing in himselfe, and leaueth him to be saued onely by the mercie of God. To the other proposition of M. Perkins argument, he answereth also by deniall, and saith that in a seuerall question he hath proued that a man may fulfill the whole law: but by that he hath read the disproofe of his proofe, it will appeare to him I hope that he hath proued nothing. Now it is to be obserued how silly he omitteth the place of S. Iohn alledged by M. Perkins, 1. Ioh. 1.8. If we say we haue no sinne, we deceiue our selues, &c. which inuincibly proueth that no man fulfilleth the whole law, because there is no man without sin, and euery sinne isCap. 3.4. the transgression of the law.
12. W. BISHOP.
His fift reason. We are taught to pray on this manner, Giue vs this day our dayly bread: where we acknowledge euery morsell of bread to be the meere gift of God, much more must we confesse heauen to be.
Answ. M. Perkins taketh great delight to argue out of the Lords prayer; but he handleth the matter so handsomly, that a man may thinke him to be so profoundly learned, that he doth not yet vnderstand the Pater noster: for who taketh our dayly food to be so meerly the gift of God, that we must not either make it ours with our penie or trauell, we must not looke to be fed from heauen by miracle, by the meere gift of God, but according vnto S. Pauls rule, either labour for our liuing in some approued sort, or not eate. Yet because our trauels are in vaine vnlesse God blesse them, we pray to God dayly to giue vs our nouriture, either by sending or preseruing the fruites of the earth, or by prospering our labours with good successe: or if they be men who liue of almes, by stirring vp the charitable to relieue them. So we pray, and much more earnestly, that God will giue vs eternall life: yet by such meanes as it hath pleased God to ordaine, one of which and the principall is by the exercise of good workes, which God hath appointed vs to walke in, to deserue it. And it cannot but sauour of a Satanicall spirit, to call it a Satanicall insolencie (as M. Perkins doth) to thinke that eternall life can be merited: when Saint Augustine and the best spirit of men since Christs time [Page 675] so thought and taught in most expresse termes.
R. ABBOT.
It well appeareth that M. Perkins better vnderstood the Lords prayer, then that he had any need to learne of any such slender master as M. Bishop is. The argument which he vseth, is very effectuall and strong. If we cannot merit the food of this life, but must craue it of gift, much lesse can we merite euerlasting life. But saith M. Bishop, our dayly bread is not so meerly the gift of God, but that we must either make it ours with our penie or trauell; we must labour for our lining, &c. Be it so; and yet by all our expence and labors and trauels we merite nothing; we looke for nothing by desert, but craue it of the blessing and free gift of God. Let M. Bishop say, Is there any man, who by his labour and paines can challenge at Gods hands a morsell of bread as of merite and desert? If he cannot, but is still bound to crie amidst all his trauels, Giue vs this day our dayly bread, why doth he put man in opinion of meriting at Gods hands eternall life, who cannot by all his workes bind God vnto him for his dayly bread? We labour therefore to lay hold of eternall life by such meanes as God hath ordained, and by the exercise of good workes which God hath prepared for vs to walke in, but after all our labour we still beg eternall life at Gods hands, as of his meere blessing and gift, that it may be true both in the beginning and in the end, thatRom. 6.23. eternall life is the gift of God through Iesus Christ our Lord. Yet he telleth vs that God hath appointed good workes for vs to walke in to deserue eternall life. But where hath he so appointed? We find that God1. Ioh. 5.11. in his Sonne hath giuen vnto vs eternall life, and that he hathEphes. 2.10. prepared for vs good workes to walke in, as the Apostle speaketh, namely to that eternall life which he hath giuen vs, but that he hath appointed vs good workes to deserue eternall life, M. Bishop cannot tell vs where to find. Now because the spirit of God hath not any where taught vs so to conceiue, what is it but Satanicall insolencie thus to teach against the doctrine of the spirit? And whereas he saith that Saint Austine and the best spirit of men since Christs time, haue taught that heauen may be merited, we first tell him, that all that is nothing vnlesse Christ himselfe haue so taught: and secondly, that he falsly fathereth [Page 676] vpon the Fathers this misbegotten bastard of merite, which in that meaning as he and his fellowes teach it, was neuer imagined by the Fathers, as partly hath appeared alreadie, and shall (God willing) appeare further.
13. W. BISHOP.
But let vs heare his last argument, which is (as he speaketh) the consent of the ancient Church, and then beginneth with S. Bernard, who liued a thousand yeares after Christ: he (in I know not what place, the quotation is so doubtfull) saith, Those things which we call merits, are the way to the kingdome, but not the cause of raigning. I answer, that merits be not the whole cause, but the promise of God through Christ and the grace of God freely bestowed on vs, out of which our merits proceed: Ser. 68. in Cantie which is Bernards owne doctrine.
Manu [...]l. cap. 22. Secondly, he citeth S. Augustine: All my hope is in the death of my Lord: his death is my merit. True in a good sence: that is, by vertue of his death and passion my sins are pardoned, and grace is bestowed on me to do good workes, and so to merit.
In Psal. 114. Thirdly Basil: Eternall life is reserued for them that haue striuen lawfully, not for the merite of their doing, but vpon the grace of the most bountifull God. These words are vntruly translated: for first he maketh with the Apostle, eternall life to be the prize of that combat, and then addeth, that it is not giuen according vnto the debt and iust rate of the workes, but in a fuller measure, according vnto the bountie of so liberall a Lord: where hence is gathered that common and most true sentence, That God punisheth men vnder their deserts, but rewardeth them aboue their merits.
Psal. 120.4. M. Perkins turnes backe to Augustine vpon the Psal. 120. where he saith (as M. Perkins reporteth) He crowneth thee, because he crowneth his owne gifts, not thy merits.
Answ. S. Augustine was too wise to let any such foolish sentence passe his pen. What congruitie is in this? He crowneth thee, because he crowneth his owne gifts, not thy merits. It had bene better said, He crowneth thee not, &c. But he mistooke belike this sentence of S. Augustins: When God crowneth thee, he crowneth his gifts, not thy merites.De grat. & lib. arb. cap. 6. Which is true, being taken in that sence which he himselfe declareth: To such a man so thinking (that is, that he hath merits of himselfe, [Page 677] without the grace of God) it may be most truly said, God doth crowne his owne gifts, not thy merits, if thy merits be of thy selfe, and not from him: but if we acknowledge our merits to proceed from grace working with vs, then we may as truly say, that eternall life is the crowne and reward of merits.
His other place on the Psalme is not to this purpose, Psal. 142. but appertaines to the first iustification of a sinner, as the first word, quicken and reuiue me, sheweth plainly: now we confesse that a sinner is called to repentance and reuiued, not for any desert of his owne, but of Gods meere mercie.
R. ABBOT.
The place of Bernard, is in the very end of his booke De gratia & libero arbitrio, where hauing before deuidedBernar. de grat. et lib arbit. Dona sua Deus in merita diuisit & proemia. the gifts of God into merits and rewards, he sheweth that merites are wholly to be ascribed vnto God, becauseNon equidem quòd consensus ip se in quo meritū omne consistit ab ipso (libero arbitrio) sit, &c. Deus facit volentē, hoc est voluntati suae consentientem. to consent to God, which is the thing wherein merite wholly consisteth, is not of our free will, but of God himselfe. So that although God in the worke of mans saluation do vse the will of man himselfe, yet there is nothing in the will of man to that purpose, but what isTotum ex illa. wholly of the grace of God. Now hauing disputed and shewed these things at large, in the end of the booke he shutteth vp all with this conclusion,Si propriè appellentur ea quae dicimus nostra merita spei quaedam sunt seminaria, charitatis incētiua, occuliae praed [...]stinationis iudici [...], futurae foelicitatis praesagia, via regni, nō causa regnandi. If properly we will terme those which we call our merites, they are the seedgrounds of our hope, incitements of our loue, tokens of our secret predestination, foretokens of our future happinesse, the way to the kingdome, not the cause of our raigning, or of our hauing the kingdome. Where plainely he giueth to vnderstand, that whatsoeuer is spoken of our merites, is but vnproperly spoken; that God hauing purposed vnto vs eternall life, bestoweth his grace vpon vs to leade a godly life, as a foretoken thereof, and therefore that our good workes are but the way wherein God leadeth vs to his kingdome, which hee of his owne mercie hath intended and giuen vnto vs, and not the cause for which hee is moued to bestow the same vpon vs; euen as Saint Augustine speaketh,August. in Psalm. 109. Via qua nos perducturus est ad finem illum quē promisit. the way by which hee will bring vs to that end which hee hath promised. Now what sayth M. Bishop to this place of Bernard? no question but he hath an answer readie, though by his owne confession he neuer saw the place; so notable a facultie haue these men [Page 678] to tell an Authors meaning before euer they looke into him: forsooth Bernards meaning is, that merits are not the whole cause, but the promise of God through Christ, and the grace of God freely bestowed vpon vs, out of which our merits proceed. Thus he answereth Bernard by a plaine contradiction to Bernards words. Bernard saith, they are not the cause: Yes saith M. Bishop, they are the cause, though they be not the whole cause. But see how scholerlike he dealeth therein; for it is as much as if he should say, The tree is not the whole cause of the fruite that it bringeth foorth, but the roote whence it proceedeth, and the boughes whereupon it groweth, whereas the roote and the boughes are parts of the tree, without which it is not a tree; and therefore the exception maketh nothing against it, but that the tree is called the whole cause of the fruite. So saith he, Merits are not the whole cause of saluation, but the grace and promise of God, distinguishing merits as one part of the cause, from the grace and promise of God as another part of the cause; whereas merite by his owne rule in the beginning of this question, doth alwayes necessarily include the promise and grace of God, and can be no merite but as it proceedeth from grace, and hath of God a promise of reward. By this exception therefore he saith nothing to hinder, but that merits are the whole cause of saluation, fully and directly contrary to that that Saint Bernard saith, that merites (which he intendeth no otherwise but implying the grace and promise of God) are the way to the kingdome, but not the cause of our obtaining the kingdome. Yet of that which he saith, he telleth vs that it is Saint Bernards owne doctrine, not alledging any words of Bernard to that purpose, but onely quoting a sermon of his where there is nothing for his purpose, as afterwards shall appeare in answering his testimonies of the Fathers. In the meane time, whereas he excepteth that Bernard liued a thousand yeares after Christ, I must aunswer him that his testimonie is so much the more effectuall, in that God in the middest of so great corruption and darknesse did still by him and others continue the light and acknowledgement of this truth.
The next place cited by M. Perkins is vnder S. Austins name, though that booke indeed be none of his:August. Manu [...]l. ca. 22. Tota spes mea est in morte Domini meis mors eius meritum meum; refugium meum, salus, vita & resurrectio mea. All my hope is in the death of my Lord: his death is my merite. M. Bishop hereto saith that [Page 679] it is true in a good sence. Where we see him to be an apt scholler, and well to haue learned the lesson of the Index Expurgatorius, Jndex Expur. in castigat. Bertram. We set some good sence vpon the errors of the Fathers when they are opposed against vs in contentions with our aduersaries. But what is that good sence? Marry, by the vertue of his death and passion grace is bestowed on me to merite. But surely hee doth not thinke that euer the author of those words intended that sence. If he will make that sence of the one part of the sentence, he must necessarily make the like of the rest. The death of the Lord is my merite, my refuge, my saluation, my life and resurrection. If his meaning be, the death of the Lord is my merite, that is, hath purchased for me that I should merite for my selfe; then in the rest also shall be likewise said, the death of the Lord is my refuge, that is, hath purchased for me that I should be a refuge for my selfe; the death of the Lord is my saluation, life and resurrection, that is, hath purchased for me to be saluation, life and resurrection to my selfe. So likewise where he addeth,Meritum [...]e [...] miseratio Domini: nōsum meriti inops quamdiis miserationum Dominus non de fuerit. My merite is the mercie of the Lord; so long as the Lord of mercie shall not faile, I shall not want merite: the meaning shall likewise be, the mercie of the Lord giueth mee ablenesse to merite for my selfe, and so song as his mercie faileth not, so long shall not I faile of good workes to merite and deserue heauen. Now these constructions are lewd and absurd, and indeed farre from the conscience of the writer of those words, who findeth nothing in his owne workes to comfort himselfe withall, and therefore flieth vnto the death and merite of Christ, and the mercie of God, as his onely succour, and the onely stay that hee hath to rest vpon. Which, that the Reader may throughly vnderstand, I hold it not amisse to set downe what the same author hath written in another place of the same booke, euen out of the same spirit:Ibid. cap. 13. Sileat sibi & ipsae anima, et trāseat se nō cogitādo se, sed te Deus meus quoniam tu es reuera tota spes & fiducia m [...]a. Est enim inte Deo meo & Domino nostro Iesu Christo, vniuscuius (que) nostrum, & portio, et sang [...] & c [...]ro. Vbi ergo portio mea regnat, ibi regnare me credo. Vbi sanguis meus dominatur, ibi dominaeri me confido Vbi caro mea glorificatur, ibi gloriosum me esse cognosco. Quamuis peccator sim, tamen de hac communione gratiae non diffido. Etsi peccata mea prohibent substantia mea requirit. Etsi delicta propriae mea excludunt, naturae communio non repellit, &c. Desperare vtique potuissem propter nimia peccata mea & vitiae, culpas & infinitas negligentias meas quas egi & quotidi è indesinenter ago corde & ere, & opere, & omnibus modis quibus humana fragilitas peccare potest, nisi verbum tuum Deus meus caro fieret & habitaret in nobis. Sed desperare iam non audeo, quoniam subditui ille tibi vsque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis, tulit chyrographum peccaetorum nostrorum, & affigens illud cruci peccatum crucifixit & mortem. In ipso autem securus respiro, &c. Let my soule (saith he) be silent to it selfe, and passe ouer it selfe, not thinking of it selfe, but of thee, O my God, because thou art indeed my whole hope and trust. There is in thee my God and our Lord Iesus Christ, the portion and flesh and bloud of euery one of vs. Where my portion raigneth, I beleeue that I also raigne; where my bloud ruleth, I beleeue that I also haue dominion; where my flesh is glorified, I know that I also am glorious. Albeit I be a sinner, yet I doubt not of this fellowship of grace. Albeit my sinnes hold backe, yet my substance (namely being now of his flesh and his bones) requireth it. [Page 682] Albeit mine owne defaults doe exclude me, yet fellowship of nature putteth mee not away. I might despaire because of my exceeding great sinnes and corruptions, my defaults and infinite negligences which I haue committed, and dayly without ceasing doe commit in thought, and word, and worke, and euery way that humane frailtie can sinne, but that thy Word (O my God) became flesh, and dwelt amongst vs. But now I dare not despaire, because he being obedient vnto thee vnto death, euen the death of the crosse, hath taken away the hand-writing of our sinnes, and fastening it to the crosse, hath crucified sinne and death. Now securely I take breath and heart againe, in him who sitteth at thy right hand, and maketh intercession for vs. By these words, and many other that might be alledged out of that booke, the Reader may iudge of the construction that M. Bishop maketh of the words cited by M. Perkins. We see nothing here but confession of sinnes in himselfe; no other hope but onely forgiuenes of sins in Christ. Surely these are not the speeches of a man dreaming of an ablenesse giuen vnto him to deserue eternall life. No, no, it was neuer heard of in the world, that the meaning of these words, My hope is wholly in the death and merite of Christ, should be, that we hope to be able by Christ to merite and deserue saluation, vntill these brazen faced hypocrites were hired and set to worke by Antichrist for the confusion of soules, by making them to leane vpon the broken staffe of their owne merites, in steed of the onely sauing merite of the bloud of Christ. The faithful haue alwayes in their end betaken themselues to this hold, and many returning vnto God euen at the last gaspe, hauing nothing in themselues to comfort themselues, haue securely reposed their hope in the merit and death of Christ, and with ioy and comfort haue gone to God; who if they had vnderstood hope in Christ according to M. Bishops exposition thereof, of being to be made able by Christ to merite heauen, would haue bene rent and torne in peeces with perplexitie and feare, neither could haue conceiued any comfort thereof at all. But let him alone, he shall one day vnderstand the vntruth of his answer, when he shall be glad to make vse of those words which we haue spoken of, or the like, without that good sence as hee calleth it, which now his senslesse and dead heart imagineth of them. The place of Basil is as cleare as the light, [Page 683] yet he laboureth to cast a mist before it also: but cannot so doe it, but that hee is forced in part to acknowledge the truth on our behalfe.Basil. in Psal. 114. [...] There is layd vp eternall rest (saith he) for them that striue lawfully in this life, not to be rendered according to debt for workes, but prouided according to the grace of the bountifull God, for them that trust in him. Where apparently Basill alludeth to the words of the Apostle,Rom. 44. To him that worketh, that is, to him that hath the righteousnes of workes, the reward is not imputed [...]. by fauour but by debt; and therefore the phrases being borowed from the Apostle, must with him haue the same meaning as with the Apostle they haue. His meaning then is plaine, that that eternall rest is not rendered by way of debt, but by way of fauour and grace; and neuer hath any ecclesiasticall writer vnderstood those phrases otherwise. Onely M. Bishop telleth vs, that Basils meaning is, that it is not rendered according to the debt of workes, that is, according to the iust rate of workes, but in a fuller measure, and aboue our merites. But his masters of Rhemes reiect this commentary of his, and doe tell him that our workes areRhem. Testam. Annot. 2. Tim. 4. fully worthy of euerlasting life. God then doth not exceed the rate of our workes, as they say, but giueth onely what we are fully worthy of, what we fully and iustly merite and deserue thereby. Yea and they saw well, that to teach otherwise as M. Bishop doth, is to ouerthrow merite. For if God do giue vs aboue our merits, then we do not merite that which God giueth; or if we do merite it, then it cannot be sayd to be aboue our merites. But it is aboue our merites, sayth M. Bishop, therefore it followeth necessarily that we doe not merite or deserue it. Yea wee haue seene before out of Fulgentius and Bernard, that Gods reward doth so incomparably exceede all the merite and worke of man, as that eternall life is not due thereunto by right, neither should God doe any wrong if hee did not giue it: and therefore the sentence of Basill is true, according to the Apostles intendment of those termes which he vseth, that eternall life is not rendered by way of debt for workes, but by grace, that is, freely bestowed to them that trust in him. M. Bishop telleth vs, that hee maketh eternall life to be the prize of the combat: but what of that, seeing hee giueth vs to vnderstand that this prize is with fauour and mercie proposed, and with the same mercie and fauour rendered to them that fight the combat? Therefore hee sayth in another place, [Page 682] Basil. de humilit. [...]. There is nothing left thee O man to glorie of, whose glorying and hope consisteth in this, that thou mortifie all that is thine, and seeke in Christ the life to come; whereof hauing the first fruites we are now therein, liuing wholly by the grace and gift of God. There is then with Basil no merit, no debt in any sort, because we liue wholy by the grace and gift of God, so that M. Bishops exposition is but a meere falsification of Basils words.
M. Perkins further alledgeth a saying of Austin, He crowneth thee because he crowneth his owne gifts, not thy merits. M. Bishop answereth that S. Austin was too wise to let any such foolish sentence passe his pen. He questioneth the matter, What congruitie is it to say thus? He directeth a better forme of speech, It had bene better sayd thus. Now if the sentence be S. Austins, what will men but take M. Bishop for a foole, that wold so vnaduisedly befoole S. Austin, and take vpon him to correct his words when he had no cause. The place indeed is misquoted, either by M. Perkins mistaking, or by the ouersight of the Printer, for in steed of Psal. 102. he hath quoted Psal. 120. by misplacing of the figure, a very small and easie ouersight. But S. Austin in Psal. 102. hath these words,August. in Psal. 102. Ergo coronat te quia donae suae coronat non merita tua. He crowneth thee because he crowneth his owne gifts, not thy merits. Which is the same in effect with that which M. Bishop putteth in place of it, very often repeated by S. Austin, either in the same, or very neare the same words, that God when he crowneth vs,Idē epist. 105. et in Ioan. trac. 5. & de grat. et lib. arb. cap. 6. 7. crowneth his owne gifts, not our merits. But he answereth hereto very vntruly and deceitfully. It is true indeed that S. Austin there speaketh to him that thinketh he hath merits of his owne and of himself, that God wil not crowne those because they are onely euill, and he giueth not the crowne to euill workes, but he crowneth onely his owne gifts, because in vs there is no good worke, to which onely the crowne is giuen, but onely by Gods gift.De grat. et lib. arb. ca. 6. Prorsus talia cogitanti veriffimèdicitur, dona tua coronat Deus, non merita tua, si tibi & teipso, non ab illo sunt merita tua. Haec enim si talia sunt, mala sunt: quae autem mala sunt, non coronat Deus. Si autem bona sunt, Dei dona sunt. To him that so thinketh (sayth he) it is rightly said, God crowneth his owne gifts, not thy merits, if thou haue thy merits of thy selfe and not of his gift: for if they be such, they be euill, and God crowneth not those that be euill; but if they be good, they be the gifts of God. Now to those words M. Bishop addeth in the same letter as if it were S. Austins, whether by the Printers fault, or by his owne lewd falshood he can best tell himself, this animaduersion, But if we acknowledge our merits to proceed from grace working with vs, then may we as truly say, that eternall life is the crowne and reward of merits. [Page 683] But M. Bishop, did S. Austine tell you so? Will you so wilfully abuse him and peruert his words and meaning? Surely in the beginning of the next Chapter, which is but ten lines after the words cited, S. Austine saith thus:Jbid. cap. 7. Siergo Dei donae sunt merita tua, non Deus coronat merita tua tanquam merita tua sed tanquam dona sua. If then thy good merits be Gods gifts, God doth not crowne thy merits as thy merits, but as his owne gifts. In which words he plainely denieth, that there is any respect of our merit, or that God accounteth vs as hauing merited, but that he giueth the crown and reward onely as to his owne gifts which he himselfe hath bestowed vpon vs. How bad a man then is M. Bishop, to make S. Austin say, that God crowneth our good workes proceeding from his grace as our merits, when S. Austin expressely and flatly denieth the same. But there is yet some further poison hidden in his words: for when he nameth merits proceeding from grace working with vs, he diuideth betwixt God and vs that which S. Austin maketh entirely the gift of God. The worke is not meerely of the grace of God in vs, but of grace working with vs, because we also as well as grace are partakers of the worke. So then S. Austin must not say, that God crowneth his owne gifts, not our merits, but God crowneth partly his owne gifts, and partly our merits, because the good workes which he crowneth are partly of his grace, and partly also of our owne freewill. By this meanes Maister Bishop will hold it very absurd, which the same Saint Austine saith in the other place:Epist. 105. C [...] Deus coronat merita nostra nihil aliud coronat quàm namerae sua. When God crowneth our merits he crowneth nothing else but his owne gifts: for if he crowne nothing else but his owne gifts, if he crowne nothing at all of ours, then what part of the c [...]owne is it that we can say is merited and deserued by vs?
His answer to the last words of Austine is excluded by the very words themselues:Aug Psal. 14 [...] Propter [...]men tuum D [...]ine, viuificabis [...]e [...]in tua iustitia, non in mea, nō quia ego merut, s [...] quia tu miseritis Lord for thy names sake thou wilt quicken me: in thy righteousnesse, not in mine; not because I haue deserued it, but because thou art mercifull. This place he saith appertaineth to the first iustification of a sinner: but it seemeth he gaue the answer somewhat too early in the morning before his eyes were well opened: for otherwise he might haue seene, that these are the words of a man alreadie iustified, vttered in the name of the Prophet of God, not in the preterperfect tense as of a thing past, but in the future tense, as of a thing to come: Thou shalt or wilt quicken me, and therefore cannot be vnderstood of any first iustification. The Prophet being alreadie in part reuiued to the life of God, prayeth [Page 684] stil to be reuiued and quickened more and more, and promiseth to himselfe by assurance of faith through the holy Ghost, that God will so do, not in my righteousnesse, saith he, as Austin expresseth it, not because I haue deserued it, but for his owne names sake, for his owne mercies sake, giuing to vnderstand, that not onely the beginning of the worke of God, but also the proceeding thereof is, not for any merit of man, but by the mercie of him by whom it was first begun. And whereas he saith that they confesse, that a sinner is called to repentance and reuiued, not for any desert of his owne, but of Gods meere mercie, he doth but blind his Reader with a concealed distinction of merit, hauing himselfeOf Iustification. Sect. 21. before taught, that his workes of preparation are the cause of the iustification of a sinner, as he hath corruptly argued out of the words of Christ, Many sinnes are forgiuen her, because she hath loued much. So that the terme of meere mercie is vsed only colourably and for fashion sake, neither doth he acknowledge the meere mercy of God in any sort, but as the Pelagian heretickes did, in the first offer of his grace.
14. W. BISHOP.
Hauing thus at length answered vnto all that M. Perkins hath alledged against Merits: let vs see what can be said for them, following as neare as I can M. Perkins order.
Obiections of Papists, so he termeth our reasons.
First, in sundry places of S [...]ripture, promise of reward is made vnto good works. Gen. 4. Prou. 11. Eccl. 18. Mat. 5. If thou do well, shalt thou not receiue? To him that doth well there is a faithful reward. Feare not to be iustified vnto death, because the reward of God remaineth for euer: and, When you are reuiled and persecuted for my sake, reioyce, for great is your reward in heauen, and a hundreth such like: therfore such works do merit heauen, for a reward supposeth that there was a desert of it.
M. Perkins answereth first, that the reward is of meere mercie, without any thing done by men. But this is most apparently false: for the Scripture expresseth the very workes whereof it is a reward: againe, a reward in English supposeth some former pleasure which is rewarded, otherwise it were to be called a gift, & not a reward: & much more the Latine and Greeke word, Misthos, Merces, which rather signifie a mans hire and wages, then a gift or reward. Wherefore M. Perkins skippes [Page 685] to a second shift: that forsooth eternall life is an inheritance, but not a reward.
Reply. We know well that it is an inheritance, because it is only due vnto the adopted sonnes of God: but that hindreth not it to be a reward, for that it is our heauenly Fathers pleasure, that all his sonnes comming to the yeares of discretion, shall by their good cariage either deserue it, or else for their bad behauiour be disinherited.
M. Perkins hauing so good reason to distrust his two former answers, flies to a third: and granteth that eternall life is a reward, yet not of our workes, but of Christs merits imputed vnto vs: this is that castle wherein he holds himselfe safe from all Canon-shot: but he is foully abused, for this answer is the most extrauagant of all the rest, as being furthest off from the true sence of the Scripture: examine any one of the places, and a babe may discouer the incongruitie of it: namely, Christ saith, that great is their reward who are reuiled and persecuted for his sake: assigning the reward vnto their constant bearing and enduring of tribulation for Gods sake; and not to his owne merits imputed: and if you desire a formall sentence s [...]tting this purpose, take this: 1. Cor. 3. Iac. 1. Euery man shall receiue his reward, according vnto his owne proper labour, and not according to Christs merits imputed vnto him. So a doer of the worke shall be blessed in his deed: and not in the imputation of anothers deed.
R. ABBOT.
Here M. Bishop hauing hitherto said much, and answered iust nothing, falleth in hand to sharpen his tooles and weapons againe, which were blunted and dulled by M. Perkins. And first, he opposeth places where mention is made of reward, presuming that reward must necessarily suppose and enforce merit and desert. To this M. Perkins hath answered, that reward is twofold: of debt, & of mercie. Eternall life, he saith, is a reward of mercy giuen of the goodwil of God, and not properly repayed as due to any thing that is done by man. M. Bishop replieth, that this is apparently false: for the Scripture (saith he) expresseth the very works wherof it is a reward. But I answer him againe, that it is not false, but very true, because although the Scripture do set foorth vnto vs eternall life as the reward of such & such works, yet that is not to tye the originall of the reward to the worke, but onely to note the sequele thereof: the reward being in truth deriued from a former mercie wherby it was promised before [Page 686] the worke, and by which both the worke and the reward are giuen vnto vs. Nay,Aug. in Psal. 118. conc. 13. Nondum eram quib [...] promitteretur ne quisquā de me [...]itis gl [...]riaritur: & quibus promissum est, etiam ipsi promissi sunt, vt totum corpus Christi d [...]at, Gratia Dei sum id quod sum. They yet were not themselues, saith S. Austin, to whom saluatiō was promised, that no man might glory in his merits; yea they to whom it was promised, were also promised themselues, that the whole body of Christ may say, By the grace of God I am that I am. Idem in Psal. 109. vt supra Sect 2. Whatsoeuer God promised, saith he againe, he promised it to vs being vnworthie, that it might not be promised as a reward to workes, but being grace might according to the name be freely giuen. So that although eternall life beIdem de grat. & lib. arbit. cap. 8. Supra sect. 8. as it were a reward for righteousnesse, yet it is indeed but grace for grace, as out of him also we haue heard before. But saith M. Bishop, a reward in English supposeth some former pleasure which is rewarded. But that is not alwayes so: for I doubt not but many times an English begger hath come to him and asked him a reward, at whose hands notwithstanding he hath receiued no former pleasure: and euen so must Master Bishop begge at Gods hands the reward of euerlasting life. Yea but then it should be called a gift, and not a reward: and did not he know that it is called a gift? Rom: 6.23. [...]. Eternall life (saith Saint Paule) is the free gift [...]f God. Christ saith of his sheepe:Ioh 10.28. I giue vnto them eternall life. 1 Ioh. 5.11. This is the record, saith Saint Iohn, that God hath giuen vnto vs eternall life. It may be he cannot see how it should be called both a gift and a reward. I wil tell him therefore, that secundum quid, and in a respect it is called a reward, but simply and absolutely it is onely gift. Compare eternall life to the worke, and looke no further▪ and so the Scripture calleth it a reward. But consider the original from whence the worke it self also proceedeth, and all is meerely and wholy gift: yea & though in act and execution the work be before the reward, yet in intendement & purpose that which we call the reward is before the work, and God therfore giueth vs good works, because formerly by his election he giueth vs eternall life. From the English word he goeth to the Greek and Latin, [...], and merces, & saith, they rather signifie hire or wages, then gift or reward. And what of that, seeing the Apostle teacheth vs to distinguish, that [...], wages, may be reckoned to a man by fauor & not by debt. For he could not say:Rom. 4.4. To him that worketh, the wages is not imputed by fauour, but by debt, but that there is an imputing of wages by fauor also. And this appeareth in thē, who being called into the vineyard at the 11. houre, yet receiued for wages,Mat. 20.10.14 by fauor, not by debt, as much as they who were first [Page 687] called, and had borne the burden and heate of the day. The Lord of the vineyard gaue them the same wages,Prosper. de voc. Gent. lib. 1. cap. 5 Non labori pretium soluens sed diuitias bonitatis suae in eos quos sine operibus eligit effundens, vt etiam ij qui in multo labore sudarunt, nec amplius quàm nouissimi acceperunt, intelligan [...] donum se gratiae non operum accepisse mercedē. not as paying a price to their labour, but powring foorth the riches of his goodnesse to them whom he chose without workes, that euen they also who haue swet with much labour, and haue receiued no more then the last, may vnderstand, that they haue receiued a gift of grace, not a wages for their workes. Thus M. Bishop seeth hire and wages to be a matter of fauour, and the reward of works, in some sort so called, to be nothing else indeed but a gift of grace. And if he will vnderstand it otherwise, let him heare the resolution of Marke the Heremite, saying:Mark. Herem. De his qui putant ex operibus se iustificari. [...]. Some not keeping the commandements, yet thinke they beleeue aright: againe, some there are who keeping the commandements hope to receiue the kingdome of heauē as a wages due vnto them: both of these faile of obtaining the same.
M. Perkins answereth secondly, that the kingdome of heauen is properly an inheritance, but is called a reward onely by figure & resemblance. To this M. Bishop replieth, that it is an inheritance, because it is onely due to the adopted sonnes of God. But that is not all: for it is not so called onely, because it is only due to the adopted sonnes of God, but because by vertue of their adoption they haue the title of it, euen by being new borne the sonnes of God. For inheritance is a matter of birth, and though a man be of neuer so good desert, yet can he haue no title of inheritance thereby. The younger brother may be of better desert then the [...]der, yet that cannot make him his fathers heire. Where the thing is by desert, a man can haue no title to it till he haue deserued it, but what is by inheritance a man hath the right of it before he can do any thing towards the deseruing of it. When therfore the Scripture setteth foorth vnto vs eternal life vnder the cōdition of inheritance, it plainly teacheth vs, that we attaine not vnto it by any merits or workes, but that before any works God by adopting vs to be his children, giueth vs the state & prerogatiue thereof. And therfore wheras M. Bishop saith, that it is our heauenly Fathers pleasure, that all his sonnes coming to the years of discretion, should by their good cariage either deserue it, or else for their bad behauior be disinherited, he speaketh at all aduenture, quite contrarie to the nature of the thing whereof he speaketh. And see how improbably he speaketh in respect of humane courses, to which he alludeth: what, is there no remedy but that a son must either deserue his inheritance, or else be disinherited? Are fathers wont to measure [Page 688] their children by that rule? Is there no meane betwixt these two? Surely the behauiour of the heire is seldome such, as may be said to deserue the inheritance whereto he is borne, and yet fathers do not disinherit their children for not deseruing. There is an indifferent behauior of sonnes that yeeldeth no desert, and there is many times behauior whereby they ill deserue, and yet by birth the right of inheritance standeth good vnto them. And this is our title, euen our new birth in Iesus Christ, wherby we areTit. 3.7. made heires of euerlasting life, when as notwithstanding our behauiour is such, as that being strictly examined, we well know that we deserue the contrarie. As for that which he saith of disinheriting, it is sometimes found with men who cannot reclaime their sonnes from euill courses, or fashion them to their owne desire, (which what Father wold not do, if it were in his power to do it, to auoyde the disinheriting of his sonne?) but with God who hath the hearts of his children in his hands, and can dispose them to his owne will, it is neuer found; but in this case it holdeth which the Apostle saith:Rom. 11.29. The gifts & calling of God are without repentance: that is, as S. Austine saith,August. de Praed Sanct cap. 16. Sine mutatione stabilitèr fixa sunt. They are firmely setled without any change.
The third answer M. Perkins addeth, not for any distrust of the two former, but to giue further strength vnto them, and this answer is indeed a castle, that al M. Bishops Canon-shot is not able to shake. He saith, that it is more extraungant then the rest, and furthest off from the true sence of Scripture and I know not what, but all his extrauagant tearmes will not helpe him to auoid the force of it. It is first to be noted how he peruerteth M. Perkins his words: for M. Perkins denieth not but that eternall life is the reward of our works: but saith, if it be granted to be a deserued reward, it is not for our works, but for Christs merits imputed vnto vs. It is then the reward of our workes, not for the desert of our workes, but because Christ by his merits hath purchased it, and we in him receiue it for reward of our works. To his merits only the reward is assigned and giuen to our vse: for his workes sake is it that any reward is promised or yeelded to our works. For 2. Cor. 1.20. in him all the promises of God are yea and Amen: for his sake they were first made, and for his sake they are performed. The father giuing vnto vs his son,Rom. 8.32. together with him giueth vs all things: 1. Ioh. 5.11. He hath giuen vnto vs eternall life, but this life is in his Son, in his obediēce, in his merits eternal life is the reward of our works. [Page 689] If it be said,Mat. 5.11.12. Blessed are ye when men reuile you, and persecute you for my names sake: great is your reward in heauē, it is for Christs sake that it is said: Blessed are ye; great is your reward in heauē. If it be said:1. Cor. 3.8. Euery man shal receiue his reward according to his labor, it is for Christs sake that it is so said. If it be said:Iam. 125. The doer of the word shall be blessed in his deed, it is for Christs sake, that he shall be blessed in his deed. For if we consider our persons, the Father1. Eph. 6. hath accepted vs in his beloued, in Iesus Christ, and3. Mat. 17: in him is well pleased towards vs. If we look to our workes, our sufferings, our seruice, all our spirituall sacrifices are acceptable to God, not by their owne woorth, not by our desert, butPet. 2.5. by Iesus Christ, by his merits, by his deserts, and therefore by his merits haue the reward allotted vnto them. Thus M. Bishop fighteth hard and getteth no ground: he thinketh, poore man, that he hath troden M. Perkins vnder foote, but M. Perkins liueth triumphantly in heauen, and he liueth a base conquered man here vpon the earth, and by his defending of Merits, secludeth himselfe from that mercie, whereby he should attaine heauen and perpetuall ioy and felicitie.
15. W. BISHOP.
In stead of our second reason blindly proposed by M. Perkins, I will confirme the first with such texts of holy Writ, as specifie plainly our good workes to be the cause of eternall life. Mat. 25. Come vnto me ye blessed of my Father, possesse a kingdom prepared for you. And why so? For when I was hungry, ye gaue me meat, & so forth: the like is in the same chapter of the seruants, who employed all their talents for their Lord said vnto them: Because you haue bene faithfull in few things, I will place you ouer many. And many such like: where good workes done by the parties themselues are expresly said to be the very cause why God rewarded them with the kingdome of heauen. Therefore he must needes be holden for a very wrangler, that doth seek to peruert such euident speeches, and would make the simple beleeue, that the cause there formally specified, is not to be taken for the cause, but doth onely signifie an order of things. But if any desire besides the euidence of the text, to see how the auncient Fathers take it, let him reade S. Augustine,In Psal. 40. where he thus briefly handleth this text: Come ye blessed of my Father, receiue: what shall we receiue? a kingdome: for what cause? because I was hungrie, & you gaue me meate, &c. Of the reall imputation of Christs [Page 690] merits, there was no tidings in those daies: and that iudicious Doctor found, that good works was the cause of receiuing the kingdom of heauē.
R. ABBOT.
M. Bishop to helpe the former argument addeth some texts of holy writ, which specifie plainely, as he saith, our good workes to be the cause of eternall life. To this purpose he alledgeth the words of Christ as touching the last iudgement:Mat. 25.34. Come ye blessed of my Father; possesse, or rather [...] inherite ye the kingdome prepared for you before the foundations of the world; for I was hungry and ye gaue me meate, &c. Where the very place it selfe disproueth that that he intendeth to proue by it: for by that that he saith, Inherit ye the kingdome, it is plainely gathered which S. Ambrose thence affirmeth:Ambros. de abitis Theodosij. Tanquam possessionem haereditariam recipimus ea quae promissa sunt [...]bis. We receiue as a possession of inheritance those things that are promised vnto vs. And if we receiue the kingdome by way of inheritance, then it is not by merit, as hath alreadie bene declared. Againe, when he saith, prepared for you from the foundations of the world, euen as S. Paule saith,Eph. 1.4. God hath chosen vs in Christ before the foundations of the world, he sheweth that the kingdome was prepared for them that inherite it before they had any works: and therfore, to reason in the same maner as the Apostle doth:Rom. 9.11. not by workes, but by (the grace and mercie of) him that calleth, it is said: Come ye blessed, inherit the kingdome, &c. For to say that GodAugust. contra Iulian. Pelag. li. 5 cap 3. Ne fortè ante constitutionem mundi ex operibus praecognitis putarentur electi, se [...]utus est & adiunxit, si autem gratia, &c. vide Epist. 105. prepared the kingdome for them, vpon foresight of their workes, is the heresie of the Pelagians long agone condemned. It must needes be therefore that it was prepared for them without respect of works, and that their workes are alledged not as the proper cause fot which the kingdome is giuen vnto thē, but as signes and tokens that they are they for whom it is prepared, euen as before we heard out of S. Bernard, thatBernard. de grat. & lib arb. Occultae praedestinationis indicia, futurae foelicitatis praesagia, via regni, no [...] causa regnandi. they are tokens of our predestination, foretokens of our future happinesse, the way to the kingdome, not the cause of our obtaining it. No more can be argued out of the other place. Reward we find there, but Merit we find none, neither can the one of these be euicted by the other. It onely sheweth how God graceth his faithfull seruants by assigning vnto them vnder the name of reward, that which indeed he otherwise freely bestoweth vpon them. A most cleare example whereof we ha [...] [...] our father Abraham, to whome God made at first an absolute [Page 691] promise, that he wouldGen. 12.2.3. make of him a great nation, and would blesse him, and in him all nations of the earth should be blessed, and yet afterwards vpon the triall that he made of him for the offering of his sonne Isaac, taketh occasion to renew the promise, as if he would do it for his obedience therein.Cap. 22.16. Because thou hast done this thing, and hast not spared thine onely sonne, therefore will I surely blesse thee, and I will multiply thy seede after thee, &c. and in thee shall all nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast obeied my voice. The blessing was assured to Abraham infallibly by the former absolute promise of God,Prosper, de vocat. gent. lib. 1. cap. 3. Sine conditio: ne promisit, sine lege d [...] nauit. without any caution or condition, as Prosper well saith, but he would haue Abraham to take knowledge by occasion of that that he had done, that the promise before freely made, should inuiolably & without any impeachment stand good vnto him. Euen so God from our works taketh occasion of the renewing of his promises, & thereto for our assurance tieth the performance therof vnder the name of reward, when as the true cause of all is his mercy in Iesus Christ, by whom onely it is that the worke is accepted in his sight. Now if God vouchsafe to honour vs, let not vs thereby take occasion to dishonour him, or chalenge proudly to our merits, that for which we should sing praise onely to his mercy. Neither do we herein wrangle or peruert the Scripture, but finding by the Scripture that God hath chosen and called vs,Ephe. 1.6. that we should be to the praise of the glory of his grace, Aug. cont. Pelag & Celest. lib. 2. cap. 24. Nō enim Dei gratia gratia erit vllo modo nisi fuerit gratuita omni modo. which is not grace in any sort, except it be free in euery sort, we endeuour that this glory may be yeelded entirely vnto God, and that to this end it may alwaies be acknowledged, thatRom. 6.23. eternal life is the gift of God, through Iesus Christ our Lord. Now whereas he alledgeth S. Austin to his purpose, he abuseth S. Austin as he is wont to do, who questioneth not any cause in the place by him cited, but vsing the words, Come ye blessed of my Father, receiue ye a Kingdome, goeth on hereupon to demaund, not as Maister Bishop saith, For what cause, butAug. in Psal. 49. Quid percipite? Regnum. Pro quare? Esuriu [...], &c. Quid tam vile, quid tā terrenum quàm frangere panem esueriente? Tanti valet Regnum coel [...]rū. Si non habes facultatē frangendi panē, &c. da calicem aquae frigidiae; mitte duo mi [...]uta in gazophylacium. Tātū emi [...] vidua duob [...]s minuus, quantū [...]mit Petrus relinquens re [...]a, quantum emit Zach [...]us dando dimidium patrimonium. Tanti valet quantum habueris. for what thing? He answereth, I was hungry and ye gaue me to eate. What is there so base, saith he, what so concerning the earth, as to breake bread to the hungry? At so much is the Kingdome of heauen valued vnto thee. If thou haue no ability to breake bread to the hungry, &c. yet giue a cup of cold water, cast two mites into the treasury. The widow for two mites bought as much as Peter forsaking his nets, as Zachee did in giuing halfe his goods. It is valued vnto thee at so much as thou hast. Thus [Page 692] the purpose of this iuditious Doctor, is directly against Maister Bishops cause of receiuing the Kingdome of heauen, shewing how base and of how little woorth the things are, whereto God notwithstanding of his vouchsafing grace returneth the Kingdome of heauen, that we may know that it is not for our merits sake that he bestoweth the same. As for the imputation of Christes merits, M. Bishop knoweth no vse of it, because he yet knoweth not himselfe; but he will then know the vse of the merits of Christ, when he commeth to know how vainly and fondly he hath presumed of his own. To the true Church of Christ, it was neuer strange tidings that Christes merits should be imputed vnto them; whose hope hath alwaies bene to finde fauour at Gods hands, by vertue of that merit that he hath performed for them.
16 W. BISHOP.
Here by the way M. Perkins redoubleth that common slaunder of theirs: that we take away a part of Christes mediation. For, saith he, if Christes merits were sufficient, what neede ours? It hath bene told them, but they will neuer learne to vnderstand it: I will yet once againe repeate it. We hold our Sauiours merits to be of infinite value, and to haue deserued of God all the graces and blessings, which haue or shall be bestowed vpon all men, from the beginning of the world vnto the end of it: yet his diuine will and order is, that all men of discretion hauing freely receiued grace from him, do merit that crowne of glory, which is prepared for them, not to supply the want of his merits, which are inestimable, but being members of his mysticall body, he would haue vs also like vnto himselfe in this point of meriting: and further desirous to traine vs vp in all good works he best knew, that there could be no better spur to pricke our dull nature forward, then to ordaine and propose such heauenly rewards vnto all them that would diligently endeuour to deserue them. The man seemes to be much ignorant in the matter of Christes mediation: I will therefore helpe him a little. It consisteth in reconciling man to God: which he performed by paying the ransome of our sinnes, in purchasing vs Gods fauour, and in ordaining meanes how all mankinde might attaine to eternall life: in the two first points we do for the most part agree: to wit, that our sinnes are freely pardoned through Christes passion: and that we are as freely iustified, and receiued first into [Page 693] Gods grace and fauour: although we require other preparation then they do, yet we as fully denie any merit of ours to be cause of either, as they do. Marry about the meanes of attaining to heauen, we differ altogether: for they say that God requires no iustice in vs, nor merit at all on our parts, but only the disposition of faith, to lay hold on Christes righteousnesse and merits: but we say that Christes righteousnesse and merit, are incommunicable vnto any meere creature: but that through his merits, God doth powre into euery true Christian a particular iustice, whereby he is sanctified, and made able to do good workes, and to merit eternall life. Which ability we receiuing of Gods free gift, through Christes merits, doth much more magnifie both Gods grace, and Christs merits: for the greater that the gift is, the greater is the glory of the giuer, And to argue that to be a derogation vnto his mediation and merits, which he hath appointed to be the very instrument of applying the vertue of them to vs, is indeede vnder colour of magnifying Christes merits, to vndermine and blow out all the vertue of them. But saies Maister Perkins, what should we talke of our merits, who for one good worke we doe, commit many bad, which deface our merits, if we had any?
True it is, as it was once before said, that euery mortall sinne blotteth out all former iustice and merit: but by repentance both are recouered againe: but must we not speake of any good, because we may hap to do euil? that is a faire perswasion, and well worthy a wise man.
R. ABBOT.
To say that they take away a part of Christes mediation, is no slaunder but truth, as by M. Bishop himselfe appeareth in this very place. To M. Perkins saying that if Christ did sufficiently merit eternall life for vs, then he should do more then is needefull, in making vs able to merit for our selues, he answereth, that though Christes merits be of infinite value, and haue deserued of God all graces and blessings, yet his diuine will and order is, that we also merit that crowne of glory. But to what end when he hath merited it already? Marry not to supply the want of his merits, but as being members of his mysticall body, he would haue vs like vnto himselfe in this point of meriting. Thus we must thinke that M. Bishop is like vnto Christ in this point of meriting, or rather we must think him an impious wretched man [Page 694] thus in meriting to consort himselfe and his with the Sonne of God, and to bring in these prophane nouelties into the Church, which neither Scripture, nor councell, nor father, nor any antiquitie was euer acquainted with. Where hath he euer read, that Christ would haue vs like vnto himselfe in this point of meriting? What is this but to affirme him in a kinde of generality,Our conformity and likenesse to Christ wherin it standeth see of satisfaction. Sect. 2. onely to be Iesus Christ, but that otherwise he hath left it to euery man to be a Iesus Christ, a Redeemer and Sauiour for himselfe, because it is his will to haue vs like vnto himselfe in this point of meriting, by which it is that he is become Iesus, and a Sauiour vnto vs? It is by meriting I say, that Christ is vnto vs Iesus a Sauiour, and therefore if we be like vnto him in meriting, it cannot be auoided but that we also are Sauiours. Yea, and for this matter of meriting, necessary it was that he that should be our Redeemer should be God, because none but God, no Angell, no Archangell, no creature whatsoeuer could merit at the hands of God; and yet this man sticketh not blasphemously to affirme, that in this point of meriting we are like vnto the Sonne of God. And all this meriting for ought he saith, remaineth still needlesse and causelesse, because for shame he dareth not deny that in words which indeed he doth deny, that Christs merits are inestimable, and haue deserued all graces and blessings for vs. Which being graunted, to what end should we be like vnto Christ in meriting? Nay, we rightly conclude thereof, because God doth nothing idlely, that therefore he doth not appoint vs to merit that for our selues, which Christ hath already merited in our behalfe. Wheras he saith, that God desirous to traine vs vp in all good workes, best knew that there is no better spurre to pricke forward our dull nature, then to ordaine and propose such heauenly rewards, we acknowledge that so farre he saith truly, but where he addeth that they are proposed to such as wil endeuour to deserue them, I must remember him of the sentence of Marke the Hermite before alledged, thatMarc. Herem. Supra sect. 14. some keeping the commandements, expect the Kingdome of heauen as a wages deserued or due vnto them, and that these faile of the Kingdome of heauen. Now here M. Bishop in his brauery sitteth him downe in his chaire, and taketh vpon him to teach M. Perkins, as a man much ignorant in the matter of Christes mediation, but if M. Perkins had knowne it in no better sort then he teacheth him, we might haue taken him indeede for a very simple and ignorant man. True it is [Page 695] which he saith, that the office of Christes mediation consisteth in reconciling man to God, and that he performed this by paying the ransome of our sinnes, by purchasing Gods fauour, and ordaining meanes how all mankinde might attaine to eternall life. But he saith very vntruly, that in the two first points for the most part we agree; for they are farre from agreeing therein with vs, or with the truth of the Gospell of Christ. They do not hold that our sinnes are freely pardoned, or that we are freely iustified, albeit he is ashamed to confesse that they hold it otherwise. For what is it to say freely, butRhem. Testam. explication of words in the end. for nothing, as his Rhemish Maisters haue expounded it? and they do not hold that our sinnes are pardoned, or we iustified for nothing, but for works. And that appeareth by that he addeth next: although we require other preparation then they do. For the workes of preparation they make to be the cause of the forgiuenesse of sinnes and iustification, as he himselfe hathOf Iustification. Sect. 21. before disputed; onely he thinketh the matter handsomly salued, that workes are the cause of iustification, but not the merit of works, and with this iugling deuice he addeth, that they as fully denie any merit of ours, to be cause thereof as we do. Wheras the Scripture saith nothing of the merit of workes, but absolutely excludeth workes from being any part of the cause of our iustification before God; neither opposeth each to other grace, and merits, but grace and workes; not saying, If it be of grace, it is not of merits, butRom. 11.6. If it be of grace, it is not of workes, otherwise grace were no grace. Therefore these words of his, are but words of hypocrisie and falshood, and vsed onely to blinde the vnskilfull Reader, and to conceale that venime and poison that would otherwise easily be espied. Albeit his maister Bellarmine sticketh not to tell vs, thatBellarm. de iustificat. lib. 1. cap. 17. Iustificat per modū meriti: suo quodā modo meretur remissionē peccatorum. faith which is one of their preparations, doth iustifie by way of merit, and doth in some sort merit forgiuenesse of sinnes, that we may know that very vntruly and against his owne knowledge, M. Bishop affirmeth that they as fully deny merit to be the cause of forgiuenesse of sinnes or iustification, as we do.
About the meanes of attaining to heauen, he saith, we differ altogether. For they say, saith he, that God requires no iustice in vs. Where as he hath sought to cleare his owne part with a lye, so doth he with a lye seeke to disgrace ours. We do not say that God requireth no iustice in vs; we only deny that the iustice which God requireth in vs, is the cause of our iustification before God, or can yeeld [Page 696] vs any merit towards God, and therefore in this respect we desirePhil. 3.9. to be found in Christ, and by faith to stand vnder the couerture of his merits and righteousnesse, and in the imputation thereof to be accepted vnto euerlasting life. Now against this, he saith, that Christes righteousnesse and merits are not communicable vnto anie meere creature. But he saith he knoweth not what; for what should hinder but that what Christ hath done for vs, should be communicated and imputed vnto vs? And is not Christ himselfe communicated vnto vs,Esa. 9.6. borne vnto vs, giuen vnto vs, becomeIohn. 17.23. one with vs? Accordingly therefore he is1. Cor. 1.30. of God made righteousnesse vnto vs, euenIerem. 23.6. the Lord our righteousnesse, that we may say,Psal. 71.14. I will go forth in the strength of the Lord God, and will make mention of thy righteousnesse onely. But he will haue it, that through Christes merits grace is giuen vnto vs to do good workes, and to merit eternall life. One part whereof we acknowledge to be true, that through Christes merits grace is giuen vnto vs to do good workes, because good workes are the way wherein we are to walke to that eternall life which he hath merited and purchased for vs. But the other part thereof is false, and we denie that he hath appointed vs by our good workes to merit for our selues eternall life. It is a Romish fancie, which we maruell they so busie themselues to cōmend to others, when none of them dare presume of it in himselfe. M. Perkins by sound argument hath confuted it, and M. Bishop is content againe barely to affirme it, without either proofe of his owne part, or disproofe of that that is said against it. In a word, we do not finde in Scripture that Christ died for our good workes that they might merit, but onely for our sinnes that they might be pardoned. This is the auncient receiued faith of the Church of Christ, but the other is a nouelty which antiquity neuer imagined, but is lately deuised in the Church of Rome. He saith that they by this doctrine of Merits, do much more magnifie Gods grace and Christes merits then we do. And why? For the greater the gift is, saith he, the greater is the glory of the giuer. But I answer him that the gift is greater, in that Christ giueth himselfe to be our merit and righteousnesse, then it should be in giuing vs ablenesse to merit for our selues. And by this the glory of the giuer is most of all set forth, which then most clearely shineth, when there is least shew or appearance of any thing to be attributed vnto vs. Which is not in their Popish doctrine, where man by [Page 697] his merits is set on horsebacke, and those merits are affirmed so to proceede from grace, as that they proceede also in part from his owne free will. Therefore to denie our merits, is not to vndermine and blow out the vertue of Christes merits, but to acknowledge the same to be in themselues entirely and perfectly sufficient without vs, that whilest we yeeld nothing to our selues to reioyce in, the glory of our saluation may redound wholy to him to whom wholy and onely it doth belong. But to affirme merits on our part, cannot be without singular derogation to the mediation and merits of Christ, who hath taught vs to apply vnto vs the vertue of his merits, not by meriting againe for ourselues, but by beleeuing in him, according to that which the Apostle hath taught vs, that God hathRom. 3.25. set him forth to be an attonement (for vs) through faith in his bloud.
M. Perkins against this vaine presumption of merit, alledgeth further, that for one good worke that we do we haue many euill, the offence whereof defaceth the merit of our best deedes, and maketh them too light in the ballance of the law. This M. Bishop lightly regardeth. Tush his mortall sinnes are taken away by penance, and his merits though they were gone, yet returne againe, and without doubt he will thereof make himselfe a ladder that shal serue him to climbe to heauen. What, saith he, must we not speake of good, because we may hap to do euill? That is a faire perswasion, and well worthy of a wise man. It is but a hap we must think that he doth any euill, and therefore he will not be barred from speaking of his good, and is no foole I warrant you in the perswasion thereof. Surely we thinke that Iob was somewhat wiser then M. Bishop, and yet he thought that perswasion not to be vnworthy of him.Iob. 9.2. If I would contend with him, I should not be able to answer him one for a thousand. And when by the prouocation of his friends he had vsed that great iustification of himselfe, being reprooued for it by the Lord, he renounceth to speake of his good any more, and saith,Iob. 39.37. I am vile: what shall I answere thee? I will lay my hand vpon my mouth. Once haue I spoken, but I will answer no more, yea twise, but I will proceede no further. DauidAug in Psal. 129. Vidit propè totam vitam humanam circumlatrari peccatis suis. seeing the whole life of man in a manner on euery side to be barked at by his sinnes, thought his euils sufficient to stop his mouth from talking of his good, and crieth out vnto God,Psal. 130.2. O Lord if thou straitly marke iniquities, who can stand? [Page 698] S. Austine thought it worth the while to consider, and tooke it to be a barre against all pleading of Merit, that if God strictly examine our behauiour,August. Plarae inueni [...] peccata quàm merita. he shall finde more sinnes then merits or good workes; and therefore he could cry out,Confess. lib. 9. ca. 13. Vae etiam laudabili vitae hominū siremotae miserecordia discutias eam. Woe euen to the commendable life of man, if thou, O God, examine it without mercy. I wonder then what merit M. Bishop can finde in the commendable life of man. The same S. Austine asketh againe,De verb. Dom. ser. 15. Quis est qui nō sit debitor Dei nisi in quo nullum potest inueniri pecca [...]m? Who is he that is not a debtor vnto God, but he onely in whom can no sinne be found? Now if we be all debtors vnto God by our sinnes, can we by our good workes haue him a debtor vnto vs? And what though God of his meere mercy and goodnesse do pardon our sinnes, and putting out of sight and remembrance our euill deedes, do still reserue the acknowledgement of our well-doings? Shall we thereupon out of his mercy build a merit vnto our selues, and thinke that we haue well deserued at Gods hands, and bound him to vs by our good deedes, when by our sinnes we haue a thousand times more prouoked him to destroy vs? M. Bishop is no doubt a wise man, and hath some great reason to settle himselfe in this perswasion; but yet a foole may be so wise, as to wish him to take heede that the golden house of merits that he buildeth now, do not fall heauie in the end vpon his owne head.
17 W. BISHOP.
Let vs to our third Argument; God hath by couenant and promise bound himselfe to reward our workes with life euerlasting: Therefore good workes do in iustice deserue it: for faithfull promise maketh due debt. Math. 20. The couenant is plainely set downe: where God in the person of an housholder agreeth with his workmen for a penny a day: that is, to giue them life euerlasting for trauailing in his seruice during their life time, as all auncient interpreters expound it. Whereupon S. Paul inferreth, that God should be vniust, Heb. 6. if he should forget their workes, who suffered persecution for him: 2. Thess. 1. and saith, If it be iust with God, to render tribulation to them that persecute you, and to such as are persecuted, rest with vs: Li. 2. cont. Iouin. cap. 2. vpon the same ground S. Hierome saith, Great truly were the iniustice of God, if he did punish euill works, and would not as well receiue good workes. To all these, and much more such like, M. Perkins answereth, that couenant for works was in the olde Testament, [Page 699] but in the new, the couenant is made with the workman, not with the worke.
Reply. All that I cited in this argument, is out of the new Testament, where expresse couenant is made for working and workes, as you haue heard. And as it was said in the old law, Math. 19. Do these things & thou shalt liue: so is it said in the new, If thou wilt enter into life, keepe the cō mandements: and life eternall is the hire and wages for labouring in Gods vineyard, and not of the imputed iustice or merits of Christ: but looke about you, and behold the goodly marke which M. Perkins sets vp: Marke, saith he, that it is said, God will render vnto euery man according to his workes: not to the worke, or for the worke. O sharpe and ouer-fine wit! doth he render according to the workes, and doth he not render for the workes? If the rate of the workes be the measure of the reward, that for fewer or lesser workes there is a lesser reward, and for many and worthier a greater: surely in my simple vnderstanding, he that giueth according vnto the workes, giueth for the works. That other addle inuention (that workes are there mentioned, not because they are rewarded, but because they are tokens that the doer is in Christ, for whose obedience God promiseth the crowne of life) is not worth the confuting, it is so flat contrarie to the text: which ascribeth distinctly that reward vnto the workman for his workes, and not for Christes obedience imputed vnto him.
R. ABBOT.
M. Bishop in the former section, as we haue seene, hath flowted M. Perkins with the name of wise man, and pronounced his ignorance, and hath taken vpon him to teach him. Now a man would wonder, that taking so much vpon him there, he should here argue so childishly and simply as he hath done. God hath by promise bound himselfe to reward our workes with life euerlasting: therefore good workes do in iustice deserue it. But what if some man for a goose quill should promise M. Bishop a goose, should not he be taken for a goose that would thereupon conclude, that a goose quill were worth a goose? Who would not deride and scorne the absurdity of such men, who set foorth themselues like champions and chalengers, and bring such reeds or rather rushes to fight with? What, because God in mercie promiseth to reward our workes with life [Page 700] euerlasting, doth it follow that our workes do deserue the same? Faithfull promise, saith he, maketh due debt. But what of that? for the debt in that case ariseth not of any desert of him to whom the promise is made, but onely of the word of him that promiseth. A man for nothing may promise something, and for very small things very great; where though there be no comparison betwixt the one and the other, yet the promise standeth good. We must therefore distinguish betwixt debt of desert, and debt of promise. For debt of desert ariseth out of the nature and condition of the worke it selfe, which by it selfe bindeth him to whose vse and seruice it is done. But debt of promise groweth not from the thing that is done or yeelded to another, but onely from the promise it selfe, whereby a man hath bound himselfe. Saint Austine well obserueth, thatAug. de verb. Apost. Ser. 16. Aliter decimus homini. D [...]b [...]s mihi quia d [...]di tibi [...] & aliter decimus, De [...]es mihi quia promisi [...]ti mihi. Quando d [...]cis, Debes mihi quia dedi tibi, processit à te beneficiū sed mutuatum, non donatum. Quando dicis, Debes mihi quia promisi [...]ti mihi, tu nihil dedisti & tam [...]n exigu. B [...]nitas enim ei [...]s qui prom [...]sit dab [...]t n [...] mal ti [...] fid [...] conuertatur. Qui autem fall [...]t malus est. it is one thing to say to a man, Thou art debtor to me, because I haue giuen to thee; another thing to say, Thou art debtor to me because thou hast promised me. When thou saiest, Thou art debtor to me because I haue giuen to thee, a benefit hath proceeded from thee, though by way of lending, not of meere giuing. But when thou saiest, Thou art debtor to me because thou hast promised me, thou giuest nothing to him, and yet requirest of him. Where the goodnesse of him that hath promised, will make good that which he hath promised, least fidelity be changed to naughtinesse or euill. For he that deceiueth is naught. Therefore debt of promise we see is so farre from implying or importing desert, as that it bindeth the promiser for his owne sake, though there be nothing in the party to whom he hath promised that may moue him, or giue him cause of the performance of his promise. The couenant, he saith, is set downe, where God in the person of a housholder, agreeth with his workmen for a penny a day, &c. But that thence no merit can be gathered, hath bene before shewed inS [...]. 14. answer to the first obiection. Yea, and it is plaine; because if there had bene respect of merit, there should to vnequall worke haue bene assigned vnequall reward. But there all are made equall, that all may know, as was before alledged out of Prosper, thatPr [...]. de vocat. gent. lib. 1. cap. 5. Se donum gratiae non [...]p [...]ū [...]ccepisse [...] cedem▪ they receiue a gift of grace, not a wages due to workes. It isHeb. 6.10. iust then with God, as Maister Bishop citeth, not to forget the workes of his seruants;2. Thess. 1.6. iust with God to render rest to them that are persecuted for his sake, not in respect of any merit of ours, but for his owne word and promise sake.Ambros in Rom cap 3. Iust [...]tia Dei dicta est quae videtur esse misericordia quia de promissio [...]e originem habet, & cùm promissum Dei redditur, iustita Dei dicitur. Iustitia enim Dei est quia redditū est quod promissū est. It is [Page 701] called the iustice of God, saith Ambrose, which seemeth to be mercie, because it hath his originall from promise, and when the promise of God is performed, it is called the iustice of God. For it is the iustice of God that that is paied or performed which is promised. Thus and no otherwise is the saying of Saint Hierome to be vnderstoode, thatHieron. Cont. Jouinian. lib. 2. Reuera grandis iniustitia Dei si tantum peccata puniret & bonae opera non susciperet. great should be the vniustice of God, if he did onely punish sinnes, and did not receiue or accept good workes, namely because as hee hath in iudgement threatned to punnish the one; so hee hath promised in mercy to reward the other. Otherwise if wee consider the workes themselues, they areBernard in Annunciat. Ser. 1. Non talia vt iniuriam saceret Deus nisi eam donaret. not such as that God should doe wrong, though hee gaue not vnto them eternall life, as Saint Bernard speaketh, yea saith Hierome, Hieron in Esa. lib. 6. cap. 14. Cū Dies iudicij vel dormitionis aduenerit dissoluentur omnes manus, quia nullum opus dignū Dei iustitia reperietur. All hands shall faile at the day of death and iudgement, because no worke shall be found worthy of the iustice of God. The more wickedly deale the Rhemish glosers, in referring those words of Hierome to the very merit of workes, not doubting with manifest blasphemie, to affirme thatRhem Testam. Annot. Heb. 6.10. good workes be so farre meritorious, as that God should be vniust, if he rendered not heauen for the same. But Saint Austine farre otherwise saith:August in Psal [...]9 Debit [...]rem se no [...]is Deus fecit nihil a nob [...] a [...] piendo, se [...] omn [...] no [...] [...] God hath made himselfe a debtor vnto vs, not by hauing any thing of vs, but by promising all things vnto vs. [...] He is become a debtor, not by receiuing any thing from vs, but by promising what it pleased him. Hereupon, saith he, that which in so many places hee repeateth: [...] 32 83. 109. & de verb. Dom. Ser. 31. Non dicimus illi, Redde quod accipisti; sed Redde quod pro [...] [...] Wee say not vnto God, Repay that which thou hast receiued, but, Pay that which thou hast promised. Yea, hee plainely argueth, thatJn Psal. 32. Cum ab illo habeamus quicquid illi offerimus & ex illo sit qui [...]quid boni sumus, &c. [...] quid dedimus & tenemus debitorem Vnde debitorem? Quia promissor est. sith wee haue of him whatsoeuer wee offer to him, and all our goodnesse is of him, therefore wee haue not yeelded any thing to him to hold him debtor thereby. Whence then haue wee him a debtor? Marry, saith hee, because hee is a promiser. See here Maister Bishop; because all our good workes are of God, wee cannot haue him a debtor vnto vs by any merit of workes that wee doe vnto him, but hee is a debtor onelie for his promise sake.Ibid. Te [...]eamus fidelissimum debitorem, quia habemus miserecordissimum promissorem. Let vs hold him a most faithfull debtor, saith hee, because wee haue him a most mercifull promiser. The promise vvas made in mercie; the performance [Page 702] thereof now dependeth vpon the fidelity of the promiser, not vpon the merit of the worker, euen as the same Saint Austine saith;In Psal. 88. Non secundum merita nostra sed secundum misericordiam illius firma est promissio. The promise is sure, not according to our merits, but according to his mercie.
But to the obiection here made M. Perkins answereth by distinguishing the couenant & promise of God, that one is of the Law, another of the Gospell: one of workes, the other of faith: one of the old testament, the other of the new. By the old couenant of the Law, the promise is made only to the worke, neither is the person accepted, but for the works sake. Now by this couenant GodHeb. 8 9. hath no delight in vs, because we continue not in his couenant, there being none found that perfectly fulfilleth the righteousnes of the law. By the new couenant the person is first accepted by faith for Christes sake, and then the worke is accepted and rewarded, not for the merit of it selfe, but for the condition of the person. By the first couenant, the worke is reiected, if it haue not the vttermost that it ought to haue. By the second couenant2. Cor. 8.12. if there be first a willing minde, it is accepted according to that a man hath, not according to that that he hath not; so that though there be by humane frailtie some imperfection in the worke, yet God pardoning the imperfection, accepteth of it, and rewardeth it, dealing as fathers with their children, who accept their good endeauours, when in the workes haply there is nothing woorthie to be respected. Here therefore the promises of God properly respect the person working, and not the desert or worthinesse of the worke. But Maister Bishop in the height of his ignorance, answereth, that all the places by him cited, are out of the new Testament, vnderstanding by the new Testament, the bookes which wee call the new Testament, and the old Testament, for the bookes that goe vnder that name. Whereas Maister Perkins distinguisheth the two Testaments, as God himselfe doth, not by the bookes, but by the matter of the bookes; there being in the bookes of the old Testament, many things that belong to the new, and many things repeated in the bookes of the new Testament, that belong properly to the old. Such are the sentences by Maister Bishop alledged,Luk. 16.28. Do this and thou shalt liue: Math. 19.17. If thou wilt enter into life, keepe the commandements, though according to his reading he so citeth the former of them out of the olde Testament, as if it were not spoken [Page 703] in the new. But these, though by occasion they be mentioned in the Gospell, yet are conditions indeede properly belonging to the Law. Now in the old testament according to M. Bishops meaning, we may see example of that that M. Perkins saith, where it is said of Cain and Abel; Genes. 4.4.5. The Lord had a respect to Abel and his offering, but to Cain and his offering he had no regard. First he had respect to Abel, because of his faith in Christ, and consequently to his offering: but he had no respect to Cain being voide of true faith, and therefore he had no respect to Cains offering. For it is here true which the Law saith, Cuius persona non placet, nec caetera placent: where the person is not pleasing, nothing else can please; and therefore S. Bernard saith;Bernard. in C [...]nt. Ser. 24. Quid miraris [...] Cain quòd munera tua non respicit qui te despicit? What wonderest thou Cain, that he hath no re [...]pect to thy gifts who despiseth thee? Wherfore it should not seeme strange to M. Bishop which M. Perkins hath obserued, that God rendering to the faithfull according to their workes, should be said notwithstanding not to do it for their works sake, because their works are secondarily accepted for their owne sakes, & they are accepted for Christes sake, and both they and their workes are rewarded by vertue of that attonement, whereby he hath reconciled them vnto God. And thus howsoeuer Maister Bishops simple vnderstanding conceiueth it not, greater workes haue greater reward, and lesser workes haue lesser reward, and yet for Christes sake it is that greater or lesser haue either greater or lesse reward. But it is further demaunded, if workes do not merit, why are they mentioned in the promises? Not because they merit, saith Maister Perkins, but Maister Bishop repeateth it, Not because they are rewarded, whereas Maister Perkins denieth not, but that workes are rewarded; onely he denieth that they are rewarded by vertue of their owne merit and woorth, but by vertue of Christes mediation, for whose sake they are accepted in the sight of God. But we must not think strangely of this, because he doth therein but as he is woont to do. It is further added, that good workes are mentioned in the promises, as the proper markes and signes of them to whom appertaine the promises that are made freely for Christes sake: as tokens that the doer of them is in Christ, through whose merits the promise shall be accomplished. This to M. Bishop is an addle inuention, not woorth the confuting, it is so flat contrary to the text. But it is his addle head that taketh this for an addle inuention, and his ignorance of [Page 704] the text that maketh him thinke it so flat contrary to the text. The text, saith he, ascribeth distinctly that reward vnto the workeman for his works, and not for Christes obedience imputed vnto him. But we tell him againe, that it is for the imputation of Christes obedience, that the text ascribeth any reward to the workman for his worke, as is sufficiently approoued vnto him in theSupra. Sect. 14. defence of the answer to the first obiection. His whole errour standeth in this, that he cannot conceiue how the reward should be giuen to our workes, if it be giuen for Christes sake, or how it should be giuen for Christes sake, if it be promised to our workes, whereas both these accord in one, and for Christes sake it is that any such reward is assigned to our workes.
18 W. BISHOP.
M. Perkins fourth obiection for vs is proposed vnskilfully, yet could he not answer it, but by relying vpon that which is most vntrue, that forsooth no one action of the best man is without fault: which hath bene already confuted, and might be by instances of Abrahams oblation of his sonne, Saint Iohn Baptists preaching, and reprehending of Herod, and Stephens martyrdome, with infinite such like, in which Maister Perkins nor any else will be able to shew in particular, what fault there was. Math. 6. Luk. 11. Againe, our Sauiour saith: That if the eye be simple, the whole body is lightsome, not hauing any part of darknesse in it: and very reason teacheth vs, that a mans action for substance and all due circumstances, may be perfect. It was then a very silly shift to say, that neuer any man did any one action, with all his due circumstances.
But in steede of that fourth Argument, I will put this: If a greater reward be due vnto them that do better workes, then a reward is due vnto them that do good workes, which is euident in reason: But a greater reward is prouided for them that do better, as S. Augustine grounded vpon Gods word, Serm. 46. De verb [...] Dom. 1. Cor. 15. proueth in sund [...]y places: namely vpon that, For starre differeth from starre in glory, so shall be the resurrection of the dead: specifying that virginity shall shine after one sort, chastitie in wedlocke after another, and holy widowhood yet after another:Serm. 95. Lib. de virg. cap. 44. all (saith he) shall be there, but they shine diuersly: And of the same worke affirmeth, That martyrdome shall be higher rewarded [Page 705] then any other work. The like doth he vpon those words, One ground shall yeeld thirty fold, another threescore fold, another an hundred fold: Comparing chastity in wedlocke to the thirty, in widowes to the sixty, and in virgins to the hundred. But most directly in his sixty seauen treatise vpon Saint Iohns Gospell, vpon this verse: In my fathers house are many mansions: where he saith, that albeit some be holier, iuster, and more valiant then others, yet there shall be fit roomes for them all, where euery one is to receiue his place according vnto his merit. That penny spoken of (by which saith he is signified eternall life) shall be giuen to euery man equally: Math. 20. because euery one shall liue for euer, and not one longer then another: but many mansions do signifie the different dignities of merits in the same euerlasting life.
And S. Gregory in most expresse termes, doth teach the same doctrine, saying: Lib. 4. mor. cap. 42. Because in this life there is a difference of workes amongst vs, there shall be in the other life without all doubt a distinction of dignities: that as one here exceedeth another in merit, so there one surpasseth another in reward. Finally, S. Augustine, and S. Hierome,De heres. her. 8 [...] ▪ Lib. 2. cont. Ioui [...]. condemne it as an heresie, to hold that there is not diuersity of merits in this life, and rewards in the next: Whereon followeth most manifestly, that there be merits and rewards.
R. ABBOT.
The fourth obiection he telleth vs is vnskilfully proposed, but yet he doth not tell vs how he would haue it proposed, because belike he had small opinion of it. Yet I will do him the fauour to put it into forme for him, to let it appeare whether he be likely of any aduantage by it. It must be thus: If good workes be perfect and without fault, then they merit. But they are perfect and without fault, because they are the workes of the holy Ghost. Therefore they must needes merit. Now the first of these propositions is false. For although it be graunted that good workes be perfect and without any defect, yet can they not merit at Gods hands, as may appeare by that that hath beeneSupra Sect. 3. 4. before said as touching the conditions of Merit. Euen Adam himselfe in the state of Paradise, could by desert haue chalenged nothing at Gods hands, as neither can the elect Angels still continuing in that integritie wherein they were first created. But Maister Perkins denieth [Page 706] the minor proposition, affirming that no workes of ours are perfect and without blemish, but do all carie the markes of our vncleannesse, whereby being exacted in rigour, they are subiect to reproofe. For although in their originall, which is the spirit of God, they be pure and cleane, yet as water though cleare in the fountaine, yet gathereth vncleannesse from the channell wherein it runneth, so the workes of grace wrought in vs, do receiue some taint of the corruption of our nature through which they passe. And as the hand of the most cunning Scribe, write he neuer so excellently by himselfe, loseth much of his perfection and grace, in holding the hand of a child to teach him to write, so the worke of the holy Ghost being most absolute in it selfe, yet in vs through the crookednesse and corruption of our nature, whilest it is framing vs to it selfe, loseth much of the beauty and glory that it should haue, vntill the same spirit haue fully consumed all our drosse, that it alone may preuaile in vs. M. Bishop replieth, that this is most vntrue, and telleth vs, that it hath bene already confuted, but yet against his confutation it is iustified to him before, and will stand good, that there is no action of man so perfect, but that there is a defect to be found in it. The best of our actions is weakened byGal. 5.17. the flesh lusting against the spirit, so as that we cannot do the things that we would. In our best actions it hapneth which our Sauiour saith;Math. 26.41. The spirit indeede is willing, but the flesh is weake. And howsoeuer faith fighting against the weakenesse of the flesh, do preuaile and ouercome, yet euen of the resistance of the flesh there groweth a blemish, and the neerenesse of the infection thereof, doth breath out some distastfull quality vpon our workes, for which we haue neede to aske pardon at Gods hands. But M. Bishop bringeth instances of Abrahams oblation of his sonne; of Iohn Baptists preaching and reprehending Herod; of his and Steuens martyrdome, with infinite other such like, saith he, in which no man can shew in particular what fault there was. But why should we not conceiue the like of the martyrdome of Iohn and Steuen, as we do of the martyrdome of Peter? And of Peters martyrdome our Sauiour Christ beforehand saith;Iohn. 21.18. When thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thine hands, and another shall gird thee and leade thee whither thou wouldest not. Thus spake he, saith S. Iohn, signifying by what death he should glorifie God. Where when he saith, Whither thou wouldest not, there is plainly approued in Peters martyrdome [Page 707] a shrinking and drawing backe, a resistance and opposition of the will, so that though willingly he did vndergo it, yet it was in some part also against his will. Whereupon S. Austin maketh this collection:August. in Psal. 30. conc. 1. St Petrus Apostolus tanta perfectione quò nollet ductus est, & volens nolens mortuus est, sed volens coronatus est, quid mirum si est aliquis pauor in passione etiā iustorum, etiam Sanctorum. Pauor est ex humana infirmitate, spes ex diuina promissione. If Peter the Apostle being of so great perfection, was led whither he would not, and dyed with his will against his will, but with his will receiued the crowne, what maruell is it if there be some feare in the suffering euen of iust men, euen of the Saints? There is feare by humane infirmitie, and hope by the promise of God. And this resistance, this feare, this shrinking backe, the same S. Austine imputeth to the corruption of sinne.Idem Epist. 120 Mente seruiens legi Dei, carne autem trahens desideria peccati, quibus obedire vetat Apostolus mentis quidem ratione concupiscit homo dissolui & esse cum Christo, sed id sensu carnis recusat & refugit. A man (saith he) in mind seruing the law of God, and in the flesh carying still the lusts of sinne, which the Apostle forbiddeth to obey, by reason of the mind desireth indeed to be loosed, and to be with Christ, but by sence of the flesh refuseth and shunneth it. Now what ground hath M. Bishop to except Iohn and Stephen in their martyrdome from the cōmon condition of the Saints? and why should he thinke that Iohns preaching and reprehending of Herod was without that spot of resistance and feare, when his martyrdome was not? And why should we imagine, that that weaknesse of the flesh which hath his worke in the martyrdome of the Saints, had not the like also in Abrahams oblation of his son, being a thing without doubt as crosse to his nature and will, as his owne death was. But saith M. Bishop, Our Sauiour saith, that Mat. 6.22. Luk. 11.34. if the eye be simple, the whole body is light some, not hauing any part of darknesse in it. It is true, if the eye be wholy single and cleare, but where is the eye that is so cleare? Where is he that saith not with Dauid, Psal. 13.3. Lighten mine eyes that I sleepe not in death. 119.18. Open thou mine eyes, that I may see the wondrous things of thy law. Aug. de verb. Dom. ser. 18. Tota opera nostra in hac vita est sanare oculum cordis vnde videtur Deus. It is our whole worke or indeuour in this life, saith S. Austin, to heale the eye of the heart wherewith we should see God. If it be our whole worke in this life to heale our eyes, then we expect not in this life to haue them fully whole. In the meane while therefore because it is Gods prerogatiue which S. Iohn speaketh of,1. Ioh. 1.5. God is light, and in him is no darkenesse at all, it must needs be, as S. Hierome collecteth thereof,Hieron. contr. Pelag. lib. 2. Quando dicit nullas tenebras in Dei lumine reperiri, ostendit omnia aliorum lumina sorde aliqua maculari. that all our lights are spotted and darkened with some filth. But he telleth vs yet further, that very reason teacheth vs, that a mans action for substance, and all due circumstances may be perfect. And it may be indeed that his broken reason so teacheth him, howsoeuer his conscience be contrarie to his reason. But our reason teacheth vs, that if there be [Page 708] yet darknesse in the vnderstanding, and waywardnesse in the will, and in both a stooping and inclining to the weaknesse and corruption of the flesh, as indeed there is, then all our workes fauour of our earthly vessels, and nothing can come from vs, but certainely carieth a blot and imperfection with it. And therefore it was no silly shift of M. Perkins, but a true defence, that neuer any man did any one action with all his due circumstances, becauseDeut. 6 5. Aug. de perfect. iustit. Cùm est aliquid con [...]upiscentiae carnalis, quod vel continendo fraenetur, non omnimodo ex tota anima diligitur Deus. all the soule which God wholy requireth in euery action of his seruice, cannot be wholy bestowed therein, so long as concupiscence possesseth any part thereof, as perpetually it doth so long as we continue in the warfare of this life. But here in stead of that fourth obiection proposed by M. Perkins, M. Bishop bringeth vs foorth a leaden dagger of his owne. If greater reward be due vnto them that do better workes, then a reward is due vnto them that do good workes. But a greater reward is prouided for them that do better workes: the conclusion should be, Therefore a reward is due vnto them that do good workes. In stead wherof in the end of this idle discourse, he bringeth in this: Whereof followeth most manifestly, that there be merits and rewards. But I pray you M. Bishop, whereof doth that follow? do merits follow in the conclusion, when in the premisses there is no mention of them? But we must pardon you: it seemeth your trauelling to Rome hath iogged your Logicke out of your head, and therefore such conclusions may easily slippe you. But the direct conclusion of your argument we graunt, therefore a reward is due vnto them that do good workes, onely with this exception, that it is due by the mercifull promise of God, not by vertue of any our merit or desert, and more your argument proueth not. Now he taketh great paines in the handling of this worthy argument, to proue inequality of reward, and all to no purpose, because we deny not, but that as God in this life diuersly distributeth his graces, to some in greater measure, to some in lesse: so in the life to come he will sort his rewards accordingly, that it may be true which is written, that1. Cor. 3.8. euery man shall receiue his wages according to his labour. But whether greater wages to greater labour, or lesser wages to lesser labour, both are promised for Christs sake, as hath bene shewed: and God will performe the sameEzech. 36.22. for his owne names sake, and not for any merit of ours, whereby he standeth bound vnto vs. As for the terme of merits which he alledgeth out of the Fathers, what we are to conceiue [Page 709] thereof followeth anone after to be declared. Of virginity and widowhood we are to intreat in the question of Vowes.
19. W. BISHOP.
The fift reason is taken out of those texts, which teach that men are worthy of eternal life: They shall walke with me in whites,Apoc: 3. Sap. 3. 2. Thess. 1. Luk. 20.35. because they be worthy. God proued them, and found them worthy of himselfe. That you may be esteemed worthy of the kingdome of God. Now if men be worthy of eternall life, it must needs be granted, that they haue deserued it.
M. Perkins answereth: that they were indeed worthy, but not for their owne merits, but for Christs imputed vnto them. This is his onely refuge, yet hath he not, nor cannot shew any one text in Scripture that speaketh so. But to refell him, turne onely to the places, and there you shal find, that this worthinesse rose of good workes, as Christ saith: Apoc. 3. I know thy workes, and find them not full: yet there be some amongst you, who haue not defiled their garments (but haue their works full) they shall walke with me in whites, because they be worthy:2. Thess. 1. and by sustaining persecutions, they were made worthy of that kingdome. And in the words following the Apostle signifieth, that it is as iust for God to requite good workes with the ioyes of heauen, as he doth punish wicked with the paines of hell.
R. ABBOT.
M. Perkins for obiection proposeth the place of the Reuelation,Apoc. 3 4. They shall walke with me in white, for they are worthy, as whereby they would proue merit, because a man cannot be worthy but he must merit & deserue. M. Bishop out of his store addeth two other places of the new Testament, but they are such as whereby is ministred vnto vs a very ready and pregnant answer to the first. The place of Saint Luke is by their owne vulgar translation thus:Luk. 20.35. Qui digni habebuntur: that is, They who shall be accounted worthy. The words of Saint Paule are:2. Thess. 2.5. Ʋt digni habeamini: that ye may be esteemed worthie of the kingdome. Whereby we conceiue and vnderstand what mans worthinesse is, Gods dignation, Gods acceptatiō, Gods vouchsafing to take him as worthy for Christs sake, [Page 710] though in respect of himselfe he be not worthy. To this M. Bishop saith: This is his onely refuge, yet can he not shew any one text of Scripture that speaketh so. But we answer him, that all those texts of Scripture which do thus speake of God, reputing, or esteeming, or accounting worthy, do import so much vnto vs. For if our worthines stand in Gods esteeming and accounting of vs, we may not of the title of worthinesse conclude, that by perfection of reall qualitie we are that for which he is content in mercie and fauor to accept vs. We are accordingly worthie as we are iust. We are iust, to speake of perfect iustice, not by righteousnesse of workes, but onely by Gods imputation of righteousnesse without workes, as we haue seene before. In like sort therefore we are worthyBernard in Dedicat. Eccles. ser. 5 Nos sumus sed ipsius dignatione, non dignitate nostrae. by Gods vouchsafing acceptance, not by our worthinesse, as S. Bernard saith. And hereto agree the confessions of the faithfull. Iacob saith,Gen. 32.10. I am lesse then all thy mercies, and all the truth which thou hast shewed vnto thy seruant: that is, as we reade it, I am not worthy thereof: according to that which Chrysostome saith:Chrysostom. de compunct. cordis. Etsi millies moriamur, etsi omnes animae virtutes expleamus nihil tamen dignum gerimus ad ea quae ipsi à Deo percepimus. Though we dye a thousand deaths, though we fulfill all the vertues of the soule, yet do we nothing worthy in comparison of those things which we our selues haue receiued of God. Iohn Baptist, Mat. 11.11. then whom there arose not a greater amongst womens children, yet saith of himselfe in respect of Christ,Mat. 3.11. I am not worthie to beare his shoes: Mar. 1.7. I am not worthy to vntie the latchet of his shoe. The Centurion of whose faith our Sauiour testifieth, thatMat. 8.10. he had not found so great faith, no not in Israel, yet saith of himselfe,Ver 8, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come vnder my roofe. Bernard. in Dedicat. Eccles. Ser. 5. Lege, ô homo, in corde tuo, lege intra te ipsum de teipso testimonia veritatis, & hac communi luce iudicabis te indignū. Reade, O man, saith S. Bernard, in thine owne heart, reade within thy selfe concerning thy selfe the witnesse of truth, and thou wilt iudge thy selfe vnworthy of this common light. Thus holy men haue spoken, thus they haue thought, and if our vnworthinesse be such to these things, shall we dreame of a worthinesse to the crowne of heauen?Psal. 31.16. Saue me, saith Dauid, for thy mercies sake: that is, saith S. Austine, Aug. in Psal. 30. Hoc est, non in mea iustitia, non in meis meritis, sed in tu [...] misericordia; non quia ego sum dignus, sed quia tu misericors. not in my righteousnes, not in my merits, but in thy mercie: not because I am worthy, but because thou art mercifull. Againe, the same S. Austine saith in another place:Idem in Psal. 41. Nobis Deus omnia bona praestat, quia bonus est, non quia nos digni sumus: quia ille misericors est, non quiae in aliquo promeruimus. God yeeldeth vnto vs all good things because he is good, not because we are worthy; because he is mercifull, not because we haue meririted in any thing. The Prophet acknowledgeth God giuing deliuerancePsal. 44.26. for his mercies sake, or as the vulgar Latin readeth, for his [Page 711] names sake. Saint Austin againe expoundeth it:Aug in Psal. 43. Hoc est, gratis, propter nomē tuum, non propter meritū meū, quia tu digna turus es facere, non quia ego dig [...]us sum cui facias, That is, freely, for thy names sake, not for my merit: because thou shalt vouchsafe to do it, not because I am worthy to whom thou shouldest do it. Thus doth S. Austine oftentimes giue checke to M. Bishops conceipt of worthinesse, by occasion of those phrases so often vsed, for thy names sake, for thy mercies sake, for thy righteousnesse sake. So Basil expoundeth the same phrase:Psal. 143.12. For thy mercies sake: Basil. in Psal. 142. Non quòd ego dignus sim, sed propter benignitatem tuam. not because I am worthy, but because of thine owne goodnesse. Now if M. Bishop will haue no saluation but that he wil be worthy of it, let him heare what S. Bernard saith:Bernard. in Dedicat. Eccles. Ser. 5, Quòd si nos puerili animositate gratis saluari nolumus merito non saluamur Excludit miseriae dissimulatio miserationē nec dignatio locū habet, vbi fuerit praesumptio dignitatis. If we of childish stomacke will not be saued freely, iustly are we not saued at all. The dissembling of our miserie excludeth mercie, neither hath Gods vouchsafing any place where presumption is of our worthines.
But M. Bishop to refell M. Perkins, biddeth vs turne to the places, and there we shall find, that the worthinesse rose of workes. But we haue turned to the places, and find no necessity thereof. We find that they that defiled not their garments were worthy, but that by their very workes they were worthy we find not. Nay their worthinesse indeed was in their garments. For what garments were they that they had not defiled, but the same whereof the Apostle speaketh:Gal. 3.27. so many as are baptized into Christ, haue put on Christ. He is our purple garment of redemption by his bloud: he is our Lilly white garment of innocencie by his righteousnesse. They that with this profession of Christ do ioyne idolatrie, heresie, vncleannesse, do dishonour the name and profession of Christ, and disgrace the garments which should grace them; which these had not done. By these garments therefore they were worthy, by Christ, by his merits, by his obedience, by his righteousnes; in him and for his sake they were counted worthie; and whatsoeuer worthines God pronounceth of them for their workes, it is by the gratious acceptation thereof in him. Albeit the place may very well beare another construction also, that they were worthy, not absolutely, but compared to the other spoken of before. For one man compared to another, may be called wo [...]thy in comparison of the other, when simply considered in himselfe, and compared to the iudgement of God, he is not worthy. And to this distinction S. Ambrose leadeth vs, who speaking of the calling of the Apostles, whom Christ put2. Cor 6.20. in his stead to beseech vs to be reconciled vnto God, saith of them:Ambros. in 2. Tim. 1. Si ad liquidum quaeras nullus hominum potest dignus videri Vitarius esse Christi. Omnes enim quos elegit, priùs fuerant peccatores. Quantum ergo ad comparationē caeterorum hominum, hi digni inuenti sunt, quantum verò ad rem ipsam omnes indigni sunt. If we enquire the matter strictly, there can no man be found worthy to be the deputy of Christ: for all whom he chose, [Page 712] were formerly sinners. In comparison then of others, these (the Apostles) were found worthy; but as touching the thing it selfe all are vnworthy. Thus plainely doth he giue vs to vnderstand, that men may be called worthy onely in respect of other men. In the other place M. Bishop saith, that by sustaining persecutions, they are said to be made worthie. But he saith vntruly: for the Apostle saith onely as was before alledged, that ye may be counted worthy, which (as I haue said) is for Christes sake,Phil. 1.29. in whom it is giuen vnto vs, that not onely we should beleeue in him, but also suffer for his sake, and because it is giuen vs, therefore howsoeuer patiently we beare it, yet we must still say as S. Austin teacheth:Aug. in Psal. 43. Siue patientes in tribulationibus, siue gaudē tes in prosperitatibus redime nos non propter meritum nostrum, sed propter nomē tuum. Deliuer vs, not for our merit, but for thy names sake. Yet he goeth further and telleth vs, that in the words following the Apostle signifieth, that it is as iust with God to requite good workes with the ioyes of heauen, as to punish wicked with the paines of hell. Neither do we make any doubt therof, because he hath giuen his word and promise so to do. And it is as iust with God to perform his promise to the one, as it is to punish the euill deseruings of the other. By iustice and iust iudgement God giueth rest vnto the persecuted, but this iust iudgement consisteth in iustifying and maintainingAug. in Psal. 42. Iudica, inquit [...]ne Deus nō timeo tu licium tuum quia noui misericordiam tuam. Discerne causam meam, distet inter eum qui in te credit, & eum qui non credit: par infirmitatis sed dispar conscientia, &c. their cause, as S. Austin noteth, not in weying or examining their merit & woorth. By iust iudgement God putteth differenceJdem in Psal. 32. Nec in miseritordia Deus amittit iudi [...]ium nec in iudicio mesericordi [...]m, &c. N [...]n qu [...]d iudiciū amisit, aut non debuit iudicare inter conuersos & non conuersos? An vobit iustum videtur vt conuersus, & non conuersus aequaliter habeantur? Ergo habet & iudicium in ipsa m [...]sericordia. Rursus in illo iudicio habet & misericordiam, &c. betwixt the cō uerted and the not conuerted; betwixt the righteous and the wicked; betwixt him that serueth God, and him that serueth him not, betwixt him that beleeueth, and him that beleeueth not; and yet he that beleeueth and serueth God, yea and is persecuted for Gods sake, must craue iudgement with mercie to be receiued vnto life, praying with Dauid against meere iudgement:Psal. 143.2. Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant &c. That iustice therfore is to the faithfull such as Basil speaketh of:Basil in Psal 141. Iustitiae immixta est misericordia, & ita immixta vt ipsa iustitia benignitas vocetur. Mercy is mingled with iustice, and so mingled, as that iustice it selfe is called mercie. That iust iudgement is such, as Saint Ambrose speaketh of:Ambros. [...] Psal. 118. Ser. 20. Iudicium quo fragilitatis nostrae aestimatione censemur. In hoc ipso iudicium cum misericordiae copulatum est, vt veritas iudicij miseratione Domini temperetur. A iudgement wherein we are iudged with consideration of our frailtie, in which iudgement is ioyned with mercie, so that the truth of iudgement is tempered or qualified with the mercie of the Lord. [Page 713] NowBer. in Cant. Ser. 14. Iudicium temperatum misericordia est. iudgement tempered and qualified, is indeed mercie as Saint Bernard saith. As for the place cited out of the booke of Wisedome: Wisd. 3.5. God proued them and found them worthy of himselfe: though it be out of a booke the authoritie whereof we denie, and therefore can require no answer, yet it hath answer sufficient by that that hath bene said. God found them worthy of himselfe by finding them answerable to those conditions and rules, by which he is content in mercie to accept men as worthy, though simply no man can be worthy of him.
20. W. BISHOP.
The sixt reason M. Perkins deliuereth thus: 2. Tim 4. Eternall life is tearmed a crowne, and a crowne of righteousnes to be giuen by a iust Iudge: therefore in this life it must be iustly deserued, otherwise it were not well called a crowne of iustice, nor could be said to be rendred by a iust iudge. M. Perkins answereth, that it is called a crowne by resemblance, because it is giuen in the end of the life, as the crowne is giuen in the end of the race.
Reply. If that were all the cause, and that there were no respect to be had to former deserts, it might then as well be called a halter by resemblance, because that also is giuen in the end of life: and in their opinion, more properly: because all their workes are defiled like a menstruous cloth: and a halter is the end of such wicked workes. But as a halter is due to a theefe, so is a crowne of glorie the iust reward of the righteous man.
Secondly he answereth, that it is called a crowne of iustice, because God hath bound himselfe by his promise to giue it: here then at length we haue by his owne confession, that by Gods promise eternall life is due debt vnto the righteous: but as hauing ouer-shot himselfe, he addes, not for any desert of theirs, but onely for the promise sake. But as you haue heard before out of S. Matthew,Math. 20. that promise was made for working the time of his life in our vineyard, and so there was some desert on their part: and the seruants were rewarded, because they employed their talents well: and in this very place, Math. 25. Saint Paule reckoneth vp his good seruices, for which the iust iudge would render him a crowne of iustice: and therefore the iustice is not onely in respect of Gods promise. And if [Page 714] you will not beleeue me, prouing that I say out of the very text, rather then M Perkins on his bare word, let S. Augustin be arbitrator between vs,Li. 50. Hom. hom. 4.who most deepely considereth of euery word in this sentence: Let vs heare (saith he) the Apostle speaking, when he approched neare vnto his passion, I haue (quoth he) fought a good fight, I haue accomplished my course, I haue kept the faith: concerning the rest, there is laid vp for me a crowne of iustice, which our Lord will render vnto me in that day, a iust iudge: and not onely to me, but to thē also that loue his coming: he saith, that our Lord a iust iudge will render vnto him a crowne, he therefore doth owe it, and as a iust iudge will pay it. For the worke being regarded, the reward cannot be denied. I haue fought a good fight, is a worke: I haue accomplished my course, is a worke: I haue kept the faith, is a worke: There is laid vp for me a crowne of iustice, this is the reward. So that you see most clearely by this most learned Fathers iudgement, that the reward is due for the worke sake, and not onely for the promise of God. See him vpon that verse of the Psalm: Psal. 100. I will sing vnto thee O Lord, mercy and iudgement. Where he concludes, that God in iudgement will out of his iustice crowne those good workes, which he of mercy had giuen grace to do.
R. ABBOT.
To the obiection of this place M. Perkins answereth, that euerlasting life is called a crowne onely in resemblance. For as he which runneth a race, saith he, must continue and runne to the end, and so be crowned, euen so must we continue to walke in good workes vnto the end, and then receiue eternall life. Now for reply to this answer it seemeth M. Bishop had some conference with the hangman, and learning of him that a halter is the end of a wicked course, (let him remember his owne wicked course, and feare the iudgement of the iust God) he thought good to draw that obseruatiō to serue him for one shift. And first to giue way to his hangmans deuice, he curtalleth M. Perkins his answer: as if he had said no more but thus, that eternall life is called a crowne, because it is giuen in the end of the life, as the crowne is giuen in the end of the race. Whereto he replyeth, that if that were all, and that there were no respect to former deserts, it might then as well be called a halter. But M. Perkins answer expresseth [Page 715] plainly, as we see, that the crowne hath reference to them that continue to the end to walke in good workes, and therfore left no occasion or place for this hangmanlike and vnciuill reply. But his mind, it seemeth, was strongly set vpon the halter, and therfore by head and shoulders he would pull it in, onely to please himselfe and his table companions with a forced and witlesse iest. He addeth further, that in our opinion it should more properly be called a halter, because all our workes are defiled like a menstruous cloth, and an halter is the end of such wicked workes. Now we know no reason but that M. Bishop by most right, because he hath set downe the sentence, should keepe the halter to himself; for that we are wel assured that his best works are defiled as well as ours. But what will he say (I maruell) to Pope Leo the third, of whom Mathew of Westminster reporteth, thatMath. Westm. lib. 1. anno 798. Mulier quaedam ad quā aliquādo acc [...]ssum habuit, vt [...]cebatur manum eius comprimit inter celebrā dum & comprimendo deosculās incentiuum libibinis in Papa excitauit. being at Masse, about a good worke no doubt, a woman of his good acquaintance comming with her offering, crushed and kissed his hand, and therewith stirred vp in the Pope (a holy father I warrant you) some motions of the flesh. Now was this no defilement shall we thinke to so good a worke? Surely if M. Bishop had liued then, he would haue giuen iudgement of the Pope that he should be hanged, because a halter is the end of such wicked Masse. But tel vs M. Bishop, do all your works go so currantly and cleanly from you, as that you can presume to be free frō the halter that you haue here made? Haue you neuer offended at Masse in some such like sort as the Pope did? Doth not your mind often wander when you seem to pray? Do not sinister thoughts and respects many times interpose themselues, and make you to go crooked when you thinke to go vpright? Take heed that hereafter it be not said vnto you, Patere legem quam ipse tuleris: Be tried by the law which thou thy selfe hast made: a halter is the end of such wicked workes. But of the condition of our workes, more hath bene said before, then euer M. Bishop will be able to disproue. Here he concludeth, that as a halter is due to a theefe, so is the crowne of glorie the iust reward of the righteous man. True say we, but yet not by the vertue of his righteousnesse and desert, but by the mercifull promise of Almightie God. In respect of which promise, it is called, as M. Perkins answereth, a crowne of iustice, because God by his promise hath bound himselfe to giue it, and in the performance of his promise he is approued iust. And this is the constant confession of vs all, which M. Bishop [Page 716] seemeth to apprehend as casually or forcedly spoken by M. Perkins, that eternall life is a due debt to the righteous and faithfull, yet with that exception still, which he thinketh M. Perkins added as hauing ouershot himselfe, because his ignorance conceiueth not how these two stand together, not for any desert of theirs, but only for his promise sake, as hath bene declared sufficientlySect. 17. before, in defending the answer to the third obiection. But as touching the place here handled, he shall find S. Bernard expounding this crowne of iustice in the same sort as we do.Bernard. de gr [...]t. & lib. arb. Est ergo quam P [...]ulus expectat corona iustitiae, sed iustitiae Dei, non suae. Iustum est quippe vt redd [...]t quod debet debet autē quod pollicitus est. Et haec est iustitia de qua praesumit Apostolus promissio Dei. It is a crowne of iustice (saith he) which Paul expecteth, but of Gods iustice, not his owne. For it is iust that God pay what he oweth, and he oweth that which he hath promised. And this is the iustice of which the Apostle presumeth, euen the promise of God. Albeit it is true also, that mans iustice is crowned, & that in that respect also it is a crowne of righteousnes, who maketh question therof? but still it is true, that it is not due to mans righteousnesse by merite and desert, but is tied to it onely by the promise and grace of God. And thus doth the Apostle reckon his good seruice, for which the iust Iudge would render a crowne of iustice, not as pleading his desert thereof, but knowing that God hath promised such reward to such seruice. He alledgeth to the contrary the examples of them that were called into the vineyard, and of the other that receiued the talents, but of them he hath before receiued answer. All his error is, that he cannot conceiue worke and reward, but that it must necessarily imply merite and desert, which notwithstanding children can distinguish, because great reward by fauour may be giuen when the worke is in no sort to be thought worthy of it. As for the place of Austine which he produceth, it giueth him no succor. We find there worke and reward: I haue fought a good fight, &c. the worke. There is layd vp for me a crowne of iustice; the reward: but we do not finde that the reward is deserued by the worke: we do not find that by vertue of merite the iustice of God any way standeth bound vnto him. Nay in the same sermon S. Austin saith,Augus. lib. 50 homil. 14 Da veniam Apostole, propria tua non noui nisi mala. Cùm ergo Deus coronat merita tua, nihil coronat nisi dona sua. Pardon me Apostle, I know nothing of thine owne but euill: therefore when he crowneth thy merits, he crowneth nothing but his owne gifts. His collection from the place is already answered, that by the promise the reward is yeelded to the worke. In the other place there is nothing more then in that I haue spoken of, and hath full answer by the same exception. Onely I will remember M. Bishop, [Page 717] that by S. Austins doctrine there can no merite be pleaded on our behalfe, because all our good workes come from grace on Gods behalfe, so that therefore the crowne is but grace for grace, and a latter mercy added as the consequent of a former mercie. And this S. Austin noteth concerning this very place of S. Paul here debated.Idem in Psal. 102. Reddet mihò Dominus, &c. Quare? Quia bonum certamen certau [...], &c. Vnde certasti? &c. Non ego autem sed gratia Dei mecum. Ergo & quòd coronar [...], ill [...]us mesericordia coronaris. Nusquam sis superbus: semper lauda dominum. The Lord will render vnto me a crowne of righteousnes. Why? because I haue fought a good fight, &c. But whence hast thou fought a good fight? &c. Yea not I, but the grace of God with me. Then it is by his mercie that thou art crowned. Be no where proud, but alwayes praise the Lord. In a word he saith againe as before we haue seene, thatIdem. de grat. & lib. arb. cap 7. Nō coronat Deus merita tua tanquā merita tua, sed tanquam dona suae. God crowneth our merits, not as our merits, but as his owne gifts: and if they go not vnder account of our merits in heauen, why are they so earnestly pleaded for as ours here vpon the earth?
21. W. BISHOP.
And that the Reader may vnderstand, that not onely S. Augustine doth so confidently teach this doctrine of merites (which M. Perkins blushed not to terme the inuention of Satan,) I will fold vp this question with some testimonies of the most auncient and best Authors.
S. Ignatius, the Apostles auditor saith: Epist. ad Roman. Giue me leaue to become the food of beasts, that I may by that meanes merit and win God.
Iustine a glorious Martyr of the next age hath these words, Apolog. 2. ante med. speaking in the name of all Christians: We think that men who by works haue shewed themselues worthy of the will and counsell of God, shal by their merits liue and raigne with him, free from all corruption and perturbation.
S. Irenaeus saith: Lib. 4. cont. h [...]res. cap. 72. We esteeme that crowne to be precious which is gotten by combat and suffering for Gods sake.
S. Basil. All we that walk the way of the Gospel, as merchants do,Ora in initium prou. Lib. de Spir. sancto. cap. 24. buy and get the possession of heauenly things by the workes of the commaundements. A man is saued by workes of iustice.
S. Cyprian. If the day of our returne shall find vs vnloden, swift,Serm. de eleemos. in fine. and running in the race of works, our Lord wil not faile to reward our merits. He will giue for workes to those that winne in peace, a white crowne, and for martyrdome in persecution he wil redouble vnto them a purple crowne.
S. Hilary. Can. 5. in Math. The kingdome of heauen is the hire and reward of them that liue well and perfectly.
Lib 1. de Offic. c. 25. S. Ambrose. It is euident that there remaineth after this life either reward for merits, or punishment.
S. Hierome. Now after baptisme it appertaineth to our trauels, according vnto the diuersitie of vertue, to prepare for vs different rewards.
Ser. 68 in Cant. S. Bernard. Prouide that thou haue merits, for the want of them is a pernicious pouertie.
Briefly that this was the vniuersall doctrine of all good Christians aboue a thousand yeares past, is declared in the Councell of Arausicane: Reward is debt vnto good workes if they be done,C [...]. 18. but grace which was not debt, goeth before, that they may be done. These testimonies of the most auncient and best learned Christians, may suffice to batter the brazen forehead of them that affirme the doctrine of merits to be a Satanicall inuention, and to settle all them that haue care of their saluation, in the most pure doctrine of the Catholike Church.
R. ABBOT.
Here M. Bishop will giue vs to vnderstand, that not onely S. Austin, but all antiquitie teacheth the doctrine of merites, so that M. Perkins might blush to call it the inuention of Satan. But M. Perkins had no cause to blush in that respect. He knew well that antiquitie is more vanted by Papists then followed. He knew well that in this doctrine of merits they wickedly bely antiquitie and the Fathers. And indeede neuer any Father spake of merits as they haue done. Iustly therfore did he call it as it is the inuentiō of Satan, seruing only to delude men, to put them in vaine hope, to lift them vp in pride, with opiniō of gaining heauen, that they may by their pride be cast downe to hell. But for the cleering of this point, it is to be vnderstood, that the name of merits is indeed very vsuall amongst the fathers of the Latin Church, but with no such meaning as the church of Rome hath fancied therof. For they only intended therby briefly and in one word to signifie good workes, workes that please God, that are accepted in Gods sight, that find fauor with God, & obtain reward at his hands. They dreamed not that in good workes there shold be a iust desert of heauē, that they shold deserue it worthily, that they shold be fully worthy of euerlasting life, that good works shold as wel be the cause of saluatiō, as euil works are the cause of damnatiō, [Page 719] that good works are so far meritorious, so far I say meritorious, as that God should be vniust if he rendered not heauen for them, as in the beginning hath bin shewed that now is the language of the church of Rome. These speeches or the like were neuer heard of amongst the Fathers. They vsed the word merite according to the signification wherein commonly they vsed the verbe mereri, which with them imported to obtaine, to find fauour for any thing to be giuen or done; so as that wicked men are said sometimes mereri, not surely to deserue, but to receiue or to find the fauour of benefits at Gods hands; yea and good men are said mereri, not to deserue, but to receiue or to finde euill vsage at the hands of the wicked. But by examples the matter will be plainer then by words. S. Austine saith,August. de ciu. Dei. lib. 5. cap. 24 Huius vitae solatia quidam etiam cultores daemonum accipere meruerunt: Some who haue bin worshippers of diuels haue merited, that is, haue found the fauour to receiue the comforts of this life. Againe,Idem in Psal. 35. Apostolià suis ciuibus occidi meruerunt: The Apostles merited, that is, found such vsage as to be killed of their owne people. Cont. lit. Petil. lib. 3. cap. 6. Pro actione gratiarum flammas meruimus odiorum: In steed of thankes we haue merited, that is, we found at their hands the fire of hatred. De anima & eius orig. lib. 2. cap. 12. Caueat homo ne ab illo miserecordiam mereatur homo contra eius sententiam à quo factus est homo: Let man take heed that man do not merite, that is, obtaine mercie of him against the sentence of him by whom man was made. So doth Ambrose vse the same word,Ambr. de Cain & Abel. lib. 2. cap. 10. Iniquus Cain longaeuam duxit aetatem, duxit vxorem, & hoc meruit promissione diuina: Wicked Cain liued long, and maried a wife, and this he merited, that is, obtained or receiued by the permission of God. Idem ser. 53. Non debemus mirari quòd Ioannes tantam gratiam nascendo meruerit: We are not to wonder that Iohn in his birth merited, that is, obtained so great grace. So Hilary speaketh,Hilar. epist. apud Aug. tom. 7. Libros quaeso habere mereamur: I pray you let vs merit, that is, find the fauour to haue those bookes. So Hierom, Hieron. praefat: in Abdiam. Ʋeniam mereri debeo: I am to merite, that is, to obtaine pardon. So Gregorie Bishop of Rome,Gregor. Moral. lib. 9. cap. 17. Paulus cum redemptoris nomen in terra conaretur extinguere, eius verba de coelo meruit audire: Paul when he went about to extinguish the name of Christ vpon earth, merited, that is, found the mercy & fauor to heare his words from heauen. In another place, O foelix culpa quae talem ac tantū meruit habere Redemptorem: O happy sin of Adam that merited, that is, found the mercy to haue such and so great a Redeemer. S. Austin applieth the word also [Page 720] to beasts and cattell,August. in Psal 35. Homines habent aliquid apud Deum exceptum quod iumenta non merentur: Men haue somewhat excepted with God which beasts merit not, that is, obtaine not. Thus the word hath grown also into translations, where in the originals there hath bin no occasion of it. Where Cain saith, Mine iniquitie is greater then can be pardoned, the vulgar Latin translateth,Genes. 4.13. Maior est iniquitas mea quam vt veniam mereàr: Mine iniquitie is greater then that I can merit, that is, obtaine pardon. Where S. Paul saith,1. Tim. 1.13. I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly, &c. S. Austine out of some translation readeth,Aug. de Bapt. con. Donat. lib. 4. cap. 5. Misericordiam merut, I merited mercy, but importing nothing but the obtaining thereof. In an Epistle of Ignatius we haue it commonly translated,Ignat. epist. ad Romanos. I am in loue with none of the things that are seene, vt Iesum Christum merear adipisci, that I may merit to obtain Christ, wheras in the Greek it is [...], that is as Hierom translateth it,Hieron in Cat. Eccles. Script. vt Iesum Christū inuentam, that I may find Iesus Christ. Againe, in the next period the Greeke is [...], where the same translator readeth as before, the words being translated by Hierome, Jbid. tantum vt Christo fruar, onely that I may enioy Christ. And thus in infinite places haue they made the Greeke Fathers to speake of merit, where they neuer meant any such thing. But to make it plainly to appear, that by merit they meant not any such worthines or desert as M. Bishop speaketh of, let one sentence of Ambrose fully suffice.Amb. epist. 22. Omnia quae patimur minora sunt & indigna pro quorum laboribus tanta rependatur futurorum merces bonorum quae reuelabitur in nobis cùm ad Dei imaginem reformati gloriam eius facie ad faciem aspicere meruerimus. All the things that we suffer are too little and vnworthy for the paines whereof there should be rendered to vs so great reward of future good things, as shal be reuealed in vs, when being reformed to the image of God we shall merit (that is, attaine) to see his glorie face to face. Where to take merit properly to import desert and worthines, shold be to make Ambrose in one sentence absurdly crosse & contrary to himself, to say, that we deserue to see God face to face, when he hath first affirmed that euen our sufferings for Christs sake are vnworthy to haue so great glorie yeelded vnto them. The same is more plaine by that that before hath bene alledged out of Gregorie, Of iustificatiō sect. 49. ex Gregor. Moral. lib. 9. cap. 18. If we be iudged without mercy, our work is worthy to be punished which we expect to haue rewarded: therefore the teares of expiation (saith he) are required, that humilitie of prayer may lift vp the merite of our good worke to the obtaining of eternall reward. Where we see he vseth the name of merit as vsually they were wont, but sheweth that it is so far from being truly merit, as that in extremitie it is worthy [Page 721] to be punished, and that it needeth teares of expiation, that is, earnest intercession and prayer to God for Christs sake to remit the spots and blemishes thereof, and that it is thus by prayer onely, that is, by fauour, that any reward is yeelded vnto it. But to this place most properly belongeth that of S. Bernard before mentioned, that [...] in A [...]ne ser. 1. Ne (que) enim taliae sunt hominum merita vt propter ea vita aeterna debeatur ex iure, aut Deus iniuriam faceret nisi eam donaret. the merits of men are not such as that eternal life is due for them of right, or as if God should do wrong if he did not yeeld the same vnto them. Idem de grat. et lib. arb. Si propriè appellentur ea quae nostra ditimus merita, &c. vta regni sunt, non causa regnand. If (saith hee) we will properly name those which we call our merites, they are the way to the kingdome, not the cause of our obtaining the kingdome. Where most plainly he giueth to vnderstand, that the name of merits is vnproperly abused, and howsoeuer custome had taken it vp, to call good works by the name of merits, yet that we are not to conceiue, that good workes for themselues can challenge any thing by any right, or that we can truly and properly be said thereby to deserue at the hands of God. And this is fully confirmed by Alfonsus de Castro, who mentioning reward due to workes, saithAlphons. cont. haer. li. 7. tit. Grat. Debetur inquam non ex operis natura, quia vt ait Paulus, Non sunt condignae, &c. sed ex iure promissionis. Hanc enim legem nos naturae docuit, vt quod quisque promisit debere se credat. It is due, not by the nature of the worke, for the sufferings of this time are not comparable in worth to the future glory which shal be reuealed vpon vs, but it is due by right of promise: for nature hath taught vs this law, that euery man should take himselfe to ow that which he hath promised. Surely if the debt of the reward arise not frō the nature of the work but onely by vertue of promise, then merit is no merit properly, because merit properly so called, ariseth from the nature of the worke, being in it selfe iustly worthy of that that it is said to deserue.
To come then to the testimonies cited by M. Bishop, the first therof which he citeth out ofIgnat. epist. ad Roman. [...]. Sinite me bestiarum escam esse per quas Deū assequi licet. Ignatius, is a false translation, there being nothing in the Greeke to import merit, but only the getting, or gaining, or obtaining of God, as hath bene said. Suffer me (saith he) to be the food of beasts, that by them I may obtaine God. And how far Ignatius was from any such opinion of his owne merit, appeareth towards the end of the same Epistle, where he saith,Jbid. Ego erubesco ex ipsis dici. Non enim sum dignus esse vltimus aut purgamentum, sed miserecordiam consecutus sum vt sim aliquis si Deum adipiscor. [...]. I am ashamed to be named one of them (the Pastors of the Church:) for I am not worthy to be the very last or the very outcast of them, but I haue found mercie to be some body if I obtaine God. He reckoned not of merit or worth, but held it a matter of mercie to him to come to God. How hardly then was M. Bishop bestead, that in the forefront wold put Ignatius, when the words that he citeth are nothing for him, and his words in the same Epistle are altogether against him?
The words of Iustinus Martyr also are very lewdly abused in the same manner. The words meritis suis, by their merits, are meerly foisted in, neither is there any thing that can be construed to that purpose.Iustin. Mart. Apol. 2. [...]. Qui si dignos consilio illius se operibus ostenderint, cōuersatione cum ipso dignatū iri accepimus vt vna regnent incorruptibiles, & à perturbatione immunes effecti. They (saith he) who by their workes shall shew themselues to the counsell of God worthy, or as M. Bishop translateth out of Bellarmine, who by their workes shew themselues worthy of the counsell and will of God, we haue receiued that he doth vouchsafe them to haue companie with him to raigne with him, being made immortall and free from all perturbation. Where he nameth worthinesse in no other sort then the Scripture doth, as hath bin before shewed, comparatiuely, not simply; by acceptation, not by perfection; according to the phrase of men, whereto the holy Ghost is content sometimes to submit himselfe, not according to the exact censure of the iudgement of God; not as a matter of Popish merite, whereto God in iustice is bound, but to which God in fauour vouchsafeth, as he saith, to haue company with him. And this he maketh very plaine, when in the next words he addeth,See the same of Freewil. sect. 14. For in like sort as he created vs when we were not, so do we thinke that he vouchsafeth them of immortalitie and dwelling with him, who willingly make choise to do those things that are pleasing vnto him. Now to haue being at first, it was not of our selues. In like sort to chuse and follow what is pleasing to him by those reasonable powers which he hath giuen vs, it is by his perswading and mouing of vs to the faith. Whereby he teacheth, that our being in God, & following of those things that are pleasing to him, is no more of our selues then our first creation and being was, but that it is by Gods perswading vs, Gods mouing vs, Gods working in vs, there being nothing therein to be attributed to our selues. Wherby he destroyeth the nature of merit, as I haue shewedSect. 3. before, & to that purpose acknowledgeth the vouchsafing fauor and grace of God in receiuing vs to immortalitie and life with him; for where merit and desert is, there termes of vouchsafing can haue no place. Now that which Bellarmine translateth of men shewing themselues worthy of the wil and counsel of God, may well be vnderstood according to the phrase of the Apostle, instructing vsCol. 1.10. to walke worthy of the Lord, 1. Thess. 2.12. to walke worthy of God who hath called vs vnto his kingdome and glory, that is to say, as is fit for them to walke who haue receiued so great mercie at the Lords hands, to the very same purpose as elsewhere he saith,Phil. 1.27. Let your conuersation be such as becometh the Gospell of Christ. In which sort [Page 723] Iohn Baptist saith,Mat. 3.8. Bring forth fruits worthy of repentance, that is, such as are fitting and beseeming them that professe to haue repented. So then men shew themselues worthy of the will and counsell of God, in behauing themselues as is agreeing to them that professe to know the will and counsell of God, without any necessitie of merit to be imported thereby.
The words of Irenaeus are these:Iren. lib. 4. cap. 27. Bonus agonista ad incorruptelae agonem adhortatur nos vt coronemur, & pretiosam arbitremur coronam, videlicet quae per agonem acquiritur sed non vltro coalitā. Et quātò per agonem nobis aduenit, tantò est pretiosior. Quāto autem pretiosior tantò eā semper diligamus. Sed neque similiter diliguntur ea quae vltro adueniunt quàm illa quae cum multa sollicitudine adinueniuntur. The good combatant exhorteth vs to the combat of immortalitie, that we may be crowned, and may thinke the crowne precious, as being attained by fight, and not of it self accruing vnto vs. And by how much the more it commeth by fight, so much the more precious it is: and the more precious it is, so much the more we may loue it. But the things are not in like sort loued which come of their owne accord, as those which are attained with much care. In all which, what is there to M. Bishops purpose? He onely sheweth that God hath appointed, that not with our ease and idlenesse the crowne of life shall voluntarily come vnto vs, but that wee with labour and trauell must striue to come to it, that in the attainment of it, it may be the more ioyfull and precious vnto vs. What is this other then we also teach, who yet cannot find hereby that our labour and trauel doth merit and deserue the crowne of life? The case is all one, as if a Prince hauing a subiect falne frō him, and gone into a far country should of meere grace & fauor send for him to come again, by letters patents granting him his pardō, and assuring him place of honor & state vpon his returne home: who being to passe through the midst of the enemies of his Prince, must vse much fighting, and trauel, and paines, and vndergo many dangers both by sea and land for the atchieuing of this honor. Whē he cometh to his iorneys end he hath no title to pleade for his place, but onely the free donation and gift of his Prince. By his labor & paines he hath gained himself the possession of it, & he might for the meane time lay it before him as a reward to comfort and encourage himself in the iorney that he was to make; but merit he can alledge none; no right can he alledge whereby to claime it, but only his Princes gift. Euen so it is with vs. We were falne from God, and he hath called vs to him again, and giuen vs the promise of eternall life. By much combat and trauell we must attaine to it, and yet when we haue done all, we can plead no merit, we can make no claime but onely by our Princes gift, by the free and mercifull promise and bountie of Almightie God.
And hereby appeareth the answer to the place of Basil, thatBasil orat. in princip. Prouerb. Omnes nos qui viam Euangelicam incedimus mercatore [...] sumus p [...]r opera mandatorum nobis possessionem coelestium comparantes. we all who walk the way of the Gospell are merchants, getting by the works of the commandements the possession of heauenly things. For by the works of the commandements we obtain the possession, but not the right and title of heauenly things. They are the way wherein we walke to attaine to that which God of his free mercy bestoweth vpon vs. Wherin because we yeeld our labor in the one to receiue the other, S. Basil so farre fitly compareth it to a kinde of merchandize or exchange, though not intending that in the merite of the one should be the purchase of the other. As for the other place, it is none of Basils, being taken out of a counterfeit addition, whichErasm. epist. praefixa libro Basil. de Spir. sancto. Erasmus well obserued, and by good arguments declared to be no part of Basils work.Basil. de Spir. sanct. cap. 24. Homo saluus fit per iustitiam operum. A man (saith he) is saued by righteousnesse of works. But the Scripture saith,Ephes. 2.8. Ye are saued by grace through faith, not of works, least any man should boast. Basil. in Psal. 43. Vide quomodo sermonem clauserit. Post mille virtutes vnde seruari orat? Ex misericordia & benignitate. Whatsoeuer the author might meane in that he saith, we are sure that his words accord not with the phrase and stile of the holy Ghost. And that the true Basil was farre from that mind, appeareth plainly by the note that he giueth vpon the words of the Psalme, p Arise, O Lord, helpe vs and deliuer vs for thy mercies sake. Psal 44.26. Behold (saith he) how he endeth his speech. After a thousand vertues, whereby doth he pray to be saued? Euen of mercie and goodnesse. And vpon another of the Psalmes he saith,Idem. in Psal. 23. Retributiones quae putantur, propter solam Dei benignitatē hominibus praestantur. Vniuersae siquidem mortalium iustitiae [...]e praestita quidem ab ipso bona adaequant, nedum futura quae & humanam cogitationem transcendunt. Rewards, as they are thought to be, are yeelded vnto vs by the only mercy & goodnes of God: for all the righteousnesses of men cannot equall the benefits which he hath already bestowed, much lesse those that are to come which go beyond all the conceit of man. He saw well, that the Prophet after thousands of vertues could haue no hold of saluation but only by Gods mercie. He saw well, that albeit Gods benefits go vnder the name of rewards, yet in all our righteousnesse there is nothing to counteruaile in any sort the bountie of his goodnesse, and therefore was farre from that Pharisaicall and proud opinion of merit, which M. Bishop desireth to fasten vpon him. Which is easie to be seene in that also which I cited out of him before, thatBasil. in Psal. 114. supra sect. 13. eternall rest is layd vp for them who lawfully fight the combat of this life, not to be rendered by way of debt to workes, but prouided by the grace of the bountiful God for them that trust in him.
Cypr▪ de eleem. Si expeditos, si celeres, si in hoc operis agone currentes dies nos vel reditiones, vel persecutionis inuenerit, nusquam Dominus meritis mostris ad proemium decrit. In pace coronam vincentibus candidam pro operibus dabit; in persecutione purpuream propassione geminabit. Cyprian hath nothing for M. Bishops turne, but onely the name [Page 725] of merits; and it is already shewed that that can auaile him nothing. In steed of merits put in good workes, which is all that it importeth; and Cyprian saith nothing but what we say. No more doth Hilary, whose words are,Hilar in Mat. can. 5. Haec rectè perfectè (que) viuentium merces est vt in nouam [...]oelestem (que) substantiam ex hac corruptibilu corporis materie transferantur. This is the reward of them that liue well and perfectly, that from this matter of a corruptible bodie they are translated to a new and heauenly substance. M. Bishop somewhat forceth the place to serue his turne, but it is plaine by that that hath bene said before, that the names of hire and reward are farre enough off from prouing merit and desert. And whatsoeuer they import with men, yet that they import not so with God, let Hilary himself be witnes, who speaking of the wages of them that were hired into the vineyard, saith,Idem ibid. can. 20. Merces quidē ex dono nulla est quia debetur ex opere, sed gratuitā Deus omnibus ex fidei iustificatione donauit. Wages indeed there is none of gift, because it is due by worke: but God hath giuen the same freely to all by the iustification of faith. There is no merit then in the reward that Hilarie speaketh of, because though it be termed reward, yet it is freely giuen by the iustification of faith.
In the place of Ambrose it is plaine, that the name of merits is taken indifferently for workes either good or euill. He saith, thatAmbros. Offic. lib. 1. cap 15. Nonnè euidens est meritorum, aut proemia, aut supplicia post mortem manere? it is euident that for merits there remaineth after this life either reward or punishment: and M. Bishop will not say, that punishment remaineth for the merits that he pleadeth for. Yet he calleth good workes by the name of merits, but to how little purpose for Popish merit hath bin already shewed. And how farre Ambrose was from opinion thereof, his owne words shall witnesse, where he saith,Ambr. in Psal. 118. ser. 20. Quis nostrum sine diuina potest miseratione subsistere? Quid possumus dignum proemijs facere coelestibus? &c. Quo tand [...]m hominum merito defertur vt haec corruptibilis caro induat incorruptionē, & mortale hoc induat immortalitatem? Quibus laboribus quibusue iniurijs possumus nostra leuare peccata? Indignae sunt passiones huius tēporis ad superuenturam gloriā. Non ergo secundum merita nostra, sed secundum misericordiam Dei coelestium decretorum homines forma praecedit. Which of vs can stand without the mercie of God? What can we do worthy of the reward of heauen? By what merit of man is it yeelded, that this corruptible should put on incorruption, or this mortall should put on immortality? By what labours, by what suffering of wrongs can we abate our sinnes? The sufferings of this time are vnworthy for the glory that is to come. Therefore the forme of heauenly decrees goeth before men, not according to our merits, but according to Gods mercie. This being so by the iudgement of Ambrose, why doth M. Bishop seeke to perswade vs by the name of Ambrose, that God frameth his heauenly decrees concerning vs according to our merits, and that the works that we do, are worthy of the reward of heauen? He vseth commonly the name of merit as the rest do, but neuer had in his heart that matter of merit that M. Bishop dreameth of.
Hierome also is cited but for shew, and onely to fill vp a place.Hieron. adue [...]. Jouinian. lib. 2. Nostri laboris est pro diuersitate virtutū, diuersa nobis proemia praeparare. It belongeth to our labour according to diuersitie of vertues to prepare for our selues diuersity of rewards. The rewards by the promises of God are tied to the workes, and therefore in doing the workes to which the rewards belong, we may well be said to prepare for our selues the same rewards. As we are said to worke out our saluation, because though it be Gods meere grace by which we are saued, yet he vseth our will and our worke for the effecting thereof, so are we said also to prepare rewards for our selues, because God vseth vs as instruments to do for our selues the workes that belong to those rewards which he hath prepared for vs. And these rewards we doubt not, as before was said, but that they are diuers, according to the diuersity of our works, greater rewards to greater works, & lesse reward to lesser works; but what is all this to proue that the rewards are iustly merited and deserued by our workes? That Hierome thought not so, it is plaine by that we haue seene out of himSupra sect. 17. before, that there can no worke be found worthy of the iustice of God, as also for that he sayth in the name of the people of God,Hieron. in Esa. lib. 17. cap. 64. Si consideremus merita, desperandū est. If we consider our owne merits, we must despaire, and resolueth euen concerningIdē adu. Pelag. lib. 2. Pro nihilo saluos faciet eos: haud dubiū quin iustos qui non proprio merito, sed Dei saluantur clementia. the iust, that they are not saued by their owne merite, but by the mercie of God. There followeth Saint Bernard, whom M. Bishop would not haue cited if he had meant so faithfully as he should haue done. In what sort S. Bernard taketh the name of merits, hath bene declared a little before, so as they may well blush to cite any thing out of him for maintaning their doctrine of merits. But M. Bishops dealing is so much the more vnhonest, for that in the very same sermon Bernard ouerthroweth that that he would proue by him.Bernar. in Can. ser. 68. Quid de meritis solicita sit Ecclesia cui de proposito Dei firmior suppetit, securior (que) gloriandi ratio? &c. Nō est quòd iam quae ras quibus meritis speremus bona praesertim cùm audias apud prophetam, Non propter vos, &c. Ezec. 36. Sufficit ad meritum scire quòd non sufficiunt merita, &c. Merita habere cures; habita data noueru; fructum speraueris misericordiam Dei, &c. Perniciosa paupertas meritorum penuria est. To what end is the Church carefull as touching merites, which hath a more sure and secure ground of reioycing by reason of the purpose of God? It is not for thee to aske, by what merits we hope for good things, seeing thou hearest by the Prophet, Not for your sakes, but for mine owne sake will I do it, saith the Lord. It sufficeth for merite, to know that merits are not sufficient. Be carefull to haue merits; when thou hast them, know them to be giuen thee; but for fruite thereof hope for the mercie of God. The wa [...]t of merits is a pernicious pouertie. Thus vnder the name of merites he commendeth the hauing of good workes, and our care to be rich therein, shewing that it is a pernicious want to be destitute thereof, and to be men fruitlesse in the Church of God. [Page 727] But yet when we haue them, he teacheth vs to conceiue the vnsufficiency thereof, and to rest the expectation of the fruit and reward thereof onely vpon Gods mercie, who hath promised to performe it, not for our sakes, but for his owne sake, and so fully bereaueth them of that nature of merite which M. Bishop doth assigne vnto them. Thus doth he euery where giue vs to vnderstand his mind:Ibid. ser. 61. Meritum meum miseratio domini. My merit (saith he) is the mercie of the Lord. Ibi. ser. 73. Opus habent & sancti pro peccatis exorare vt de misericordia salui fiant propriae iustitiae non fidentes. Euen the Saints haue need to intreate for their sinnes, that by thy mercie they may be saued, not trusting to their owne righteousnesse. And againe:In Psal. Qui habitat. ser. 1. Periculosa habitatio illorum qui in meritu sui [...] sperant: periculosa quia ruinosa. Dangerous is the dwelling of them that trust in their owne merit: it is dangerous because it is ruinous. Ibi. ser. 16. Hoc totum homini [...] meritum si totam spem suam ponat in illo qui totum hominem saluū fecit. This is the whole merite of man, to put his whole trust in him who hath wholly saued man. Many other such like speeches of his might be alledged, whereby M. Bishop may well take occasion to bethinke himselfe, whether he haue not done S. Bernard wrong to make him a patron of the doctrine of merits, which the Church of Rome now maintaineth. Let him duly consider whether he haue done well to take a little aduantage of a scrap of a sermon, and to vrge it contrary to the whole drift of the Author in that place, and his perpetuall doctrine other where.
For conclusion, we are assaulted with a whole generall Councell that saith neuer a word against vs. The Arausican Councell saith,Concil. Arausic. cap. 18. Debetur merces de bonis operibus si fiant: sed gratia quae non debetur praecedit vt fiant. Reward is due for good works if they be done, but grace which is no due, goeth before, that they may be done. Euen so say we: we also confesse that there is a reward due vnto good workes, which God taketh vpon him to owe vnto vs; but we say it with that limitation that before we haue heard out of S. Austin, from whom that Councell boroweth almost all that they haue set downe, thatSupra sect. 17 God hath made himselfe a debtor vnto vs, not for any thing that he hath receiued of vs, but by promising all things vnto vs. It is due then to the worke, not simply in respect of the worke it selfe, or for the merite and worth thereof, but by vertue of the promise that God hath made to them that so worke. And thus we are come to an end of M. Bishops antiquitie, which we may see doth pitifully faile him, in that out of all antiquitie he could bring no stronger proofes then he hath done; his doctrine of merits being expresly thwarted by the most of them whom he hath brought for defence of it.
But as touching Antiquitie, gentle Reader, for thy further satisfaction, and the better arming of thee (if need require) against the [Page 728] fraud of these vndermining Sophisters, it shall not be amisse to aduertise thee thus much, that as we do, so did the auncient Fathers vpon diuers occasions speake diuersly of good workes, and both their speeches and ours are always to be weighed according to the same occasions. When there is cause to set forth the true and proper cause of our saluation, they referre the same as we do to the free grace and mercy of God, and wholly to his gift; they vilifie as we do the workes and worth of men, and acknowledge that there is nothing in vs in the confidence whereof we may offer our selues to God; nothing in strength, whereof we can stand before God, or whereby we should merite and deserue any thing at Gods hands. Here workes are considered meerly as they are, and as God instrict and precise iudgement findeth them to be, and therefore are pronounced of accordingly. But when occasion requireth to speake only of good works and of the end thereof, and we look no further but to inforce a conscience of the way wherein God hath called vs to walke to that saluation that he hath promised, or when we haue in hand to commend any speciall point of godly and vertuous conuersation, we presse the same with all instance, as the Fathers do; we shew how necessarily God requireth the workes of our obedience, how graciously he vouchsafeth in mercie to accept them, how he hath promised of his bountie to reward them. We forbeare not to say, that eternall life is the stipend of our warfare, the hire and wages of our workes; that God hath not appointed heauen for idle persons and loiterers, but for such as labor for it; that because God rendereth heauen, we must haue that whereto it is to be rendered: if we haue not, there is no heauen for vs. We say, it is a crowne or garland; win it and weare it: it is a haruest; labor for it if thou wilt enioy it: it is a field of treasure; if thou wilt possesse it, thou must purchase it. Such kind of speeches euery man may obserue, who is either a hearer of our sermons, or a reader of our bookes. Now if any man will hereof conclude, that we teach the merit of workes, it is his ignorance and mistaking, and he doth vs wrong. We teach what followeth of what; we teach the dependance and consequence of good life and eternall life, of the work and the reward, God hauing so ordained the one to be the way whereby he will bring vs to the other. But when we looke to the true cause of all, we truly teach that it is God that giueth vs both good life and eternall life, both [Page 729] the worke and the reward, not the one properly for the other, but the one to follow the other, onely for his mercies sake. Thus the fathers also conceiued hereof, as appeareth by that that hath bene alledged from them. We speake as they spake, and they as we; and the Papists do them absurd wrong to wrest & straine their speeches as they do. Whatsoeuer M. Bishop hath cited from them, vnderstand it according to S. Bernards rule before set downe, as of the way not as of a cause, and they differ nothing at all from that that we say.
CHAPTER 6. OF SATISFACTION.
1. W. BISHOP.
MAster Perkins acknowledgeth first ciuil satisfaction, that is,Pag. 117. a recompence for iniuries or damages any way done to our neighbour: such as the good Publican Zacheus practised,Luk. 19. who restored fourefold the things gotten by extortion and deceit. This is wittily acknowledged by him, but little exercised among Protestants; for where the Sacrament of Confession is wanting, there men vse very seldome to recompence so much as one fold for their extortion, bribes, vsury, and other eraftie ouerreaching of their neighbours. But of this kind of satisfaction, which we commonly call restitution, we are not here to treate, nor 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 sinnes past and pardoned we are to endure, either in this life, or in purgatorie if we die before we haue fully satisfied here.
R. ABBOT.
We wil neuer beleeue you M. Bishop, that your vpstart sacrament of Confession hath any such effect as you pretend for satisfaction and restitution of euill gotten goods, vntill we shall certainly vnderstand, that your maisters the Iesuites haue made restitution of [Page 730] those goods which you and your fellow Seculars, by Watson your proctor, haue charged them to haue embezelled by cosinage and villanie, in drawing them by their notable imposture of spirituall exercise to sell their whole estate, and to put the money into their hands. I might write here a pretie story, to shew what fruites your sacrament of confession hath yeelded in that behalfe, but the occasion no further requiring then it doth, let that one example now suffice. But in M. Perkins words you might haue taken knowledge of a Protestant, namely Zacheus, without any sacrament of confession, offering restitution to them to whom he had done wrong; and doubt not you, but the rest who faithfully are that which they professe to be, are alwayes ready to do the like, and that more holily and religiously then you are wont to do. But to the purpose, the satisfaction here spoken of, is the yeelding of a sufficient and worthy recompence and contentment to God for the trespasse that we haue done vnto him. The very naming whereof may be sufficient to make vs detest the doctrine of these wretched men, who doubt not, to the singular impeachment and dishonor of the crosse of Christ, to attribute vnto men a power for the performance of any such satisfaction vnto God. We may well maruell, that any taking vpon him to be a Christian man, should haue his heart so senslesse and dead, as not to abhorre to think that a man should be said to giue a worthy recompence to God for his owne sinne. By which meanes they make that a matter of our merite, which neuer any faithfull man imagined to be any other but Gods meere mercie; and teach men to seeke for that in themselues, which they should find only in the blood of Christ; and take away the true conscience of thankfulnesse to God for the remission of our sinnes, whilest we can pleade that he doth not so forgiue vs, but that we are faine to make him amends, and giue him ful satisfaction for the wrong. Nay it taketh away also the true conscience of sinne it selfe, whilest it is hereby conceiued to be a matter of so small moment, as that our beggerly deuotions and obseruations should be thought to be an effectuall expiation and redemption thereof. Yea and it argueth a very base conceit of the high maiestie of God, to thinke so base trumpery, such baggage deuices as they haue forged, to be a fit and sufficient recompence for an offence to him. But herein the Church of Rome hath renewed another point of the Pelagian heresie, [Page 731] who taughtAugust. Epist. 106. Quod poenitentibus venia non detur se [...]undum gratiam & misericordiam Dei, sed secundum meritum & laborem eorum qui per poenitentiam dignificerint misericordia that pardon and forgiuenesse is not giuen to penitents according to the grace and mercie of God, but according to the merite and labour or paines of them who by repentance shall be worthy of Gods mercy. Thus the Pelagians affirmed, and thus the Papists affirme; the fathers and the children still accord in one. Against the Pelagians the ancient Church defined as we do now against the Papists,Ibid. Fateatur secundum gratiā & misericordiā Dei veniam poenitentibus dari, non secundum merita ecrum, quandoquidem etiam ipsam poenitentiam doniō Dei dixit Apostolus, &c. that it is to be confessed, that pardon is granted to the penitent or repentant by the grace and mercy of God, not according to their merits, in as much as the Apostle telleth vs, that repentance it self also is the gift of God. Here is no interposing of merit or satisfaction; here is nothing but grace and mercy,August. conc. Pelag. & Celest. lib. 2 cap. 24. which is not grace in any sort, as we haue heard before out of S. Austin, except it be free in euery sort. Arnobius derided in the Pagans this opinion of their satisfactions to their gods, and out of the nature and disposition of the true God, telleth thē what the behauiour of their gods should be, if they were indeed as they are called Gods.Arnob. adu. gentes lib. 7. Ergone iniurias suas Dij vendūt at (que) vt paruuli pusiones quo animis parcant abstineant (que) ploratibus passerculos, pupulos, equuleos panes accipiunt, quibus auocari se possint, ita Dij immortales placamenta ista sumunt, quibus ira [...] atque animos ponant, & in graetiam suis cum offensoribus redeant? Atqui ego rebar Deos, &c. Do the gods then, saith he, sell their own wrongs, and as litle children to appease them and to make them leaue crying, do take birds, and puppies, and hobbihorses, and cakes, to withdraw them frō the things they minded, so do the immortall Gods receiue these pacifications wherby to put away their anger & stomacke, and to be reconciled to them that offended thē? But I had thought that the Gods without any recompence or satisfaction would leaue their anger, and remit to sinners their offenses. For it is, saith he, the property of Gods liberally to forgiue & to grant free pardons. This censure of Arnobius the Papists also vndergo, who make God in the like sort as did the Pagans, to sell his own wrongs for our satisfactions, and deny that God giueth to the penitent any free pardon, but he wil haue a recompence for the offence done vnto him, yea and that after the sin is not only past, but also pardoned, as we are here told. Which I wish thee, gentle reader, to obserue diligently, that thou maist see herafter how vnhansomly he manageth this matter. These satisfactions M. Bishop telleth vs, are either inioyned by the Cōfessor, or vndertaken by the penitent, or sent by Gods visitation. The two first kinds are in matter all one, either almes by giuing a fee to a Priest, or a gift to holy Church, or after a full Friday dinner to fast at night with Sugar cakes and suckets, & wine, or to mumble so many Pater nosters, Aue-maries, and Creeds, such and such daies for thus or thus long. And if they be but veniall sinsSext Proaem. in Glossavenialia remittuntur per benedictionem Praelati, per orationem dominicā aquam lenedictam, tunsionem pectoris, &c. to receiue the Bishops blessing, or to be besprinkled with holy water, or to say one Pater noster, or to giue himselfe a knocke [Page 732] on the brest, or some such like matter will be satisfaction good enough. Such impudent and shameles harlots haue we to do with, who stick not with their ridiculous toyes to abuse & vilifie the maiesty of God, and to make a mockery of the appeasing of that wrath before which the Angels themselues haue no strength to stand. The like impietie we see in the other kind of satisfactiōs, which he saith are sent by Gods visitation, wherby we must thinke that euery ague, euery bile, euery sore finger is a satisfaction for our sins. For althogh God do lay these things vpon vs, yet we in the bearing thereof do yeeld him a recōpence for such trespasse or offence as we haue done to him. Now if we performe not these satisfactions here, then we must after this life make satisfaction in the fire of Purgatorie, if we take not good order for the quenching of it. As for hell fire it makes no great matter; that burnes but litle at Rome: the only Catholike fire is Purgatory fire. Hell yeeldeth neither gold nor siluer, but Purgatorie is a rich mine, and the fire thereof melteth much treasure out of mens purses, that it may run into the Popes mint: & therfore no maruell if there be much Catholike businesse, & many bellowes blowing to keepe it from going out. This is a terrible fire, I warrant you, & if it be hot enough to melt gold and siluer, how cruelly doth it scorch the tender soules, that lye frying and broyling in it? Hard therefore will be the case of them that neglect to make full satisfaction while they liue here: but yet there is a helpe for that, for the Popes pardon will cut off all. The Pope hath a store house of satisfactions at Rome, wherin he hath hoorded vp whatsoeuer the Virgin Mary, & the Apostles, & other Saints & Martyrs haue by way of satisfaction payed to God more then they ought him, & if a man will come off and be liberal, he can thence furnish him with sufficient to make vp that which he wanteth of his owne for payment for all his sins. And he (good holy Father) perceiuing in these timesR [...]m, Testam. Annot. in 1. Cor. 2.11. a fall of deuotion, & a lothsomnes that men commonly haue to do great penance, though their sins be far greater then euer before, euen of pure cō passion fearing to driue them either to despaire, or to forsake Christ and his Church, enioyneth small penance, and pardoneth exceeding often and much, not only all enioyned penance, but also all or great parts of what tē poral punishment soeuer due or deserued either in this world or the next. Belike God is waxen more remisse in these later times, and is not so strict to require satisfactions as he was wont to be, and hath bin [Page 733] content to put the penalties and forfeitures that are made to him into the Popes hands, that he may make benefit of them, as hauing greater occasion of expence then Peter & Paul, and the first Bishops of Rome had. But one thing there is that maketh vs here somewhat to stick: M. Bishop reckoneth Gods visitations for one part of these satisfactions. Now the Pope hauing so large power to remit all tē porall punishment due or deserued, either in this world or the next, we wonder that we could neuer yet heare, that a Popes pardon hath eased a fit of an ague, or cured head-ach, or tooth-ach, or such like, whereas by their assertion it should be strong enough to break the stone in the bladder, to cure the Strangurie, the Gowt, the Gangrena, the Nolime tangere, & whatsoeuer else Phisitians & Chirurgians do accountincurable. How should we think that he that cannot giue helpe for any of these, should be of power to set men free from Purgatory paines? But by his failing so wholy in these, we take him to be a lier in all the rest, & do proue both him and his Factors to be the notable impostors and cousiners of the world,2. Pet. 3. [...]. Apoc. 18.13. through couetousnes with fained words making merchandize of mens soules, and Tit. 1.11. speaking things which they oughs not for filthy lucres sake. We must take you (M. Bishop) to be one of these, vnlesse you bring vs better matter then we looke for, for the proofe of these things. Of Purgatorie vntill you giue vs further occasion to speake further of it, sufficient hath bene alreadie said inSect. 10.16, 26. answer of your Epistle to the King.
2. W. BISHOP.
M. Perkins in his third conclusion decreeth very solemnly, That no man can be saued, vnlesse he made a perfect satisfaction vnto the iustice of God for al his sins. Yet in the explication of the difference between vs, defineth as peremptorily, that no man is to satisfie for any one of all his sins, or for any temporall paine due to them: which be flat contradictory propositions, and therfore the one of them must needs be false, B [...] such odde broken rubbish doth he commonly cast into the ground-wo [...] of his questions, and thereupon raiseth the tottering building of his n [...] doctrine: and lets not, like a blind man, to make an outcry, that in this matter the Papists erre in the very foundation and life of religion: which in his first argument he goes about to proue thus:
Imperfect satisfactiō is no satisfaction at all: but the Papists make Christs satisfaction imperfect, in that they do therunto adde a supply [Page 734] of humane satisfaction: ergo, they make it no satisfaction at all.
Answ. This is a substantiall argument to raise the cry vpon: which hath both propositions false. The first is childish: for he that satisfieth for halfe his debts, or for any part of thē, makes some satisfaction, which satisfaction is vnperfect, & yet cannot be called no satisfaction at al, as euery child may see. His second is as vntrue: mans satisfaction is not to supply the want of Christs satisfaction, but to apply it to vs, as M. Perkins saith his faith doth to them, and to fulfill his will and ordinance.
God doth in baptisme for Christs sake pardon both all sins, and taketh fully away all paine due to sinne, so that he who dieth in that state, goeth presently to heauen. But if we do afterward vngratefully forsake God, and cōtrary to our promise transgresse against his commandements, then lo the order of his diuine iustice requires, that we be not so easily receiued againe into his fauor: but he vpon our repentance pardoning the sin and the eternall punishment due vnto it through Christ, doth exact of euery man a temporall satisfaction, answerable vnto the fault committed: not to supply Christs satisfaction, which was of infinite value, and might more easily haue taken away this temporall punishment, then it doth the eternall: but that by the smart and griefe of this punishment, the man may be feared from sinning, and be made more carefull to auoyd sinne: and also by this meanes be made members conformable to Christ our head, that suffering with him, we may raigne with him. And therefore he hauing satisfied for the eternall punishment, which we are not able to do, doth lay the temporall paine vpon our shoulders, that according vnto the Apostle, Gal. 6. Euery man do beare his owne burden.
R. ABBOT.
M. Bishop well knew that M. Perkins speech importeth no contradiction, because in the one he intendeth that euery man is to make satisfaction for his sins, either by himselfe or by a Mediator, and in the other denieth that any man maketh this satisfaction, or any part thereof by himself. Though the phrase were not so easie of our making satisfaction when he meant it by another, yet his meaning was very plaine. There must be a satisfaction yeelded to the iustice of God, which is done onely in Iesus Christ,Rom. 3.25. whom God himselfe hath set foorth to be an attonement or reconciliation through faith in his bloud. Here is therefore no broken rubbish, but a sure foundation laid, and the building setled vpon it standeth firme [Page 735] and fast, the wind wherwith M. Bishop hath blown against it being only his owne breath. And because1. Cor. 3.11. there is no other foundation to be laid, but only that which he hath laid, which is Iesus Christ, therefore not like a blind man, but vpon good discernement and sight, he hath made the outcry, that the Papists laying another foundatiō in the merits and satisfactions of men, do erre in the very foundation and life of Christian faith. To shew this he argueth in this sort: A satisfaction that is made imperfect either directly or by consequent, is no satisfaction at all. But the Papists make Christs satisfaction imperfect, in that they adde a supply of humane satisfactions: therefore they make Christs satisfaction no satisfaction at all. A substantial argument, saith M. Bishop: well, if it be not so, we expect that M. Bishop make it appeare to vs by a very substantiall answer. He telleth vs, that both the propositions are false, yea the first (saith he) is childish, but well we wot that he hath giuen vs a very childish reason why he so saith. He that satisfieth for halfe his debts or any part thereof, saith he, makes some satisfaction. But we tell him, that therein he fondly misapplyeth the name of satisfaction, which is a word of perfection, and therfore cannot be rightly vsed of that that is vnperfect. It importeth the doing of that that is sufficient and enough to giue full contentment to the party to whom it is done, and fully to quit the offence and wrong that is done vnto him. Therefore no man but M. Bishop is so mad as to say, that by the tender of a penny, a man offereth a satisfaction, when the debt or damage is an hundred pounds. Yea and howsoeuer the name of satisfaction may be abused in party-payment for matters of meere debt, yet he should remember, that in their schooles it is resolued, that because Satisfaction, as here it is spoken of, isThom. Aquin. Supplement. q. 14. art. 1. c. Cùm per satisfactionē tolli debeat offensa praecedentis peccati, offensae autem ablatio sit amicitiae diuinae restitutio, quaeper quoduis peccatū impeditur, sieri non potest, vt homo de vno peccato satisfaciat alto retento. Vide in corp [...]art. the taking away of displeasure and offence, and the taking away of offence is the restitution of friendship and loue, and there cannot be restitution of friendship and loue, so long as any impediment therof cō tinueth, therfore there can be no satisfaction for one sin, (that is, for one part of a mans debt) so long as there is a remainder of another. M. Bishop might very well conceiue, that God receiueth not recompence of his wrongs by pence and halfpence, nor doth account the sacrifice of a sheep to be some satisfaction towards the sauing of a soule. But it is the 2. proposition that specially concernes the point. To that he answereth, that mans satisfaction is not to supply the want of Christs satisfaction. Where we see it to be with them, as Tertullian [Page 736] mentioneth of the Valentinian heretickes,Tertullian. aduers. Valent. Nihil magis curant quàm occultare quod praedicant. si tamen praeditant qui occuliant, &c. Negant quicquid agnoscum. They care for nothing more then to hide that which they preach, if at least they preach who conceale and hide: they deny it howsoeuer they well know it. They do indeed make the satisfaction of Christ vnperfect, & our satisfactions to be the supply of his want, but yet because that soundeth odiously, they will not haue it knowne or taken that they do so. Yet M. Perkins brought proofe thereof out of one of their great Schoolemen, Gabriel Biel, who plainly saith, that although the passion of Christ be the principall merit for which is conferred grace, and the opening of the kingdome and glory, yet it is neuer the alone and totall meritorious cause. It is manifest (saith he) because alwaies with the merit of Christ there concurreth some worke, as the merit of congruitie or condignitie of him that receiueth grace or glorie, if he be of yeares, and haue the vse of reason, or of some other for him if he want reason. Here it is expresly affirmed, that the passion of Christ is not a totall meritorious cause, and if it be not a totall cause, then it wanteth a supply, & that that is added for the producing of the effect, must necessarily be holden to be added for a supply of that that it wanteth. Seeing then to the satisfaction of Christ, as not being a totall and perfect cause, our satisfactions are added for the producing of the effects of grace and glorie, it cannot be denied but that our satisfactiōs are a supply of somwhat wanting to the satisfaction of Christ. To this acknowledgment taken out of their owne bookes, why doth M. Bishop answer nothing, but that in his conscience he knoweth that they are guilty of that wherwith they are charged? Yea and the thing is very apparent of it selfe: for if they held the satisfaction of Christ to be a totall and perfect satisfaction, then they must needs confesse that in the nature of a satisfaction nothing else should be needfull for vs. But they require somwhat else as needfull in the nature of a satisfaction. Therfore they do not confesse the satisfaction of Christ to be a total and perfect satisfaction: for it implieth a manifest contradiction, to affirme any thing to be a totall cause, and yet to require another cause as necessary for the same effect. M. Bishop telleth vs, that the vse of our satisfactions is to apply vnto vs Christs satisfaction, and to fulfil his will and ordinance. A goodly and witty deuice. I haue a medicin fully sufficient and auaileable for the curing & healing of my wound, & I must haue another medicin for the healing of the same wound, which I must apply and lay to the former medicine. My surety hath [Page 737] fully and perfectly discharged my debt, and I must my selfe pay the debt againe, that my sureties paiment may stand good for me. A satisfaction to apply a satisfaction, is a toy so improbable & senslesse, as that we may thinke them miserably put to shifts, that could find no better cloke to hide their shame. Yet this is the couer of al their poisoned cups. They multiply their witchcrafts and sorceries without end, & bring into the Church what they list, lewdly to deuise, and then tell vs that these things serue to apply vnto vs the merit & passion of Christ. The sacrifice of the Masse is the propitiation for our sins, but it applyeth vnto vs the sacrifice of the crosse of Christ. The bloud and sufferings of Saints and Martyrs are auaileable for the forgiuenesse of sins, but they apply vnto vs the vertue of the bloud and sufferings of Christ. But here M. Perkins noted, that the meanes of application consist in Gods offering to vs, and our receiuing of him. God offereth Christ vnto vs by the word & Sacramēts; we receiue him by faith. He required it to be proued, that by satisfactions Christ is either offered on Gods part, or receiued on our part. Why did M. Bishop omit to do this? why doth he neither bring reason, example, nor authority to shew vs, that satisfaction hath any such nature or vse of application, or in what sort it should be said to apply? We haue shewedOf Iustification Sect. 19. 29. before, that faith is as it were the hand of the soule, an instrument properly seruing for apprehending, receiuing, laying hold of, and applying to our selues: why doth not he make the same appeare to vs concerning satisfaction? But why do we require him to do more then he can do? But here is a secret, gentle Reader, which I wish thee to take knowledge of, and if thou be acquainted with him, aske him (if occasion serue) the solution of this doubt. He telleth vs through all this discourse, that the vse of Christs satisfaction is to take away the guilt of sin, & the eternal punishment therof, & that this we obtain in the forgiuenes of our sins. But now after the forgiuenes of our sins, these satisfactions remaine to be performed by vs. If this be so; if the vse of Christs satisfaction be determined in the forgiuenes of our sins, & these satisfactiōs follow after, how or to what vse do these satisfactions apply vnto vs the satisfaction of Christ? As for example, M. Bishop giueth a man absolution before he dieth: he hath therupon his sins forgiuen him, & a release frō eternall punishment, but yet being not yet throughly scoured, to Purgatory he must go. Now then in what sort, and to [Page 738] what end doth Purgatorie apply vnto him the satisfactiō of Christ? For the satisfaction of Christ medleth not with temporall punishments; he hath left the kingdome of temporall satisfactions & the whole reuenew thereof to the Pope. What do we here then with applying the satisfactiō of Christ? Riddle this riddle he that can, for M. Bishop cannot do it: yet he telleth vs further, that our satisfactiōs are to fulfill the wil and ordinance of Christ, and hereupon he entreth into a goodly tale to declare vnto vs this ordinance. But his declaratiō is such, as that we may see in him that which Hilary said of the Arian heretikes:Hilar. de Trin. lib. 6. Ingerunt nomina veritatis vt virut falsitatis intr [...]at. They thrust in words of truth, that the poison of their falshood may find entrance. It fitteth them which Tertullian said of the Valentinians:Tertul. aduers. Valent. Sanctis nominibus & titulis, & argumentis verae religionis vanissima & turpissima sigmenta co [...]figurant. They fashion their most vaine & filthy deuices to the holy names, and titles, and arguments of true religion. He telleth vs, that God in Baptisme for Christs sake both pardoneth all sin, and taketh fully away all paine due to sin. But where I maruell hath he seene this miracle wrought? That God in Baptisme giueth full forgiuenesse of sins we acknowledge, but yet did we neuer find, but that baptisme for pain & outward grieuances leaueth a man the same that it found him; sicke and diseased before, sicke and diseased still; lame before, lame still; blind before, blind still. We see that infants baptized, who (he saith) haue no sin to satisfie for, yet haue many pangs, and frets, and sicknesses, and how then doth baptisme take away al paine due to sin? He who dieth in that state, saith he, goeth presently to heauen: but he who dieth in that state, dieth he without pain? We see he talketh at randon wholy by fancy, & not by reason, neither do his eyes look which way his feet go. Well, let this passe: What after baptisme? If after we transgresse, saith he, then loe the order of his diuine iustice requires, that we be not so easily receiued againe into his fauor. Why but the Apostle S. Iohn saith to them that are baptized,1. Ioh. 22. If any man sin, we haue an aduocate with the Father, Iesus Christ the iust, and he is the propitiation, or satisfaction for our sins. What is the difference then, if both in baptisme and after baptisme Christ be the attonement & satisfaction for our sinnes? Yea saith M. Bishop, God vpon our repentance pardoneth the sinne, and eternall punishment due vnto it through Christ, but doth exact of euery man a temporall satisfaction answerable to the fault committed. But this cannot be,Hieron. in Esa. cap. 53 lib. 14. Ne exparte veritas, & ex parte mendaciū [...] eredatur in Christo. least as S. Hierome saith in another case, it be partly a truth, and partly a lye which we beleeue in Christ. For then as touching eternall punishment it shall be a truth, [Page 739] that Christ is the propitiation for our sinnes, but as touching temporall satisfactions it shall be a lye, and we shall be said to be the propitiation and attonement for our owne sinnes. Which because it is blasphemous and wicked to affirme, neither hath the Scripture taught vs any such diuision betwixt Christ and vs, therfore we must confesse that in name of satisfaction for reconcilement vnto God, we do nothing for our selues, but Christ only both temporally and eternally is the satisfaction for our sinnes. Christ did not onely beare the infinite wrath of God, to acquit vs of eternall punishment, but according to the words of the Prophet cited by the Euangelist,Esa. 53.4. Math. 8.17. He tooke (vpō him) our infirmities, and beare our sicknesses, that is, our temporall punishments; which what doth it import, but that in respect of temporall punishments also Christ is our Redeemer, Christ is our satisfaction vnto God. And if not so, why do we then pray to God to be deliuered from temporall calamities and afflictions for Christes sake? Nay, see how wickedly this deuice is framed. The bloud of Christ serueth not to acquit vs from temporall punishments, but the bloud of S. Peter doth, and the bloud of Paul, and the bloud of the Martyrs; these all are helpfull to free vs from temporall satisfactions. They pray by one Saint against the toothach, by another against the falling sicknesse, by another against the plague, &c. their merits are auaileable in this behalfe, but the merit of Christ auaileth nothing. And yet they tell vs that the conclusion of all their praiers is, Per Christum Dominum nostrum; through Christ our Lord. But why do they thus bring in the mediation of Christ, if Christ in this respect haue done nothing for vs? If Christ haue left the burden of temporall satisfactions to lie wholy vpon vs, why do they pray by him and through him to be disburdened thereof? This the Church of the faithfull hath alwaies done, and in all times. The Church of Rome therefore dealeth vnfaithfully to retaine the words of the faithfull, and to giue checke to the meaning of them, by denying Christ to be our Redeemer from that wrath of God, whereby temporall afflictions and punishments are laid vpon vs. As for vs we resolue that as the disobedience of the first Adam, brought vpon vs not onely eternall punishments, but also temporall, so the obedience and merit of the second Adam, to answer that in sauing which the other had done in destroying, hath made satisfaction to God for both, so that the faithfull penitent [Page 740] soule beleeuing & receiuing in Christ forgiuenesse of sinnes, beleeueth it selfe to be perfectly reconciled vnto God, & reckoneth not of any further satisfaction to be made vnto him. Now M. Bishop acknowledgeth that Christes satisfaction is of infinite value, & therfore that our satisfactiō is not to supply his. But if it be of infinite value, why doth he restraine & abridge the effect thereof, in respect of them to whom the infinite value of it doth belong? why doth he make the value therof in respect of the temporall punishments of sin, altogether idle & of no vse? and if it might haue freed vs from doing satisfaction for our selues, why doth it not? He giueth vs reasons, that by the smart therof we may be feared and made carefull to auoid sin, & that by suffering, we may be cōformed as mēbers to Christ our head. You say wel, M. Bishop, but yet we heare nothing here concerning satisfaction. We require a reason of the assertion of our satisfactions, for that Christ we say hath yeelded a full satisfaction for vs, & you tell vs of being frighted from sin, & made cōformable vnto Christ, which are things that stand very well without any matter of satisfaction. The Scripture teacheth vs these vses of the sufferings of the faithfull, but it saith nothing to vs concerning satisfaction. But for the better vnderstanding of this whole matter, it is to be obserued, that the temporal calamities & euils of this life are of thēselues, and in their own nature the punishments of sin, the effects of Gods curse, the beames of his euerlasting fury & wrath, the forerunners of his dreadful iudgment, preparations to death, & death it self the vpshot of all the rest, as it were a gulfe swallowing vs vp into feareful darknesse, and vtter destruction both of body & soule. Now Christ beingIohn. 1.29. the lambe of God that taketh away the sinne of the world, in taking away our sins, taketh away consequently the effects of sin, because the cause being remoued, the effects cannot remaine. But in sin as hath bene before declared, we are to consider both the corruption and the guilt, of which the guilt being taken away, the corruption may stil remaine, and the effects of sinne haue reference to both these. Being then reconciled vnto God through Iesus Christ, by the not imputing of our sins, we see that the temporal afflictions and grieuances of this life, are stil continuing & lying vpon vs. Hereupon the question is, our sins being forgiuen, in what nature they continue? We say; not as satisfactions to the wrath of God, in respect of the guilt of sin, but as cautions and prouisions of his loue for the destroying of the corruption [Page 741] of it. The guilt of sinne is the foundation of satisfaction; and where no guilt is, there is no satisfaction to be demaunded. When therefore forgiuenes hath taken away the guilt, there can be no requiring of satisfaction, & the afflictions thenceforth lying vpon vs are of another nature, and to other ends & vses, then that either we should be said thereby to satisfie God, or that God should be said thereby to satisfie himselfe of vs. The vses thereof the Scripture notethRom. 6.6. the destroying of the body of sin, Heb. 12.10. the making of vs partakers of his holinesse, 2. Cor. 4.16. the renewing of the inner man from day to day, Col. 1.12. the making of vs meete to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light. 1. Cor. 11.32. We are chastened of the Lord when we are iudged, that we should not be cō demned with the world. Aug. de Trin. lib. 13. cap. 15. Prosunt ista mala quae fideles piè perferunt vel ad emendanda peccata, velad exercendam probandam (que) iustitiam, vel ad demōstrandā vitae huius miseriā vt illa vbi erit beatitudo vera at (que) perpetua & desideretur ardenriùs & instantiùs inquiratur. Vide in Ioan. tract. 124. They serue, saith Austine for the reforming of our sins, for the exercise and triall of our righteousnesse, for the setting forth of the misery of this life, that that life where shal be true and euerlasting blisse, may both more feruently be desired, and more instantly sought for. These reasons he giueth, why the punishments of sinne as touching the matter of them continue still in this life after the forgiuenesse therof, but of satisfaction not a word. Yea, being occasioned to speake directly to the point by the Pelagians, obiecting to him, thatAug de peccat. merit. & remiss. lib. 2. ca. 33. Qui dicunt, si peccat [...] mors accidisset, non vti (que) post remissione peccatorūmoreremur; non intelligunt quomodo res quarū reatū ne post hanc vitam obsint Deus soluit; tamen eat ad certamen fidei sinit manere, vt per illas erudiamur & exerceamur proficientes in agone iustitiae. if death had come by sin, then after forgiuenes of sinnes we should not die, he answereth thus, They vnderstand not that God suffereth the things, the guilt whereof he releaseth, that they may not hurt after this life, yet to remaine (in this life) for the fight of faith, that thereby we may be instructed and exercised, profiting and growing in the fight of righteousnesse. The guilt of death then and of all other temporall calamities, is taken away, but yet these things continue, not as matters of satisfaction, but as meanes of instruction for the framing of vs vnto God. He goeth on, and saith, that it may be as well said, if for sinne it were said to man, In the sweat of thy browes shalt thou eate thy bread, and the earth shall bring forth vnto thee briars and thornes, why after forgiuenesse of sinnes doth this labour remaine, and why doth the ground of the faithfull bring forth briars and thornes? Againe, if for sinne it were said to the woman, In paine and sorow thou shalt bring foorth, how is it that after forgiuenesse of sinnes faithfull women still bring foorth with the same paines? All these cases and the like he cleareth in this sort:Ibid. cap. 34. Respondemus dicentes, ante remissionem esse supplicia peccatorū. post remissionem autem certamina exercitationes (que) iustorum. Wee answere, that before forgiuenesse they are the punishments of sinnes, but after forgiuenesse, they are the fights and exercises of the iust. VVhere wee see that being [Page 742] drawne to answer precisely to this matter, he denieth them after forgiuenesse to be punishments of sinne, howsoeuer both he and we are woont in common speech to terme them so, because originally and naturally they are so. Therefore is there commonly that difference made betwixt the afflictions of the faithfull and the vnfaithfull, thatOrigen. in Genes. hom. 16. Quod iustu exercitiū virtutis est, hoc iniustis pena peccati. that which is to the iust the exercise of vertue, as Origen saith, is to the vniust the punishment of sinne; thatTertull. Apologet. ca. 41. Omnes seculiplage nobis fortè in admonitionē, vobis in castigationē, à Deo obueniunt. the plagues of the world, as Tertullian saith, are to the one for punishment, to the other for admonition and aduertisement. So can Thomas Aquinas say when occasion serueth, thatThom. Aquin. 12. q. 114 art. 10. ad 3. Temporalia mala infliguntur impijs in paenam, inquantum per ea non adiuuantur ad consecutionē vitae aeternae, iustis autem qui per huiusmodi mala iuuātur nē sunt paenae sed magis medicinae. temporall euils are inflicted vpon the wicked for punishment, for that they are not thereby helped for the obtaining of eternall life, but to the iust who are thereby helped, they are not punishments, but rather medicines. So then they are not punishments, they are no satisfactions where sinnes are forgiuen, but they are referred to other end. If they be satisfactions, the proper and onely vse of them in that nature is ex parte ante, in respect of time past, to giue recompence for offence formerly committed; and whatsoeuer else is alledged, is meerely accidentall, but the proper and onely vse of afflictions where sinnes are forgiuen, is ex parte post, in respect of time to come, to keepe vs from sinne, and to helpe forward our sanctification towards God. But M. Bishop hudleth and confoundeth all together, and by termes of the true vses of afflictions deliuered in the Scripture, deceiptfully coloureth his matter of satisfactions deuised beside and against the Scripture. Let him speake distinctly as the Scripture doth, and then he must say, that that which concerneth the guilt of sinne, and belongeth to satisfaction, is laid wholy vpon Christ, that it may be true which the Prophet saith,Esa. 53.5. The chastisement of our peace was laid vpon him, and by his stripes we were healed; but that which is laid vpon vs after forgiuenesse by Christ, is onely de futuro, to weaken and weare away the power of sinne, and in death which is the last of these afflictions, vtterly to destroy it. Now therefore whereas he saith that we must be conformable vnto Christ as members to our head, he notably abuseth the pretence thereof to the singular dishonour of Iesus Christ. He hath told vs before that we must beOf Merits. Sect. 16. like vnto Christ in meriting, and here he telleth vs that we must be like vnto Christ in satisfying: but what? must we be like vnto Christ in those things wherein consisteth his being Christ? wherein standeth his being our Redeemer, our Sauiour, [Page 743] our high Priest and Mediatour vnto God? By meriting and satisfying for vs, it is that Christ is our Christ, our Iesus and Sauiour. If therefore we be like vnto him in meriting and satisfying, what hindereth but that as he is in common Iesus, and a Sauiour for all, so we also should be said euery man to be a Iesus and Sauiour for himselfe. Which because it is impious to affirme, and cannot be auoided, if it be true which he saith, let him learne to know that we are to be like vnto Christ in his image, not in his office; in act of conuersation, not in effect of satisfaction and redemption; in that that he is simply according to himselfe, not in that that he is by dispensation for vs. We must suffer as he hath suffered, but not suffer for our selues, or one for another, as he hath suffered for vs. We must walke in obedience to God as he hath walked, but not to merit by our obedience for our selues, as he by his obedience hath merited for vs. These are lewd and Antichristian deuices, seruing to iustle Christ out of his place, by a pretence of conformitie betwixt him and vs. M. Bishops conclusion therefore is without any ground, that Christ hauing satisfied the eternall punishment of sinne, hath left a temporall satisfaction thereof to be performed by vs. As for the words of the Apostle which he citeth for some proofe thereof,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. [Page 744] 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; [...]. [...] 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,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: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 [Page 745] 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.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 [Page 746] 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,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, wherinAugust. 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 punishments in the world to come, but also for the temporall afflictions & punishments that are incident to this life. It is therefore a great impiety in the Church of Rome, to take away this part of Christes office from him, and to make euery man thereof partaker to his wrong. But now whereas M. Bishop saith, that it would require an infinite vertue to satisfie for the euerlasting punishment of sinne, we would gladly know of him how it standeth, that a greater vertue is required to satisfie for the euerlasting paines of hell, then there is to merit and purchase the euerlasting ioyes of heauen. He saith, the grace of Christ giueth force to our workes to deserue the one; but if that be true, by what reason doth he deny that the grace of Christ giueth force to our satisfactions to quit the other? His owne confession in the one condemneth his assertion in the other, and because he denieth that our merits of satisfaction can release from hell, he must deny that our merits of purchase are of sufficient value to deserue heauen, because the grace of God must be holden to be of the same power and vertue on both sides. Againe it is vntrue which he saith, that the temporall punishment being limited may be satisfied for by a meere creature, because the satisfaction is not to be esteemed according to the quantity of the temporal punishment, but according to the maiestie of him to whō the offence is done, who being the same in punnishing, whether temporally or eternally, can haue none of sufficient worth to deale with the one, who is not the same for the other also. He cannot in any sort merit any thing at Gods hands, who is not in worth and power answerable to his infinite greatnesse. And this Thomas Aquinas saw, who to make good humane satisfaction, attributeth vnto itThom. Aquin. suppl. q. 13. art. 1. ad 1. Sicut offensa habuit quandaem infinitatē ex infinitate diuinae maiestatis [...]ta etiam satisfactio accipit quandā infinitatem ex infinitate diuinae misericordiae proui est gratia informata per quam acceptum redditur quod homo facere potest. an infinitie, in respect that it is informed by grace, & accepted thereby, whereby we may see how well these men accord in the grounds of their defence. But Thomas Aquinas saw it to be an absurd fancie which M. Bishop here followeth in designing a rate, as he calleth it, [Page 747] of sins to be answered by a measure of temporall stripes, whereas the infinitenesse of sin can beare no such limitation, nor be bounded in any sort within the cōpasse of temporall reuenge. But yet M. Bishop will make vs beleeue that he hath a deuice whereby to make good this rate and measure. He telleth vs that in sin two things must be considered; the one is the turning away from God whom we offend; the other is the turning to the thing for the loue of which we offend. Our turning from God, both the fault & the eternall punishment due vnto it, he saith, are freely pardoned by Christ, but man forsooth must satisfie for the pleasure that he tooke in turning to the creature. But this idle Sophisme of his is reiected also by the same great Rabbine of theirs, Thomas Aquinas as a thing of nought.Jbid. Quidam dicum quòd habet infinitatē ex parte auersionis & sic gratis dimittitur, sed ex parte cōuersionis finita est & sic pro ea satisfiers potest. Sed hoc nihil est, quia satisfactio non respondet peccato nisi secundum quod est offensa Dei quod nō habet ex pa [...] conuersionis sed [...]x [...] [...]sionis. [...] 22. Ci [...] [...] bene [...] [...] dine [...]ist [...] muliaeutē [...] pertur [...]ato Some say, saith he, that sin hath an infinity in respect of auerting or turning away from God, and so it is freely pardoned, but that in respect of conuersion or turning to creatures it is finite, and so may be satisfied for. But this is nothing, because satisfaction answereth not to sin, but according as it is an offence to God, which it hath not of conuerting to other things, but of auerting and turning from God. There is a loue of the creatures which is according to God, & standeth with the loue of God.f The creature because it is good, it may be loued aright, saith Austin, and it may be loued amisse: aright if order be kept; amisse if order be peruerted. Therefore vertue & righteousnes is not a deniall of the loue of the creatures, but it is, as he saith,Ibid. Definitio breuis & vera virtutis [...]rdo est amoris. an order in louing. The act of sin then consisteth in disordered loue, in that the loue of the creature implieth an auersion and turning away from God. Now then seeing satisfaction is to be made by vs in respect of auersion frō God, & the punishment that belongeth to auersion frō God, is the eternall punishment of sin, as M. Bishop also saith, he must acknowledge by the doctrine of their owne Schooles, that we are to make satisfaction for the eternall punishment of sin, and then let him tell vs what exception he hath yet giuen, that their doctrine of satisfactions doth not make vs Christes, & Redeemers of our selues, & Priests of the same order with the Sonne of God. But we are yet further desirous to know, vpon what ground M. Bishop would haue vs to beleeue, that only temporall punishments should belong to the pleasures & delights of sin, or in what sort we should conceiue the same pleasures of sin seuered from auerting & turning away from God? These are such strange deuices, howsoeuer he setteth them downe, as speciall tricks of wit, as that he should thinke [Page 748] him to haue written them in a dreame, but that he vttereth so many of them, as that then we must imagine him to liue in a continuall dreame. Must we thinke that the Apostles were acquainted with this nice conceipt of his? Did they meane that Christ suffered and died for our sins quantum ad auersionem, so farre as concerneth turning from God, but that he left vs to suffer for our owne sins, and one for anothers sins quantum ad conuersionem, so farre as concerneth turning to the pleasures of our sins? Surely the Prophet saith, quantum ad auersionem: Esa. 53.6. All we like sheepe haue gone astray, and quantum ad conuersionem, we haue turned euery man to his owne way, and addeth concerning both; And the Lord hath laid vpon him the iniquities of vs all. But M. Bishop hath learned another lesson of their schoolemen, who haue exercised their wits to mocke the word of God, for the colouring of those lewd and blasphemous nouelties, which the Romish Apostasie hath brought in, to the wrong and derogation of the crosse of Christ.
4 W. BISHOP.
But Christ (saith M. Perkins) said on the Crosse, It is finished: Wherfore all satisfaction was at Christes death ended, as well temporall as eternall.
Answer. That those words haue a farre different sence: To wit, that Christ had then ended his course, and fulfilled all prophecies, and endured all such torments, as it pleased God to impose vpon him for the redemption of mankind: of satisfaction temporall there is no mention, neither can any thing be drawne thence against it: No more can be out of this other: Christ made sinne for vs:2. Cor. 5. that is, the punishment of sinne, as M. Perkins gloseth it: but the learned say, an hoast or sacrifice for sinne. But we graunt that he suffered the punishment for our sinne, and say consequently: that all sinne is pardoned freely for his sake, and the paine of hell also, which is punishment of sinne: but not other temporall paines, such as it hath pleased the iustice and wisedome of God to reserue vnto euery sinner, to beare in his owne person. And after this sort, and no other was God in Christ, reconciling the world to himselfe. And that Saint Paul vnderstood well, that Christes sufferings did not take away ours, may be gathered by these his words: Colos. 1. I reioyce in suffering for you, and do accomplish those things that want of the Passions of Christ, in my [Page 749] flesh for his body, which is the Church.
But of this point more, when we come vnto the Arguments for the Catholike part.
R. ABBOT.
What our Sauiour meant by saying in the very instant of his giuing vp the ghost,Iohn. 19.30. [...]. It is finished, we may cōceiue by the Apostle, making as it seemeth application of that word when he saith,Heb. 10.14. With one oblation he hath [...]. consummated or made perfect for euer thē that are sanctified. By that one oblation he performed whatsoeuer was necessary for our full and perfect satisfaction and reconcilement vnto God. And therein he fulfilled all prophecies that were written of attonement & peace to be made betwixt God & man, the effect wherof S. Peter expresseth saying,Act. 10.43. To him giue all the Prophets witnesse, that through his name all that beleeue in him shall receiue remission of sinnes. Ephe. 1.7. In him we haue redemption, saith S. Paul, through his bloud euen the forgiue [...]e [...] of sins. Now as the author to the Hebrewes inferreth,Heb. 10.18. where remission of these things is, there is no more offering for sin, so may we infer, where remission of sinnes is, there is no more satisfying for sin, because sacrifice & satisfaction haue one and the selfe same respect to sin. Seeing then Christ hath done that that yeeldeth vs perfect forgiuenes of sins, it must follow that there remaineth no further satisfaction to be performed for sin. And thus much is cōtained in M. Bishops words, but that like Caiphas he saith wel & vnderstandeth not what he saith. Christ, saith he, endured all such torments as God would impose vpon him for the redemption of mankind. And what is redemption, but a paiment of full & perfect satisfaction?Tho. Aquin p. 3. q. 48. art. 4 in corp. Quia passio Christi sufficient & superabūdant suit satisfactio pro peccato & reatu poenae humani generis, eius passio fuit quasi quoddā pretium quo liberati sumus ab vira (que) obligatione. Na [...] ipsa satisfactio qua quis satisfacit siue pro se siue pro alio, pretium quoddam dicitur quo seipsum vel alium redimit à peccato & poenae, Christus autem satisfecit dando seipsum pro nobis, & ideo passio Christi dicitur esse nostra redemptio. Because the passion of Christ, saith Thomas, was a sufficient and superabundant satisfaction for the sin of mankind & guilt of punishment, his passion was as it were a price or paiment, by which we were set free frō obligatiō both those waies. For the satisfactiō wherby a man satisfieth either for himself or for another, is called a price by which a mā redeemeth (or buieth out) himselfe or another from sin and punishment. Now Christ, saith he, hath made satisfactiō by giuing himself for vs, & therfore the passiō of Christ is said to be our redemption. If then the passion of Christ be therefore our redemption, because he hath paid a sufficient & superabundant satisfaction to free vs from obligation of guilt and punishment, [Page 750] how can it stand that after Christes redemption the obligation should stil remaine, & that there should be yet a further satisfaction to be made? Either it must be said that Christ hath not made a full redemption; or else it must be acknowledged, that Christ hath taken away all temporal satisfaction. But Christ in saying It is finished, testifieth that in his death he fully finished our redēption. Therefore he testifieth that he hath left no place for any further satisfaction. This cannot be shifted off. A perfect redemption taketh away all obligation of further satisfaction, or else it cannot be called absolutely perfect. Christes redemption therfore being simply & absolutely perfect, must necessarily inferre a deniall of temporall satisfaction. Albeit the very name of temporal satisfaction in this case is absurd, because the guilt of sin being only infinite & eternal, and in no fort temporall, cannot be brought within any cōpasse of temporall satisfaction as before was said. In a word, we do not beleeue that Christ plaid the Sophister vpon the crosse, to say quantum ad auersionē, It is finished, that is, the satisfaction of sin is fully paid, but quantum ad conuersionem, all is not yet fully finished, but there remaineth some further satisfaction to be made. No more do we beleeue that the Apostle when he said,2. Cor 3 21. Christ was made sin for vs, did play fast or loose, as meaning that if we vnderstand sin quantū ad auersionē, then it is true that he was made sin for vs, that is, the punishment or sacrifice for sin, but that quantum ad conuersionem we are made sin for our selues, or one man for another. Or that when it is said,1. Pet. 3 13. He suffered for sinnes once, the iust for the vniust, that he might bring vs to God, the meaning is that in part he suffered for our sins to bring vs to God, but left vs in part to suffer for our owne sinnes, to bring our selues to God. We cannot be perswaded that that was the meaning of the Apostle when he said,2. Cor. 5.19. God was in Christ reconciling the world vnto himselfe, because he defineth that reconcilement to consist in the not imputing of our sinnes, and how are our sinnes not imputed if we be still holden in any sort to make satisfaction for thē? But these things though they be apparently blasphemous & wicked, and do expose the Gospel of Christ to mockery & contempt, yet M. Bishop laboureth to colour with a sentence of S. Paul, which for more thē a thousand yeares after the time of Christ and his Apostles, neuer any man vnderstood or expounded to that meaning whereto he applieth it.Col. 1.24. Now reioyce I in my sufferings for you, and do fulfill or accomplish [Page 751] (those things that want, saith M. Bishop, but the word is [...]) the remainder, those things that are yet behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh, for his bodies sake, which is the Church. M. Bishop by translating those things that want of the passions of Christ, and applying the place to their satisfactions, giueth vs to vnderstand that blasphemy of theirs, which he will seeme otherwise to denie, that for satisfaction somewhat is wanting to the passion of Christ, so that the passion of Christ is not taken with them to be a full and perfect satisfaction and redemption. He will say, the old interpreter so translateth, but because the old interpreter made not that vse of these passions in the words following, as M. Bishop doth, therefore to our meaning onely, and not to his, he translateth in that sort. The afflictions and sufferings of the faithfull are very often in the Scripture termed2. Cor. 4.10. Phil. 3.10. 1. Pet. 4.13. the afflictions and sufferings of Christ. Christ is the head; we are the body.Aug. in Psa. Caput & corp [...] vnus est Christus. The head and the body, saith S. Austine, make one Christ. He hath made vs one with himselfe, and therefore vnder one name ofGal. 3.16. Christ, he comprehendeth both himselfe and vs. Whatsoeuer then is done either to the head or to the body, the same is done to Christ. Christ the head hath s [...]ffered in himselfe whatsoeuer was needfull for the redemption and purchase of that body, whereof he was to be the head. He therefore suffered and died for sinne as a Redeemer; we as redeemed are by suffering to be conformed vnto him, that in suffering we may be still dying, and in death it selfe may fully and for euer beR [...] 62.11. de [...]d to sinne. Now because the afflictions of the body and members of Christ, are reckoned to be the afflictions of Christ, therfore so long as there is any part of the body still remaining to be afflicted, so long there is somewhat wanting, or yet behind of the afflictions of Christ. Thus S. Austine saith,Aug. in Psal. 61. Si in memoris Christi es, quicquid pateris ab eu qui n n sunt in [...]ēoru Christi deerat passionibus Christi, If thou be a member of Christ, whatsoeuer thou sufferest of them who are not the members of Christ, it was wanting to the passions of Christ. And thus S. Paul as a member of Christ professeth, that for his part he fulfilled the remnant, or that that was yet to be sustained of the afflictions & sufferings of Christ. But he addeth, for his bodies sake which is the Church, and vpon these words specially the question dependeth. In what meaning is it that he saith he suffereth for the Churches sake? M. Bishop will haue vs thinke that it was to adde somewhat for his part to the common treasury of satisfactions, whence reliefe & succour might [Page 752] be yeelded to men by the Popes indulgences, to supply the want of their owne satisfactions. We must thinke that somewhat was wanting to the sufferings of Christ, to set vs free from temporal punishments, and towards that S. Paul paied his shot, and hauing suffered enough for his owne discharge, would adde somwhat to serue in common to ease the burdens of other men. But against this wicked and blasphemous fancie, the Apostle himselfe instructeth vs, when he saith,1. Cor. 1.13. Was Paul crucified for you? If we beleeue M. Bishop, Paul also was crucified for vs, but Paul himselfe denieth himselfe to haue bene crucified for vs. Therfore he teacheth vs to say,Gal. 6.14. God forbid that I should reioyce but in the crosse of our Lord Iesus Christ: not in the crosse of Paul, not in the crosse of Peter, but only in the crosse of Iesus Christ. If M. Bishop say true, we haue to reioyce in the crosse of Peter, and in the crosse of Paul, and in the crosses of the rest of the Saints, as hauing redeemed vs frō Purgatory, & frō temporall pain [...], but we are taught to reioyce in nothing but in the crosse of Iesus Christ, that it may be true which he hath said,Esa. 63.3. I haue troden the wine-presse alone, & of all people there was none with me. Therfore Ambrose saith;Ambros. in 1. Cor. cap. [...]. St Christus pro nobis mortuus est, quomodo gra [...]ā & lexeficiū etia hominibus imputamus ad e [...]us iniuriam? If Christ haue died for vs, why do we impute his grace and benefit to other men to his wrong? Very fitly to this purpose saith Leo Bishop of Rome:Leo epist. 81. Quātris multorum san [...]torum pretiosa in conspectu Domini mors fuerit, null [...]s tament [...]sontis o [...]sio mu [...]di fuit propitiatio. Accepere iusti, non dedera [...]t coronas, & de fortitudine fideliū nata sunt exempta patientiae, nō dona iustitiae. Singulares quipp [...] in singulis mortes fuere nec alterius quisquā debitum suo fine persoltus, quum inter filios homi [...]m vnus Dominus noster Iesus Christus extiterit in quo omnes crucifixi, omnes mertu [...], omnes sepulti, omnes sunt etiam suscitati. Albeit the death of many Saints hath bene precious in the Lords sight, yet the killing of no Saint hath bene the propitiation of the world. The iust receiued crownes, but gaue none, and of the fortitude of the faithfull haue growne examples of patience, no gifts of righteousnesse. Their deaths were seuerall in euery of them, neither hath any man by his death paied the debt of another man, seeing amongst the sonnes of men it was onely our Lord Iesus Christ, in whom all were crucified, dead, buried, and raised againe. This was the auncient doctrine of the Bishops of Rome, but now Maister Bishop telleth vs out of their Romish learning, that one man is the propitiation and attonement for another, that some men doe pay debts, and make satisfactions for others, because Paul saith that he suffereth for the Churches sake. But S. Austine telleth him againe:Aug. in Ioan. tract. 84. Etsi fratres pro fratribus mor [...]amur, tamen in fraternerū peccatorum remissionē nullius sanguis marty [...]is funditur, quod fecit ille (Christus) proneb [...] nec in hoc quid imitaremur sed quid gratularemur cōtulit nobis, &c. Quò isi quisquā se potētia Christi cōparabit alie. ūsc putādo sanare peccatū, muliū est ad illū, non capit tantū, &c. Diues est qui nec haereditario nec proprio vnquā deb [...]to obnoxius & ipse iustus est & alios iustificat Christus. Noli cōtra eū te extendere, intantum pauper vt remis [...]ionis p [...]ccatorum appate [...] quo [...]idianus in oratione me [...]dicus. Albeit we as brethren die for our brethren, yet no martyrs bloud is shed for the remission of the sinnes of the brethren, which Christ hath done for vs, and in that hath yeelded vs not any thing to imitate and follow, but what to reioyce [Page 753] of. For if any man will compare himselfe to the power of Christ, in thinking himselfe to heale the sin of another man, it is too much for him; he is not capable thereof. He is the rich man, saith he, who being not subiect to any debt either hereditarie or of his owne, is both iust himselfe, and iustifieth others, euen Iesus Christ. Do not aduaunce thy selfe against him, being so poore as that thou appearest in thy prayer daily a begger of the forgiuenesse of sinnes. There is no forgiuenesse of sinnes then by the bloud of Martyrs; there is no ablenesse in one man to heale the sinne of another, or to pay anothers debt: euery man is poore, euery man a begger, crauing from day to day the release and remission of owne debts. This was S. Pauls case; thus he praied daily as Christ had taught him, and why then doth Maister Bishop make him so rich, as that he should be able to make paiment of our debts, that he should purchase a release of the punishment of our sinnes, that he should take vpon himTho. Aquint. supplem. q. 12. art. 2. ad 1. Satisfactio est quaedā illatae iniuriae recōpensatio. Et q. 14. Ablatio offensae. art. 1. in corp. to make recompence for the wrongs that we haue done to God, and to take away our offence towards God, or Gods offence and displeasure towards vs, as their name of Satisfaction doth import? It was a farre other matter that the Apostle intended, in that he saith that he endured afflictions for the Churches sake. It was to confirme vnto the Church the truth of the Gospell of Christ; to cause the greater opinion of that doctrine which he preached, in that he yeelded himselfe for the testifying thereof, to hazard and bestow his temporall life; to encourage & comfort the faithful to continue constant in the faith of Christ, according to the example that they had seen in him; to embolden other men to preach the word, notwithstanding the opposition that was made against it. And thus doth the Apostle expresse the ends and vses of his afflictions,Phil. 1.7. the confirmation of the Gospell, Ver. 12. the furthering of the Gospel, Ver. 17. the defence of the Gospell, Ver. 20. the magnifying of Christ. 2. Cor. 1.6. If we be afflicted, saith he, it is for your cōsolation and saluation, which is wrought in the enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer. Not then as to purchase any thing towards their saluation by his afflictions, but as to hearten and comfort them to the patient bearing of afflictions, in the enduring whereof God had intended to bring their saluation to effect. Thus Thomas Aquinas, where his eies were open, cōceiued both of this text, & of that to the Colossians which is here in question, who writing vpon the words of the Apostle, Was Paule crucified for you? vseth these words: [Page 754] Tis. Aquin in 1. Cor. cap. 1 lect. 2. Hoc proprium est Christo, vt sua passio [...]e & morte nostram salutem operatus fuerit, &c. Sed contra hoc esse v. letur quod Apostolus dicit, Gaudeo in passionibus meis pro vobis, &c. Sed dicendum quod passio Christi fuit n [...]bis salutifera non solum per modum exempli sed etiā per modum meriti & efficaciae, inquā tū eius sanguine redempti & iustificati sumus, &c. Sed passio aliorum nobis est salutifera solùm per modū exempli, secundum. 2 Cor. 1. Sine tribulamur, &c. This is proper to Christ, that he by his passion and death hath wrought our saluation. But it seemeth to be against this which the Apostle saith: Col. 1. Now I reioyce in my sufferings for you, &c. But we are to say, that the passion of Christ was the cause of our saluation, not onely by way of example, but also by way of merit and effectuall working, in that by his bloud we are redeemed and iustified; but the sufferings of others is furthering to our saluation only by way of example, according to that 2. Cor. 1. If we be afflicted, it is for your comfort and saluation, &c. Againe in another place propounding by way of obiection, thatIdem p. 3. q. 48. art. 5. arg. 3. Non solū cassio Christi sed etiam aliorū sanctorum preficua fuit ad salutem nostram, vt Col. 1 Gaude [...] in passionibus meis pro vobis, &c. Dicendum quod passiones sanctorū proficiunt Ecclesiae, non quidē per modum redemption [...], sed per modum exempli & exhortationis; secundum illud 2. Cor. 1 Sine tribulamur. &c. not onely the passion of Christ, but also of other Saints was helpfull to our saluation, according to the saying of the Apostle. Col. 1. Now reioyce I in my sufferings for you, &c. and therefore that Christ onely cannot be called our Redeemer, but also other Saints; he answereth thus: We are to say that the passions of the Saints are helpful or profitable to the Church, not by way of redemption, but by way of example & comfort (or encouragement) according to that 2. Cor. 1. If we be afflicted, &c. So where the Apostle saith,2. T [...]m. 2.10. I suffer all things for the elects sake, that they may also obtaine the saluation which is in Christ Iesus, he asketh,In [...]. Tim. 2. lect 2 Sed nunquid sufficit Christi passio? Dicendu [...] quòd si [...] effecti [...]; sed passio Apostoli dupliciter expiediebat. Primo quia dabat ex [...]mplum perfistendi in fide Se [...]undo quia confirmabatur fides, & ex hoc ind [...]cebantur ad salutem. what, was not the passion of Christ sufficient? Yes, saith he, as touching the working of saluation; but the Apostles suffering was two waies expedient. First, because he gaue example thereby of continuing in the faith. Secondly, because thereby the faith was confirmed, and by that meanes they were induced and drawne on to saluation. Thus then we haue example, confirmation, comfort, encouragement in the sufferings of the Apostles and Saints, but we cannot finde any satisfaction for our sinnes. And that M. Bishop may know that we speake this from better authority then onely Thomas Aquinas, let S. Ambrose tell in what sence the Apostles suffered for the Church.Ambros [...]n Psal. 43. Petrus pro Ecclesia multa tolera [...]it. Multa etiā Paulus raeteri (que) Ap [...]stoli pertulerunt cùm caederentur v [...]rgis, cùm lapidarentur, cùm in carceres truderentur. Illa enim tolerantia amurtarū & vsu periculorum Do [...]ni fundatus est populus, & ecclesia incrementum est consec [...], cùm caeteri ad martyrium festinarent vilentes per illas passiones nihil Apost [...]lorum decessisse virtutibus sed etiā propter hanc bre [...]em vitam immortalitatem esse quaesitam. Peter, saith he, suffered many things for the Church. Many things also S. Paule and the rest of the Apostles suffered when they were scourged, when they were stoned, when they were imprisoned. For by that bearing of wrongs and experience of dangers, the Lords people was founded, and the Church receiued increase, for that other hastened to martyrdome, [Page 755] when they saw that by those sufferings there was no impeaching of the Apostles vertues, and moreouer that for this short life immortality was sought (or gotten) therby. In the like sort doth he expound the words of the Apostle which here we speake of:Idem in Colos. ca. 1. In tribulationibus quas patiebatur exultare se fatetur, quia profectum suum videt in fide credentium. Non est cuim [...]inants tri [...]atio quando cum pro quo patitur acquirit ad vitam. He professeth himselfe to reioyce in the troubles which he endured, because he seeth his successe in the faith of them that beleeue: for his trouble is not in vain when he gaineth him to life for whom he suffered. No other thing doth Cyprian gather out of those words:Cypria. de dupl. Mart. Quemadmodum ille mirabili testimonio clarifi. auit Patrem in ho. mundo, a [...]que etiam in coelisma testimon [...]um illius quodammodo cō summatur testimonio Sanctorū, quasisit vna passio Domini & seruorum. Id nequis exiflimet parùm religiose dictum beatus Paulus nobis patrocinatur, na scribens. &c. Quis enim nescit quam vberem prouentum effudit Ecclesiae seges Apostolorum & caeterorum Martyrum sanguine irrigata? Quò plus sanguinis effusum est, hoc magis ac magis esstoruit mu [...]titis do fidelium. hoc latiùs sparsit suas propag nes illa beata vitis à Christo stirpe surgens & necupans orbem vniuersum, &c. Euen as Christ, saith he by his admirable testimonie glorified the Father in this world and also in heauē, so his testimony is after a sort consummated or made perfect in the testimonie of the Saints, as if the passion of the Lord and of the seruants were all one. And that no man may thinke that irreligiously spoken, S. Paule warranteth the same to vs thus writing to the Colossians; I now ioy in my sufferings for you, and fulfill those things which are yet wanting or behind of the sufferings of Christ in my flesh for his bodies sake, which is the Church. For who knoweth not how plentifull increase the corne field of the Church hath yeelded, being watered with the bloud of the Apostles and other Martyrs? The more bloud was shed, so much more & more the multitude of the faithfull flourished; so much the wider that blessed vine spred her branches, arising from Christ her stocke, and possessing the whole world. Afterwards going forward to shew thatTestificatus est se esse pastorem bonum, quia animam suam posuit pro euibus, nobis exemplum praebens, vt qui pro nostra qualicunque portione vices illius gerimus, parati simus, & ipsi pro grege dominico sanguinem fundere, nisi malumus videri mercenarij quam pastores. Domini verbis congruunt verba discipul [...] Cùm enim dixisset se gaudere, &c. perpetiens & ipse pro corpore Christi, quod est Ecclesia, qualia pas [...]us erat Dominus causam adiecit cur ea libenter pateretur Cuius, inquit mi [...]ier factus sum, &c. vt impeam verbū Dei Sicut ergo mortibus Martyrum consummantur passiones Christi, ita sanguine pastoru [...] firmantur pr [...]m ssa Christ [...]. Nul [...]ū enim instrumentum in dubitabilius quam quod tot Martyrum sanguine signatum est. Hoc [...]mtrum si [...]mp [...]ere vertum Dei, hoc est, replere Euangelium. Christ testifying himselfe to be the good shepheard, because he gaue his life for the sheepe, hath therein giuen example to those that are the pastors in his stead to be ready to shed their bloud for the Lords stocke, vnlesse they wil be taken for hirelings rather then for pastors, he saith, that thereto the words of the Apostle accord, who saying, that for the bodie of Christ which is the Church, he suffered the like things as the Lord suffered, he addeth, The cause why he suffered those things willingly, whereof (saith he) I am made a minister according to the dispensation of God, which is giuen to me that I should fulfill the word of God. For as by the deaths of the Martyrs, the sufferings of Christ are perfected, so by the bloud of the Pastors the promises of Christ are confirmed. For there is no instrument more vndoubted then that which is sealed with the bloud of so [Page 756] many Martyrs. This is indeed to fulfill the word of God, this is to fulfill the Gospell. In the like sort doth S. Austin make construction of the words of S. Iohn: 1. Ioh 3.16. He laid downe his life for vs, therfore ought we also to lay downe our liues for the brethren: namely, August. in Ioan. tra. 47. Sic & nos debe [...]os ad aedificandam plebem, ad fidem asserendam aminas pro fratribus ponere. for the edifying of Gods people, for the auouching of the faith. Thus it was said, thatTertul. Apol. cap. 45. in fine. Semen est sanguis Christianorum. the bloud of Christians was like seed, thatAugust. in Psal. 58. Sanguine seminata seges Ecclesiae fertilius pullulauit. the field of the Church being sowed with bloud, did more fruitfully spring and grow, whilstIdem Epist. 50 Laudatur Dominus qui donare dignatus est, vt serui eius passionibus suis lucrarentur fratres suos. the Lord did grant that his seruants by their sefferings did win their brethren, but that the bloud of Christian Martyrs was any satisfaction for the rest of the Church of Christ, or any redemption of the punishments of their brethren, it was neuer heard of in those times. They knew nothing then of the Popes store-house of Supererogations and Satisfactions: they knew nothing of that marting, and chopping, and changing of merits which these presumptuous Romish hypocrites now maintain, in whom it is much more verified then it was in the Donatists, which S. Austin saith:Idem Epist. 51. Tantam sibi arrogant iustitiam vt cam iactent se non solúm habere, sed etiam alijs hominibus dare. They arrogate vnto themselues so great righteousnes, as that they brag not only that they haue it thēselues, but also giue it vnto others. But to conclude this point, let M. Bishop know, that both he and his fellowes are very impudent and shamelesse men, thus to wrest the words of the Apostle, to the defence of a doctrine which for aboue a thousand yeares was neuer heard of in the Church, and which haue out of the auncient Church according to the Scriptures a very manifest and cleare exposition another way.
5 W. BISHOP.
Now to M. Perkins second reason. In sundry places (saith he) of Scripture, we are said to be redeemed, iustified, and saued freely: but this word freely importeth, that we are saued without doing any thing our selues in that matter of saluation.
Answer. Not so good Sir, for euen in your owne doctrine, it is necessarie that ye beleeue, and bring foorth the fruites of repentance, and that now and then, ye make some short prayers, and receiue the Communion, and do many other odde things in that matter of saluation: wherefore the word freely doth not exclude all our working and suffering in that matter.
R. ABBOT.
Those odde things, as this odde companion termeth them, which we require as necessary in the matter of our saluation, are no other but either occasions and affections of seeking and desiring, or meanes of our apprehending and receiuing that saluation which is freely and onely by Iesus Christ. We do not pray to be saued for our prayers sake, nor beleeue to be saued for our faiths sake, nor receiue the Communion to be saued, or to haue our sinnes forgiuen by vertue of our receiuing, but we pray and beleeue to haue our sinnes forgiuen vs, and to be saued freely for Christes sake, and do receiue the Communion for the strengthening of our faith in this beleefe, Christ by the Sacrament offering himselfe vnto vs with the whole benefit of his passion, to be receiued and made ours by faith. As for repentance consisting in the true feeling and acknowledging of our sinnes, whereby we see our selues in our selues to be lost and cast away, it is the motiue and occasion of seeking this saluation in Christ, and freely for his sake, and the fruites of repentance which we require are but the way, as hath bene before shewed, to the full attainement and possession of saluation, which we receiue by him. And further, we acknowledge that our repentance, our faith, our prayer, and whatsoeuer else is in vs towards God, is wholly and altogether of the gift of God, purposing saluation vnto vs of his owne free mercie, and therefore of the same mercie bestowing vpon vs those things which he hath appointed as preparations thereunto: but to our selues, as of our selues, we can challenge no part nor parcell of any of these things. Therefore on our part nothing hindreth, but that we are said to be redeemed, iustified, and saued freely, that is,Rhem. Testam. explication of words in the end. for nothing, as Master Bishops Masters of Rhemes do giue the signification of the word gratis. But if Master Bishop himselfe had meant to deale here truly and honestly with his Reader, he should not haue dodged in this sort, by talking of vs without answering for himselfe, but should haue made it appeare, how that which he affirmeth can stand with that which the Scripture teacheth. If we be not saued but by interposing our merits for the purchase thereof, how is it said, that we are saued freely, that is, for nothing? how can our sins be freely forgiuen, that [Page 758] is, for nothing, when they are not forgiuen but vpon condition of satisfaction? Satisfaction is the payment of a price, as we haue seen before out of Thomas Aquinas. Now to do a thing freely and to do it for price and paiment cannot possibly stand together. Therefore M. Perkins argueth rightly: If we satisfie in our own persons, then are we not saued freely, and if we be saued freely, then we make no satisfaction at all. M. Bishops leisure serued him not to answer this point. We know he wanted no good wil, but in hast he was, & must needs be gone, because indeed he knew well, that he could say nothing, but that euery child would see his doubling and shifting, and descry him to be a very vaine and wilfull man.
6. W. BISHOP.
M. Perkins third reason. We pray daily, Forgiue vs our sins: now to plead pardon, and to satisfie for our sins, are cleane contrarie.
Answer. If our sins be mortall, we craue pardon both of the sin, and the eternall punishment annexed, and do willingly withall satisfie for the temporall paine: as the man who is conuicted of high treason, and hauing both his life, honor, lands and goods, pardoned and restored vnto him, doth very ioyfully indure-three moneths imprisonment, and any reasonable fine set on his head. If our sinnes be veniall, then that prayer is a speciall meane, both to obtaine pardon of the fault, and release of all the paine, In Enchir c. 71 as witnesseth S. Augustine, saying: That for the daily, short, and light offences, without which this life is not led, the daily prayer of the faithfull doth satisfie. And that is not true which M. Perkins adds, that we are taught in that prayer, wholy and only to vse the plea of Pardon. For in the same petition, we are taught also to pardon others, euen as we will looke to be pardoned. Againe, if there were only a plea of pardon, it wold not serue M. Perkins purpose. For who would say, that within the compasse of the Pater noster, all things necessary to saluation be contained: besides, prayer is one part of satisfaction, as shall be proued hereafter: and so by oft praying for pardon, we may well satisfie for much temporall punishment.
R. ABBOT.
I pray thee, gentle Reader, that with M. Perkins argument [Page 759] here propounded and M. Bishops answer to it, thou wilt compare that which M. Bishop himselfe before hath said:Of originall sinne. Sect. 1. Doth not a Pardon (saith he) take away from the fault pardoned, all bond of punishment due vnto it, and consequently all guiltinesse belonging to it? Who can deny this, vnlesse he know not or cure not what he say? Hereby then vnderstand, that M. Bishop here either knoweth not, or careth not what he saith: for that as a man hauing forgotten himselfe he wold make vs beleeue, that the pardoning of a fault doth not take away all bond of punishment due vnto it. That which he said before is sensible and cleare to euery mans sight, but that which he saith here is senslesse and absurd, euen in that very instance whereby he seeketh to make it good. The man who for high treason is but adiudged to short imprisonment and fine, is neuer said to be pardoned. The prince dealeth graciously with him in not calling him further into question, but to giue him a pardon should be to cut off both imprisonment and fine. And who was there euer in the world before the time of these ranck witted Sophisters, that made that construction that M. Bishop doth of our prayer which we make to God, Forgiue vs our trespasses; as that our meaning therein should be to say to him, Forgiue vs the sinne, and the eternall punishment, but as touching the temporall punishment, we are willing and readie to make thee satisfaction for it. When we lye groning vnder the burden of temporall calamities and afflictions, do we not say vnto God, Forgiue vs our trespasses, and begge of him remission of sinnes, to the intent that by forgiuenesse of sinnes we may be eased of the same burden? The voice of Christ to the sicke of the palsie:Mat. 9.2. Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee, doth it not giue him present release from the bond thereof? Dauid saith,Psal. 32.3. Whilest I held my tongue (from acknowledging and confessing my sinnes) my bones were consumed in my mourning all day; for thy hand was heauie vpon me day and night, and my moisture was turned into the drouth of Summer, I acknowledged my sinne vnto thee, and did not hide mine iniquitie. I thought, I will confesse against my selfe my wickednesse vnto the Lord, and thou forgauest the punishment of my sinne. By which wordes he giueth vs to vnderstand, that the forgiuenesse of his sinnes vpon his repentance and confession thereof, was the taking away of the grieuous malady wherwith he was so sore afflicted, and vpon experience hereof vttereth those words in the beginning of [Page 760] the Psalme,Ver. 1. Blessed is the man whose vnrighteousnesse is forgiuen, and whose sinne is couered: Blessed is he to whom the Lord imputeth no sinne, as to note that one part of that blessing is to be released from the temporall punishments that are due to sinne. Yea and to that purpose he addeth also after:Ver. 6. Aug. Pro hac. Pro qua hac? pro ipsa venia peccatorū. For this, that is, saith S. Austin, for forgiuenesse of sinnes, shall euery one that is godly make his prayer vnto thee in a time when thou maist be found, surely in the ouerflowing of many waters they shall not come neere him. Where by many waters he vnderstandeth the manifold crosses and afflictions of this life, wherwith we are tossed to and fro by reason of our sinnes, and signifieth that the godly man by obtaining forgiuenesse of sinnes, obtaineth deliuerance and freedome from the punishment thereof. Forgiuenesse of sinnes then is not vnderstood with reseruation of temporal satisfaction, neither doth any thing remaine in the nature of punishment to him that by repentance and faith becometh partaker of that mercie. As for his distinction of mortall and veniall sinnes applyed to the petition of forgiuenesse of sinnes, we know no such, neither is any such to be approued, asOf Iustification. Sect. 41. before hath bene shewed. By Gods hearkening to our prayer all sinnes become veniall; if God heare not our prayer for forgiuenesse of sinnes, all sinnes continue mortall. Our Sauiour Christ knew no such difference as M. Bishop maketh, that God when he heareth vs crying vnto him, Forgiue vs our trespasses, doth forgiue vs some sinnes wholy, and othersome but in part, or that our prayer should be a speciall meane in some sinnes, to obtaine pardon of the fault, and release of punishment, and in othersome not so. No, neither did S. Austine euer dreame, that God did forgiue sinnes with a reseruation of the punishment thereof: he knew well that forgiuenesse altereth the case and nature of afflictions, as hath bene before shewed. Master Bishop citeth him saying, thatAug. Enchir. cap. 71. De quotidianis, breuibus, leuibus (que) peccatis sine quibus haec vita non ducitur, quotidiana oratio fidelium satisfacit, &c. Delet omnino haec oratio minima & quotidiana peccata. Delet & illa à quibus vita fidelium sceleratè etiam gesta sed poeniten [...]in melius mutata discedit, si quemadmodum veraciter dicitur, Dimitte nobis, &c. ita veracitèr dicatur, sicut & nos, &c. id est, si siat quod dicitur. For the daily, short, and light offences, without which this life is not led, the daily prayer of the faithfull satisfieth. But as he saith so of these daily and light offences, so he saith of other also in the next words: It blotteth out also those from which the life of the faithfull wickedly led, but by repentance changed to better is departed, if as it is truly said, Forgiue vs our trespasses, so it be truly said, As we forgiue them that trespasse against vs, that is, if it be done which is said. So then as it satisfieth for the one, so it satisfieth for the other also: as for the lesser, so for the greater, and for both [Page 761] obtaineth pardon at Gods hands. But Master Bishop here doth meerely abuse his Reader by an equiuocation of the name of satisfaction. For Satisfaction with Saint Austine, as with all the auncient Ecclesiasticall Writers, importeth the meanes whereby we are to intreate and obtaine of God pardon and forgiuenesse of our sinnes: but with Master Bishop and his fellowes it importeth a punishment still remaining for sinnes past, and already pardoned, to be endured either in this life, or after death in Purgatorie, as he hath before expressed in the beginning of this Chapter. Saint Austines meaning then is, that the daily prayer of the faithfull sufficeth to obtaine pardon at Gods hands for our daily and common trespasses, yea and for greater offences also when by repentance and amendement of life we forsake them: but no meaning hath he either that the saying of the Lords prayer, should be a recompence to God for our trespasse, or that our trespasse being pardoned, there should still remaine a satisfaction to be performed for it. Now here Master Bishop further denyeth, that in the Lords prayer we vse onely plea of pardon: for (saith he) we are taught also to pardon others euen as we will looke to be pardoned. And what then? what, because we are taught freely to pardon others, shall we hereupon conceiue, that God is hired by our pardoning others to giue pardon vnto vs? Our Sauior Christ noteth therby the affection of them to whom it belongeth to vse the plea of pardon: he saith not any thing to be construed to the impeachment and derogation of the freenesse of the pardon. Meekenesse and readinesse to forgiue, isGal. 5.22.23. a fruite of the spirit Rom. 8.15. of adoption, by which we cry Abba Father, in the voyce of which spirit onely it is, that God hearkeneth vnto vs.Aug. Enchir. cap. 71. Eorū est dicere, Pater noster, &c. qui iam tali patri regene rati sunt exaqua & Spiritu sancto. It is for them to say, Our Father which art in heauen, saith Saint Austine, who now are regenerate and borne againe to such a Father of water and of the holy Ghost. If we speake not by this spirit, our voice is as the voice of strangers, and God giueth no regard vnto it. Therefore our forgiuenesse of others is not alledged as the cause for which God is moued to forgiue vs, but we present it to him as the mark of his spirit, which he hath set vpon vs, & as the token that we are his childrē, to whō he hath assigned it for a portiō to be made partakers of the forgiuenes of sins, & to whō Christ hath ministred cōfort & boldnes so to pray. His 2. exception is very vaine also: for although the Lords prayer contain not all things necessary to saluatiō, yet the Lords [Page 762] prayer is the direction of all prayers necessary to saluation. Therefore Tertullian calleth it as he in his manner speaketh,Tertul. de fuga in persecut & li. de Orat. legitimam orationem, the prayer that serueth vs for a law of praying; and Austin also saith:August. Epi. 121. cap. 12. Si per omnia precationum sanctarū verba discurras, quanium existimo nihil inuenies quod non ista dominica contineat & concludat oratio. If thou go ouer all the words of holy prayers, thou shalt find nothing (as I thinke) which this Lords prayer containeth not. Yea Tertullian doubted not further to affirme, thatTertul. de Ora. Breuiarium totius Euangelij. it is the briefe summe of the whole Gospell. Now therefore if in the Lords prayer we aske forgiuenesse of sinnes onely by plea of pardon, then it cannot be that we should be taught elsewhere to aske forgiuenesse vpon tender of satisfaction, which wholly ouerthroweth the name and nature of forgiuenesse. And surely M. Bishops vnderstanding might affoord him to conceiue, that although the Lords prayer containe not all things necessarie to saluation, yet that that is there contained, receiueth no checke from any thing spoken otherwhere. As for his last exception it is most absurd, that the prayer by which we intreate God not to vrge vs to satisfaction, should it selfe be accounted a satisfaction, as if we said vnto God, Forgiue vs our trespasse, O Lord, and yet we do not wish thee to forgiue vs altogether freely, and for nothing; for euen by our praying we make thee amends for our trespasse. Satisfaction is defined with them to beThom. Aquin. Suppl q. 15. art. 15. in corp. Opus satisfactorium oportet quòd sit poenale. a punishment, and because prayer as M. Bishop telleth vs, is one part of satisfaction, we must vnderstand that with them it is a punishment to pray, and M. Bishop hauing receiued the penitents confession, and inioyning him a number of Pater nosters, doth enioyne him so many punishments, and maketh him in effect to say vnto God againe, O Lord forgiue me my sinnes, and that I may deserue that fauour at thy hands, I here make thee satisfaction and recompence, by enduring this punishment of praying to thee. Nay, it is scant so well: I pray thee, gentle Reader, to marke well the contriuing of this matter. The penitent commeth to M. Bishop, who vpon his confession giueth him absolution of all his sins, enioyning him for satisfaction and penance thus and thus to pray. So then he saith, O Lord, my sins be forgiuen me already, but yet for a punishment, and by way of satisfaction I say vnto thee, Forgiue vs our trespasses. These are the mysteries of the fornications of the whore of Babylon, things reasonlesse, witlesse, senslesse, meere witcheries and enchantments of mens minds, and the vntimely fruites of a barren strumpet, such as the very common instinct of Christianitie [Page 763] should teach all men to detest; to discouer them, is sufficient to confute them. But of this M. Bishop telleth vs we shall heare more hereafter.
7. W. BISHOP.
M. Perkins fourth Argument is taken out of certaine odde fragments of auncient writers.
Guiltinesse being taken away, the punishment is also taken away.Tertul. de Bapt. True: he that is guilty of nothing, cannot iustly be punished: for guiltinesse is a binding vp to punishment (as M. Perkins defineth, Pag. 28.) then if the band to punishment be cancelled, the party is freed: but all this is nothing to the purpose for guiltinesse of temporal punishment doth remaine after the sin and guilt of eternall be released.
Augustine saith, Christ by taking vpon him the punishment,De verb. Apost. ser. 37. and not the fault, hath done away both fault and punishment. Iust: the eternall punishment which was due to that fault, not the temporall: as S. Augustine himselfe declareth: In Enchir. cap. 70. God of compassion doth blot out our sinnes committed, if conuenient satisfaction be not on our parts neglected.
To that other sentence out of him: When we are gone out of this world, there will remaine no compunction or satisfaction, it is easie to answer without the help of any new edition: for it will be too late then to repent, and so there is no place left to compunction, that is, contrition of heart: neither consequently to confession or satisfaction: as if he had said, before we go out of this world there is place for both compunction and satisfaction: and so that place is rather for vs.
Now to Chrysostome, who saith, Tom. 10. hom. 5. Prem. in Esa. That God so blotteth out our sins, that there remaines no print of them: which thing befals not the bodie: for when it is healed, there remaineth a scarre; but when God exempteth from punishment, he giues thee iustice. All this is most true, and much against M. Perkins doctrine of the infection of originall sin, but nothing touching satisfaction: for we hold, that the soule of a sinner when he commeth to be iustified, is washed whiter then snow: so that there is no staine or print left in it of the filth of sin. It is also freed from all eternall punishment, but not from some temporall. Now gentle Reader, prepare thy selfe to behold a proper peece of cosinage. Ambrose saith, I reade of Peters teares, but I reade not of his satisfaction.Luk. 22. The colour [Page 764] of the craft lieth in the ambiguitie of this word satisfaction, which is not alwayes taken for the penance done to satisfie for the former fault, but is sometime vsed for the defence and excuse of the fact. So speaketh S. Paul,Act. 24 10. Bono animo pro me satisfaciam, with good courage I will answer in defence of my selfe, 1. Pet. 3. or giue you satisfaction: in like maner Ready alwayes to satisfie euery one that asketh you reason of that hope which is in you. In this sence doth S. Ambrose vse the word, as is most plainly to be scene to them that reade the place, and confer it with the verie like of his, Lib. 10 in Luc. I find not (saith he) what Peter said, but I find that he wept: I reade his teares but I reade not his satisfaction: but that which cannot be defended, may be washed away. So that nothing is more manifest, then that satisfaction in this and the like places is taken for defence and excuse of his fault, which Peter vsed not, but sought by teares and bitter weeping to satisfie in part for it: for this bewailing of our sinnes is one speciall kind of satisfaction, as S. Ambrose testifieth, saying, Lib. 2. de poenit. cap. 5. That he who doth penance, must with teares wash away his sinnes. The other place cited out of S. Ambrose, De bono mortis, let vs adore Christ, that he may say vnto vs, feare not thy sinnes, nor the wa [...]es of worldly sufferings, I haue remission of sinnes, is rather for vs then against vs: for if by adoring and seruing of God we may be put out of feare of our sins and the punishment of them, then doth it follow, that prayers and such like seruice of Christ, doth acquit vs of sinne, and satisfie for the paine due to them.
In Psal 31.Hierome saith, The sinne that is couered, is not seene; not being seene, it is not imputed; not being imputed, it is not punished.
Answer. To wit, with hell fire: which is the due punishment of such mortall sin whereof he speaketh: or sin may be said to be couered, when not onely the fault is pardoned, but all punishment also due vnto it is fully payd.
Lib. 2. de punit. cap. 5. So doth S. Ambrose take that word couered, saying, The Prophet calleth both them blessed, as well him whose iniquities is forgiuen in Baptisme, as him whose sinnes are couered with good workes: For he that doth penance, must not onely wash away his sins with teares, but also with better workes couer his former sins, that they be not imputed vnto him.
Now we must backe againe vnto Chrysostome, belike he had forgotten this when he cited the other, Hom. 44. sup. Math. or else this was reserued to strike it dead. He saith, Some men endure punishment in this life and in [Page 765] the life to come: others in this life alone: others alone in the life to come: other neither in this nor in the life to come: there alone as Diues, here alone as the incestuous Corinthian: neither here nor there, as the Apostles and Prophets, as also Iob and the rest of this kind, for they endured no sufferings for punishment, but that they might be knowne to be conquerers of the fight.
Answer. Such excellent holy personages sufferings as are mentioned in the Scriptures, were not for their sins; for they committed but ordinarie light offences, for which their ordinarie deuotions satisfied abundantly. The great persecutions which they endured, were first to manifest the vertue and power of God, that made such fraile creatures so inuincible: then to daunt the aduersaries of his truth, and withall to animate and encourage his followers. Finally, that they like conquerers, triumphing ouer all the torments of this life, might enter into possession of a greater reward in the kingdome of heauen. All this is good doctrine, but nothing against satisfaction, that their surpassing sufferings were not for their owne sinnes. And thus much in answer vnto M. Perkins arguments against satisfaction.
R. ABBOT.
Against his answer to the words of Tertullian, I must vrge his owne words in the section before alledged, Doth not a pardon take away from the fault pardoned all bond of punishment due vnto it, and consequently all guiltinesse belonging to it? Who can denie this, vnlesse he know not or care not what he say? Now then put these together. Tertullian saith,Tertul. de haptismo. Exempto reatu eximitur & poena. The guilt being taken away, the punishment is also taken away. But the pardoning of a sinne, saith M. Bishop, taketh away all guiltinesse belonging to it. Therefore consequently it taketh away all the punishment: for where there is no guilt, no punishment can be. Yes saith M. Bishop, guiltinesse of temporall punishment doth remaine after the sinne and guilt of eternall be released. But then a pardon doth not take away all the guiltinesse of sinne, as before he saith it doth. Oportet mendacem esse memorem: A lyer must beare a braine. Againe, we would know some ground whereupon we may be assured that sinne hath two kinds of guilt; for we conceiue but one onely guilt whereby [Page 766] the sinner is guiltie of all, both temporall and eternal punishments. Otherwise we may with as good warrant affirme guilt of infinite sorts; one whereby a man is guilty of burning, another whereby he is guilty of drowning, another for the gowt, another for the palsie, and for euery seueral punishment a seueral guilt; and that there may be a remitting of one of these guilts, and yet a retaining of the other. If M. Bishop take this to be absurd, he must giue vs leaue to take him for an absurd man in thus seuering the guilt of temporall and eternal punishments. Yea and this assertion of his is the denying of that that in the ground of this question is supposed and confessed. For if the sinne be past and pardoned, as he saith at first, how remaineth there any guilt: for what is the pardoning of a sinne but the remitting of the guilt? The guilt is a bond, whereby we stand bound to punishment; the forgiuing of the sinne, what is it but the releasing or loosing of this bond? If the bond be released, why doth he affirme that we are bound still? or if we be still bound, why doth he affirme the loosing of the bond? If he will say that the bond is partly released, and partly standeth still, then let him say, the sinne in part is pardoned, but not wholly, and then let him shew vs what warrant he hath, that God in that sort forgiueth sins by patches and peeces, which because he cannot do, let him giue vs leaue to take him for that that he sheweth himselfe to be.
The words of Austine are meerly deluded with the same shift.Aug. de verb. Dom. ser. 37 Suscipiendo poenam & non suscipiendo culpam et culpam deleuit & poenam. Christ (saith he) by taking vpon him the punishment, and not taking vpon him the fault, hath done away both the fault and the punishment. Iust, saith M. Bishop, the eternall punishment, not the temporall. But how doth he warrant this limitation in the one part of the sentence which cannot be iustified in the other? Where it is said that Christ hath taken vpon him the punishment, it is vnderstood of our punishment both temporall and eternall, though that which should haue bene eternall to vs, by the infinite power of his Godhead was ouercome and made temporall to him. Was it S. Austins meaning then to say, that Christ hauing taken vpon him our whole punishment, hath deliuered vs onely from a part, and left the rest to be satisfied by our selues? Surely what Christ tooke vpon him for vs, from the same he deliuered vs. He tooke vpon him our temporall punishments: therefore hee hath taken away our temporall punishments, so that they remaine not in the nature of punishments [Page 767] but of medicines, to them that haue obtained forgiuenesse of sinnes by faith in him. That the mediation of Christ extendeth to the remitting of temporall punishments, I haue shewedSect. 2. & 3. before, and therfore need not stand here any longer to confute this improbable and vnlikely glose. As for the place of Austine which he alledgeth for colouring hereof, it hath his answer in the former section, being the next words to those that are cited there.August. Enchirid. cap. 70. Nemini dedit laxamentū peocandi, quamuis miserando deleat tā facta peccata, si non satisfactio congrua negligatur. God hath giuen to no man a freedome to sinne, albeit the sinnes that are already committed he in mercie blotteth out, if conuenient satisfaction be not neglected. Here is satisfaction first, and thereupon the blotting out of sinne, but M. Bishop telleth vs of the blotting out of sinne first, and of a satisfaction required after. Why doth he wilfully abuse his Reader, to make shew of prouing that to which he alledgeth nothing? The thing that he should proue is, that God remitting the sinne and the eternall punishment, doth reserue the making of a temporall satisfaction, and he bringeth in Austine requiring conuenient satisfaction for the remitting of the sinne. His argument then if we will frame it, must be this; We must vse conuenient satisfaction vnto God for the obtaining of the forgiuenesse of our sinnes. Therefore after that our sinnes be forgiuen vs, we are still to make a temporall satisfaction vnto God; which if it be not a good one, we may take him to be starke naught. Of the name of satisfaction I shall speake further in the last section; here it is enough briefly to obserue, that the conuenient satisfaction spoken of by Saint Austine, is no conuenient argument for Popish satisfaction. The other place cited from him, is a flat deniall of satisfaction after this life.Homil. 5. Cùm de hoc seculo transierimus, nulla compūctio vel satisfactio remanebit. Some reade, vel aliqua satisfactio, which must be resolued thus, Non vlla compunctio vel satisfactio aliqua remanebit, or else the diuisiō leaueth place to compunctiō & repētance after this life, which opiniō Austine there inueyeth against, and M. Bishop himselfe here disclaimeth. When we are gone out of this world, there will not remaine any compunction or satisfaction. M. Bishop saith, that there remaineth satisfaction though there remaine no compunction; but S. Austine saith, there remaineth neither compunction nor satisfaction. But although M. Bishops whole drift tend to that that I haue sayd, yet I wish thee gentle Reader, to obserue here how pretily he circumuenteth himselfe. After this life (saith he) there is no place left to compunction, that is, contrition of heart, neither consequently to confession or satisfaction. If because there is no place for compunction in this life, therfore there be no satisfaction after this life, why doth he tell vs in the beginning that after this life there is satisfaction to be made in purgatory if we die before we haue fully satisfied here? [Page 768] why do they make men beleeue, that for the dead satisfaction may be made by them that are aliue? There is satisfaction, he saith, after this life, and he saith there is no satisfaction after this life, and thus indeed knoweth not what to say. But yet he telleth vs, that S. Austin thereby acknowledgeth that before we go out of this world, there is place both for compunction and satisfaction, and so that place (saith he) is rather for vs. Wel, but what he gaineth in the scabberd, he loseth double in the dagger. If Purgatory sink into hell, they are in a wofull case. It is Purgatory satisfaction specially that they haue their liuing by. Now against Purgatory satisfaction he giueth vs this argument: where there is no place for compunction, there is no place for satisfaction. But in Purgatory there is no place for compunctiō. Therfore there is no place now left for Purgatory satisfaction. As for satisfaction in this life, in such sort as S. Austin speaketh of it, we denie it not. Satisfaction is nothing else with him but true repentance, as shall be shewed hereafter; and we preach repentance, not according to the illusions of Popery, but according to the truth of the word of God.
The next words are cited out of Chrysostome, for which is noted Prooem. in Esaiam. Others citing the same work, do set downe what they cite, as ex Hypomnemate in Esaiam. But the words are by my copy in his third homily de Poenitentia, and they do indeed irrefragably ouerthrow M. Bishops satisfactions.Chrysost. de poenit. hom 3. Ne (que) mihi dixeru, permultum peccau [...], quomodo salu [...]ri possum? Tu nequ [...] sed Dominus tuus potest, atque ita potest, vt tua deleat peccata. Sicenim delet peccata Deus, vt neque eorum vestigium maneat. In corporibus qu [...]dem id non est ita, sed quanquā millies conetur medicus creatrix remanet Deus autem sic delet vt ne (que) cicatrix neque cicatricis supersit indi iū, non vestegium quodquā, sed post poenae liberationē & iustitiam inserit, & peccantē coaequalem facit non peccanti. Extinguit enim peccatum atque id non esse facit nec fuisse. Say not vnto me, I haue sinned: how shall I be freed from so many sinnes? Thou canst not, but thy God can: yea and he will so blot out thy sinnes, that there shall remaine no print of them. Which thing befals not the body, for when it is healed, there remaines a scarre, but God so blotteth out sinnes, as that there remaineth no scarre nor token of scarre, no print or signe at all, but after deliuerance from punishment he giueth thee iustice, and maketh the sinner equall to him that hath not sinned: for he extinguisheth sinne, and maketh it not to be, yea as if it had neuer bene. Which words are apparently spoken of actuall sinnes▪ Aug. de nupt. & concup. lib. 1. cap 26. Eorum peccatorum quae manere non possunt, quoniam cum fiunt praetereunt, reatus tamen manet, &c. Reus est donec reatus ipsius indulgentia remittatur. The act whereof is past, as S. Austine saith, with the time wherein they are done, but the guilt remaineth, till by pardon it be remitted. Now God so remitteth it, saith Chrysostom, as that no print thereof remaineth. If no print thereof remaine, if it be as if it had neuer bene, how doth M. Bishop then tell vs, that after forgiuenesse there remaineth still a guilt of temporall punishment? This is the point; why did he not answer to it? why doth he turne [Page 769] his speech from actual sinnes whereof the place is meant, to originall sinne whereof it cannot be meant? because though he tell vs that originall sinne remaineth not, yet he cannot denie but that some scar or signe thereof remaineth in the concupiscence of the flesh. But Chrysostome denieth the remaining of any scar or signe, which can no otherwise be true but only in actuall sinnes, wherof nothing but the guilt remaineth, and which by remission is perfectly done away. But that originall sinne, though the guilt be remitted, yet as touching the corruption continueth still, hath bene sufficiently shewed before in the handling of that question.
As touching the place of Ambrose, I will not gainsay that which M. Bishop answereth. Ambrose saith as M. Perkins alledgeth,Ambr. in Luc. lib 10. cap. 22. Lachrymas eius lego, satisfactionem non lego. I reade of Peters teares, but his satisfaction I reade not: but satisfaction is not there taken in that meaning whereof we speake. He meaneth indeed that he vsed no apologie, no excuse or answer for himselfe, but yeelded himselfe with teares to the acknowledgement of that that he had done amisse. The word of satisfactiō is here very vnproperly vsed, and therefore may very easily be mistaken, without any purpose of cosinage or fraud. I might as well obiect cosinage here to M. Bishop, who taking vpon him to make good his answer by another place of Ambrose, alledgeth for another place the very same which M. Perkins cited. But Ambrose hath the words indeed in another place in one of hisSer. 46. Lachrymas eius lego, satisfactionem non lego; Rectè planè Petrus fleuit & tacuit quia quod defleri solet, non solet excusari. sermons, and therefore we will not charge M. Bishop here with cosinage, there being otherwise euery while occasions enough to discouer him to be a cosiner. As for that which he saith, that Peter sought by teares and bitter weeping to satisfie in part for his fault, we take him to deale very absurdly in that he should go about to make the Apostle so absurd, as to thinke the shedding of a few teares to be any part of the redemption of so great a sinne. The Apostles teares were no part of Popish satisfaction, but the tokens of true repentance, lamenting the wound, but seeking the cure onely in the satisfaction of the crosse of Christ. As for that which he alledgeth from Ambrose, thatDe poenit. lib. 2 cap. 5. Qui poenitentiam agit, non solum diluere lachrymis debet peccatum suum, sed etiam, &c. he that repenteth must with his teares wash away his sin: he needed not for that phrase to haue gone so far, he might haue found it in the placesIn Luc. lib. 10. cap. 22. Lauant lachrymae delict [...] quod voce pudor est confiteri: & idem habet ser. 46. before alledged. But he spake therein as we many times do, not as thinking the teares of the bodie to be the washing away of the sinnes of the soule, but as to note that the weeping and teares of faith [Page 770] do obtaine of God the washing away of our sinnes in the bloud of Iesus Christ. In the other place S. Ambrose saith thus:Debono mortis. cap. 12. Nos eum in temporū fine quaeramus, et complectamur pedes eius, & adoremus eum, vt d [...]cat & nobis, Nolite timere, id est, nolite timere à peccatis seculi, nolite timere ab iniquitatibus mundi, nolite timere à fluctibus corporalium passionū; ego sum peccatorum remissio. Let vs seeke Christ in our times, let vs embrace his feete, and worship him, that he may say vnto vs, Feare not: that is, feare not for the sins and iniquities of the world; feare not for the waues of bodily sufferings, I am the forgiuenesse of sinnes. So long as there is necessitie of punishment, especially such aBellar. de poenit. lib. 4. cap. 1. Poena illa quae luenda restat post culpae remissionē est illa ipsa poena sensus quā in gelienna pati debuisset peccator, remota solùm a [...]ernitate. hellish punishment as they say is in purgatorie, so long there is iust cause of feare. But S. Ambrose telleth vs here, that Christ by forgiuenesse of sinnes taketh away all occasion of feare; that in our sinnes and iniquities he leaueth vs nothing to be afraid of. It followeth therefore, that after forgiuenesse of sinnes there is no further punishment, no further satisfaction to be made. Here M. Bishop againe putteth off his Reader with a dodge: If (saith he) by adoring and seruing of God we may be put out of feare of our sinnes and the punishment of them, then doth it follow that prayers and such like seruice of Christ doth acquit vs of sinne, and satisfie for the paine due to them. Which is as leaden an answer as if a man should say, If by intreating & praying the Physicion I obtaine of him a medicine whereby I am cured, then my intreating and praying is the very medicine it selfe by which I am cured. For what do we seeke Christ, worship him, embrace him, desire him, pray vnto him, but to be releeued, succoured, comforted and saued by him, that in him we may haue satisfaction and remission of our sinnes? What madnesse is it then to make our seeking, our worshipping, our praying, to be themselues the satisfaction that we professe to seeke in him? But such madnesse do they runne into, who will not submit their right mindes to the obedience of the faith of Christ. In the next place followeth Hierome. Hieron. in psal. 31. Quod regitur nō videtur: quod non videtur, non imput [...]tur: quod non imputatur nec punietur. That which is couered, is not seene; that which is not seene, is not imputed; that which is not imputed, is not punished. He speaketh it for exposition of the words of Dauid, Psal. 32.1. Blessed is the man whose vnrighteousnesse is forgiuen, and whose sinne is couered; blessed is he to whom the Lord imputeth no sinne. Now if the forgiuing of sinne be not the imputing of sinne, then where sinne is forgiuen, there is no punishment, because there is no imputation of that to which the punishment is due. That which is not imputed, is not punished. To wit, saith M. Bishop, with hell fire. But that answer will not serue his turne: for if it be any way punished, it cannot be said not to be imputed: for whence ariseth the punishment [Page 771] but from the imputation of the sinne? Now of not imputing, S. Austine telleth vs, thatAugust. in Psal. 118. Siquid à deuiante committitur, propter viam non imputatur, & tanquam non fuerit operatus accipitur. when sinne is not imputed, a man is taken as if he had neuer done it. So saith S. Bernard, thatBernar in Can. ser. 23 Omne quod mihi ipse non imputare [...] decreuer [...]t, sic est quasi non fuerit. whatsoeuer God hath determined not to impute, it is as if it had neuer bene. If it be as if it had neuer bene, if a man be taken as if he had neuer done it, how then doth M. Bishop tell vs, that there is still a satisfaction and punishment to be endured for it? But therefore he bringeth vs another answer, such as for which be deserueth to be admited for a wise and well learned man. Sinne may be said to be couered when not onely the fault is pardoned, but also all punishment due vnto it is fully payed. So then whereas in briefe Hierome saith, The sinne that is, couered, is not punished: his meaning must be, that it is not couered till it be fully punished: nay he is made directly to contradict himselfe, and to say, The sinne that is punished, is not punished. Would not a man thinke him to be out of his right wits that maketh such wrong constructions of plaine words? As for the words of Ambrose which he bringeth in, what is there in them concerning punishment after the pardon of the fault? He speaketh of couering former sinnes with better workes, but of couering them with punishment he saith nothing. And as for that which he saith, though at large it may be construed well enough, yet according to the exact truth of Scripture it is vntrue, namely that sinnes are vnderstood there to be couered with good workes, as is plaine by that the Apostle witnesseth, that the Prophet in that place describethRom. 4.6. the blessednesse of the man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without workes. But the true couering of sinne is that which S. Bernard speaketh of, when in one place he saith thatBernar. in Can. ser. 23. Charitas patris ipsorum cooperit multitudinem peccatorum. the loue of the Father, and in another place thatJbid. serm. 61. Iustitia tua in me operit multitudinem peccatorum. the righteousnesse of Christ couereth the multitude of our sinnes. And of those words of Dauid, it shall be worth the while to heare what Saint Austine saith, and to consider how well M. Bishops answer accordeth therewith.August. in Psal. 31. Quia totum gratiae imputatur non meritis nostris, beati quorū, &c. Non in quibus non sunt inuenta peccata, sed quorum tecta sunt peccata. Cooperta sunt, tecta sunt, abolita sunt. Si texit peccata Deus, noluit aduertere; si noluit aduertere, noluit animaduertere; si noluit animaduertere, noluit punire: noluit agnoscere, maluit ignoscere. Because all is imputed to grace (saith he) and not to our merits, blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen and whose sinnes are couered. Not in whom no sinnes are found, but whose sinnes are couered. They are couered, they are hidden, they are abolished. If God haue couered sinnes, hee looketh not on them; if he looke not on them, he mindeth them not; if he mind them not, be will not punish them: he will take no knowledge of them, he chuseth rather to forgiue them. If forgiuenesse of sinnes be such, as that God thenceforth [Page 772] looketh not on them, mindeth them not, taketh no knowledge of them, punisheth them not, lets vs know that that which M. Bishop saith is an vntruth, that he still reserueth sharp and seuere punishment both in this life and in the life to come to be inflicted for them.
The force of the saying of Chrysostome which is the last, standeth in this, that he denieth that the Apostles, and Prophets, and holy men endured their sufferings for punishments, but that they might be knowne to be conquerers in the fight. The place sheweth that the afflictions of the righteous and faithfull haue not the nature of punishments, but lie vpon them for other respects, and therefore not being in the nature of punishments, they cannot be accounted for satisfactions. M. Bishop answereth, that they were no punishments for their owne sinnes. And why? for they (saith he) committed but ordinary light offences, for which their ordinary deuotions satisfied abundantly. A very dapper, but a very fond speech of a remoislesse man, whose heart yet hath neuer felt what the burden of sinne is. Good Lord, how lightly doth he trip ouer with ordinary light offences? Surely the redeeming of those light offences required the shedding of the bloud of the Sonne of God; and is it so lightly to be skipped ouer, for which the Sonne of God shed his most precious bloud? Tush, saith M. Bishop, their ordinary deuotions did abundantly satisfie for their sins. Belike they were proud hearted as he is: they would not be beholding to God, they would not die in his debt; what they owed him they would pay themselues for themselues, being rich enough, and well able to discharge all. But will he make those holy men as very fooles as himselfe, that they neither knew God or themselues, but would thinke their ordinary deuotions to be sufficient satisfaction for their sinnes? No, no, they knew wel that after all their deuotions they stood in need of Gods mercie, that they had still to crie, Forgiue vs our debts, Enter not into iudgement with vs: that all their merites were but drosse, and all their satisfactions were but dung if they were opposed against the iudgment of God, as to shield them from their sins. But M. Bishop yet addeth more: It is nothing against satisfactions, that their surpassing sufferings were not for their owne sins. And why? because we must vnderstand forsooth, that though they were not satisfactions for their owne sinnes, yet they were so for other mens, and in that respect are called surpassing, as namely exceeding [Page 773] the measure of their owne sins. This is that impious monster of Romish apostasie, whereby they haue put the Saints in Christs place, and taught men to seek for that redemption in them which they should seeke for and find in him alone. But we would gladly know of M. Bishop, where those surpassing sufferings of Iob and of the Prophets and other holy Saints of old were layd, before the storehouse was built at Rome? what vse were they put to? who was the dispenser and disposer of them? What, was there a Pope then also to send pardons flying about the world to fetch one soule out of Purgatory for the surpassing sufferings of another? Or shal we think that they lay idle all that while, that the whole haruest of thē towards the end of the world might be brought together into the Popes barnes? The high Priest of the Iewes was ouerseene, that he did not take vpon him to be Pope of Ierusalem, for of these surpassing sufferings he might haue raised much thrift. Wicked caitiues, that thus delude men with blasphemous tales and lies, who thus defile the innocent bloud of the Sonne of God, by mingling with it the leprous and corrupted bloud of sinfull men. They all thought wholly and onely to be redeemed by Christ, and must we thinke now in part to be redeemed by them? They knew themselues by their sinnes guiltie of eternall suffering, and must we now thinke their sufferings to be beyond their sinnes? But against this blasphemie, sufficient hath bene said before; albeit it is in it selfe so grosly impious and lothsome, as that the very mention of it is enough to make all Christian hearts to detest them that are the teachers of it.
8. W. BISHOP.
Now to the reasons which he produceth for it. And albeit he like an euill master of the camp, range our arguments out of order, placing that in the forefront of our side, which Caluin presseth out against vs, Lib. 3. instit. cap. 4. num. 29. yet wil I admit of it, rather then breake his order.
1.Leuit. 4.56. Moses according to Gods commandement prescribed seuerall sacrifices for the sins of seueral persons, and ordained that they should be of greater and lesser prices, according vnto the diuersitie of the sinnes. Whence we argue thus: These mens faults vpon their true repentance, ioyned with faith and hope in Christ to come were pardoned: Therefore their charges in buying of sacrifices to be offered for them, [Page 774] their paines and prayers in assisting, during the time of the sacrifice, being painful works done to appease Gods iustice, were works of satisfaction.
M. Perkins answereth many things, as men do commonly when they cannot well tell what to say directly to the purpose: First, that those sacrifices were types of Christs suffering on the crosse: what is this to the purpose? Secondly, that those sacrifices were satisfactions to the congregation: and what needed that, when they had offended God onely, and not the congregation, as in many offences it happeneth? Againe, if satisfaction must be giuen to the congregation, how much more reason is it that it be made to God? Reade those Chapters, and you shall find that they were principally made to obtaine remission of God, as these words also do witnesse: Leuit. 4. ver. 20. And vpon that sacrifice, the sinne shall be forgiuen them. So that sacrifices were to satisfie God, who thereupon forgaue the sinne, and all paine due to it.
R. ABBOT.
M. Bishop belike had no great conceit of this argument of theirs, and therefore was angry that M. Perkins should disgrace them by putting it in the first place. Ilfauouredly it is propounded, and ilfauouredly maintained, but yet such learning it is, as he with great paines hath brought from Rome. The foundation that he layeth is a lie, and the building that he setteth vpon it, a ridiculous consequence. He telleth vs, that Moses prescribing by the commaundement of God seuerall sacrifices for seuerall persons, did ordaine that they should be of greater and lesser prices, according the diuersitie of the sinnes. But where is that ordinance? why doth he not exemplifie that which he saith? where do we find in Moses law, that for such or such a sinne, greater or lesse, shall be offered a sacrifice of such or such greater or lesser price? Surely he is little acquainted himselfe in Moses law, and some Register or other gaue him a gudgeon at Rome, and made him beleeue that the Popes Taxa poenitentiaria, whereby euery sinne is rated at a certaine price, was framed according to the same law of Moses, and according to the prices of the sacrifices prescribed therein. We reade there indeed of diuers sacrifices, as in sinnes of ignoranceLeuit. 4.3. for the Priest a yong bullocke, Ver. 14. for the whole congregation the same; Ver 22.23. for a ruler a he goate; for any of Ver. 28. the people a she goate; Chap. 5.15. for any consecrate thing by errour withholden [Page 775] a ramme of two shekels; Ver. 18. for other trespasse against holy things ignorantly done, the same; forChap. 6.6. sinne wittingly committed, the same also; for the highChap. 16.3. Priests yearly offering for himself and his house, a bullocke and a ramme; and for the whole peopleVer. 5. two he goates and a ramme. This diuersitie we reade, and some few other such like, but of sacrifices of greater or lesser price, according to the diuersity of the sinnes, we reade nothing, it is a thing that Moses and Aaron neuer knew. Well, let that go, let vs see what argument he hath framed against vs. These mens faults (saith he) vpon their true repentance, ioyned with faith and hope in Christ, were pardoned. Therefore their charges in buying of sacrifices, their paines and prayers in assisting during the time of the sacrifice, being painefull workes, done to appease Gods iustice, were workes of satisfaction. O what paines here was for the appeasing of Gods iustice, to stand by and pray whilest the sacrifice was offering. Such cruell paines doth M. Bishop impose vpon his penitents for their sweet sins, that a man may sweare they are the worse for it all their life after. Vaine man, was this a paines to be spoken of, for the satisfying and appeasing of the iustice of God for sinne? But to let this passe, ifOf the certaintie of saluation. sect. 2. the honest man, of whom M. Bishop hath spoken before, should out with a litle Latin, and tell him here, M. Doctor, negatur argumentum, how foully wold he be grauelled, and so set at a Nonplus, that he could not tell which way to turne him. What, because they that offered the sacrifice with true repentance in the faith of Christ were pardoned, doth it therefore follow that their charges and their paines were the satisfaction for their sinnes? The honest man would tel him, Good sir, you erre by assigning a wrong cause; for it was not for his charges and his paines that he was pardoned, but for his faith in Christ. He laid not his hand vpon himselfe, as to lay his sinne vpon himselfe, butLeuit. 1.4. he layd it vpon the head of the dumb beast, as in figure of Iesus Christ,Esa. 53.6. vpon whom the Lord would lay the iniquities of vs all. Therefore his sacrifice, if he offered it aright, was onely a profession of the hope of redemption by Christ, and he was therby instructed in him alone to expect full satisfaction and forgiuenesse of his sinnes. Now thus in effect M. Perkins answered him, and he reciting the answer by halues, asketh, What is this to the purpose? Very much it is against his purpose, if in the sacrifices themselues there were nothing else but a direction to seeke satisfaction in Iesus Christ.Heb. 10.1. The Law had [Page 776] the shadow of good things to come, and not the (liuely or substantiall) image of the things themselues. Therefore no satisfaction indeed, but onely a shadow of satisfaction to come was to be found therein. ForVer. 4. it was vnpossible that the bloud of buls and goates should take away sin. And therfore the Law was Chap. 7.18. abolished for the weaknesse and vnprofitablenesse of it. How should it be said to be weake, or why should it be called vnprofitable, if satisfaction for sinnes were to be found in it? Albeit in some meaning M. Perkins acknowledgeth in them a satisfaction, not to God, but to the Church of God, as testimonies of their repentance, and of their desire to be reconciled to God and men. What needed that, saith M. Bishop, when they had offended God onely, and not the congregation, as in many offences it happeneth? I answer him, that because all men are sinners, euery man was by these sacrifices to giue acknowledgement thereof as touching himselfe, and to shew his care to be reconciled to God, either for publike or priuate offences, whereby he had with Achan prouoked Gods wrath against his people as well as against himselfe. Vpon the doing whereof, men were accounted to the Church and with men, as sanctified and clensed from their sinnes, and no exception was to be taken against their ioyning themselues to the Church. And therefore for warrant of this distinction the Scripture teacheth, that those sacrifices didHeb. 9.13. sanctifie as touching the purifying of the flesh, that is, outwardly to men, butVer. 9.14. & chap. 10.1.2. to sanctifie the conscience, to acquit the conscience of sinnes, it reserueth as a thing peculiar to the bloud of Christ. But, saith M. Bishop, if satisfaction must be giuen to the congregation, how much more reason is it that it be made to God? True, but what are we sinfull wretches, that we should think that any thing that we can do should be a satisfaction to him for sinne? But much more absurd are we to thinke, that the offering of a bruite creature should be any part of the redemption thereof. Our satisfacton therefore is not any thing that we do or can do, but it is onely the pleading of a satisfaction payed for vs in the bloud of Christ. Yet he still vrgeth, that sacrifices were to satisfie God, because it is said, that vpon the sacrifice the sinne shall be forgiuen. But I haue already answered him, that it was forgiuen not for the sacrifice sake, but for Christs sake, whom the offerer was to vnderstand therein. And we know, that of Sacraments vsually those effects are spoken which properly belong to those things [Page 777] whereof they are sacraments. It is rightly said by Tertullian, that God in these sacrificesTertul contra Marc lib. 3. Non quae siebant exigens sed propter quod fiebant. required not the things which were done, but that for which they were done. And therefore as Origen saith, as touching the high Priests standing forth to appease the wrath of God, when the Angell was gone foorth to be the executioner thereof,Origē. in Num. hom. 9. Neque enim indumenta Pōtificis purpura & Lina & bysso contexia erubuisset Angelus ille vastator, sed ista quae futura erant indumēta magni Pontificis intellexit & ijs cessic. The destroying Angell would not haue bashed at the high Priests garments, made of purple, and wooll, and silke, but he vnderstood those garments that should be of the great high Priest (Iesus Christ) and to them he yeelded: euen so we are to conceiue that the wrath of God was no whit nor in any sort pacified by those sacrifices for the things themselues that were done therein, but hee respected in them the bloud and sacrifice of his onely begotten Sonne, and thereto was content to yeeld himselfe satisfied and appeased towards them that offered with faith in him.
9. W. BISHOP.
The reason for vs (which indeed is the very groundwork of satisfaction) may thus be framed: many after pardon obtained of their sins, haue had temporall punishment layed vpon them for the same sins, and that by Gods owne order: wherefore after the forgiuenesse of the sin, and the eternall punishment of it through Christs satisfaction, there remaineth some temporall paine to be endured by the partie himselfe for the same sin, which is most properly that which we call satisfaction. They denie that any man hath bene punished temporally for any sin which was once pardoned: we proue it first by the example of the Israelites, whose murmuration against God, was at Moses intercession pardoned; Numb. 14. yet all the elder sort of them, who had seene the miracles wrought in Aegypt for their deliuerance, were by the sentence of God depriued of the sight of the land of promise, and punished with death in the wildernesse for the very same their murmuration. The like iudgement was giuen against Moses himselfe and Aaron,Numb. 20. Deut. 32. for not glorifying God at the waters of contradiction: both of them had their sin pardoned, yet were they both afterward for the same debarred from the entrance into the holy land.
To this M. Perkins answereth, first, that a man must be considered in a two fold estate, as he is vnder the law, and as he is vnder grace. In the former estate, all afflictions were curses of the Law: in the latter, [Page 778] they are turned vnto them that beleeue in Christ, from curses into trials, corrections, preuentions, admonitions, instructions, and into what you wil else, sauing satisfaction. Now to the purpose. Whereas God (saith he) denied the beleuing Israelites, with Moses and Aaron, to enter into the land of Canaan, it cannot be proued that it was a punishment or penaltie of the law laid vpon them: the Scripture hath no more but that it was an admonition vnto all ages following, to take heed of like offences, as Paul writeth, 1. Cor. 10. All these things came vnto them for examples, and were written for our admonition.
Reply. He that will not be ashamed of this audacious assertion, needs not to care what he saith. Hath the Scripture no more of their fact, then that it was an admonition to others? Turne to the originall places, where the whole matter in particular is related: First their murmuration, then Moses intercession for them, and the obtaining of their pardon, and lastly after all the rest, Gods sentence of depriuation of them from entring into the land of promise for that their murmuration. Againe, Aaron shal not enter into the land, Numb. 14. Num. 20. ve. 24. Deut. 32.51. because he hath bin disobedient to my voyce: and of Moses, Because he hath trespassed against me at the waters of strife. So that nothing is more cleare, euen by the testimony of the holy Ghost, then that their dayes were shortened, and their hope of entrance into the land of promise cut off, in punishment of those offences, which were before forgiuen them. And these things being recorded, as S. Paul testifieth, for our admonition and instruction, we are to learne thereby, that God so dealeth dayly with all those sinners that he calleth to repentance.
R. ABBOT.
M. Bishop here maketh a hot and a long haruest, and all his corne will not yeeld him so much as one morsell of bread. He telleth vs that the argument which he here handleth is the very groundworke of satisfaction: now if the goundworke faile, we may be well assured that the building cannot stand. We deny indeed that any affliction or iudgement of God hath lien vpon any faithful man in the nature and condition of a punishment after the forgiuenesse of his sinne. The things themselues, which in their owne nature are punishments, and at the first are inflicted in that nature, yet the sinne being forgiuen, lose that nature, and become onely trials, preuentions, admonitions, instructions; neither do we therein conceiue [Page 779] Gods anger against vs, but his fatherly goodnesse, and prouidence & care to keepe vs to himselfe, that he may make vs partakers of eternall life. Thus carnall concupiscence being of it selfe a punishment of sinne, though according to the guilt it be taken away by remission of sins, yet according to the thing it selfe remaineth in the faithfull, not now for a punishment, but for the humbling and exercising of vs, to make vs to know our selues, to draw vs to trust and confidence in God, to sharpen our desire & loue of that righteousnes for which we fight in fighting against it. So death of it selfe the wages of sin, becometh to the faithful as a poison broken into a medicine, and as a serpent that hath lost his sting:Bern. in Cant. Ser. 26. Iam non stimulus sed iubilus. I am cantando moritur homo & moriendo cantat. Vsurparis ad laetitiam mater moeroris, vsurparis ad gloriam gloriae inimica: vsurparis ad introitum regni porta inferi & fouea perditionis ad inuentionem salutis. There is no sting but song, saith S. Bernard, man now dieth singing, and singeth dying. O thou mother of mourning, saith he, thou art turned to ioy; thou enemy of glory doest now serue to giue glory; thou gate of hell art vsed for an entry to the kingdome of heauen, and thou pit of destruction for the finding of saluation. S. Austin saith thereof, thatAug. de pec. mer. & remis. li. 2. cap. 34. Mortē cerporis propter peccatum homini Deus inflixit, & post peccatorum remissionem propter exercendam iustitiam non ademit. Et paulò priùs: eam fidelibus euenire, vt eius timore vincēdo exerceretur fortitudo iustitiae God inflicted death for the punishment of sin, and after forgiuenes of sins he still left it for the exercising of righteousnesse: that, saith he, the fortitude of righteousnesse might be exercised in ouercoming the feare thereof. The like hath bene noted out of himSect. 2. before concerning other iudgements laid vpon mankind in the beginning, by reason of sinne. Now as of these, so of all other afflictions after forgiuenesse of sinnes, we resolue that they forgo their former condition and propertie, and cease to be reuengements and punishments for sinne, but haue other respects and vses for which they are continued. The examples so strongly vrged by Master Bishop make nothing against this. First, the Israelites murmure, God to Moses threateneth wholly to destroy thē, promising to make of him a mighty people. Moses prayeth vnto God to withhold that wrath from his people, & to forgiue the trespasse. God saith,Num. 14.20. I haue forgiuē it according to thy request: but he addeth, Notwithstanding as I liue all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord: for all those men which haue seen my glory & my miracles which I did in Egypt & in the wildernes, and haue tempted me these ten times, and haue not obeyed my voice, certainly they shall not see the land wherof I sware vnto their fathers. Here is the forgiuenes of a sin, saith M. Bishop, and yet a punishment ensuing after. But we answer him, that this example altereth the question, & cometh not within the compasse of that wherof we speake. For it is one thing to speake [Page 780] of the forgiuenesse of a sinne to the whole body of a people, and another thing to speake of forgiuenesse to one particular man. Forgiuenesse of a sinne to a whole people is not absolute, but onely in a respect: it is not simply the taking away of a sinne, but the taking of it away in some sort, and therefore though it be the excluding of one punishment, yet nothing hindreth but that it may leaue place for another, yea and though in common there be a forgiuenesse, yet in particular there may stil remaine an imputation of the sinne, euen as amongst this people were many reprobates and cast-awayes, who though they were forgiuen and freed in respect of the destruction then threatened, yet being void of repentance and true faith, found otherwise spiritually no benefite at al of this forgiuenesse. God saith not here simply, I haue forgiuen it, but I haue forgiuen it according to thy request. Moses request was according to Gods threatening; Gods threatening was wholly to destroy that nation. In this respect God said, I haue forgiuen it, namely so, as not at once to destroy this people according to my wrath and indignation conceiued against them. And this Lyra very well obserued:Lyra in Num. ca. 14. Benè dicit iuxta quòd non totaliter dimisit, sed quantum ad hoc quòd non deleret totum populum simul. He saith well (saith he) according to thy request, because he did not wholy pardon it, but onely as touching the not destroying of the whole people at once. Now albeit in this respect he did forgiue it, because he did not wholy forgiue it, therefore he voweth to glorifie himselfe throughout all the earth, by making them an example of his iudgement vpon vnthankfull men, with whom no sights nor sayings can preuaile to make them obedient to the voyce of God. Therefore he would forbeare to destroy them in that sort, and to their seed he wold make good the promise of the land of Canaan, but as for them he would weare out the whole multitude of them, that not one of them shold haue the enioying or sight thereof. This he laid as a iudgement in common vpon that generation of men, which had so infinitly from time to time prouoked him, as that they made himPsal. 95.12. to sweare that they should not enter into his rest. But yet in the bosome of that multitude we cannot doubt but many there were, who truly repented and obtained forgiuenes both of this & of all their other sins, & yet together with the rest were depriued of entrance into that holy land. For God doth not except particular men from generall and common plagues, and when he striketh a nation with famine, sword, pestilence or other calamity; both one and other, good and bad are [Page 781] subiect vnto it,Cyprian. contra Demetr. Intrae vnam domum boni & mali interim cōtinemur: quicquid intrae domum euenerit pari sorte perpetimur, donec, &c. We are shut vp together in one house, saith Cyprian, and whatsoeuer befalleth within the house we suffer it all alike. Onely he so ordereth, that what is to a nation in common for reuenge & punishment, becommeth in particular to the repentant and faithful a helpe and furtherance of saluation. And so was it with the beleeuing Israelites, who though by a common iudgement they were excluded corporally from the Sacrament and signe, yet were thereby spiritually edified, and learned with Abraham, and Isaac, and Iacob so much the more to meditate, to desire & long for the spirituall and euerlasting rest. Albeit in respect of the faithfull also it is to be vnderstood that Gods chastisements oftentimes lye vpon them after forgiuenesse of sinnes, though not for punishments to thēselues, yet for exemplary admonitions to others,Tho. Aquin. 12. q. 87. art. 6. ad 3. Vt edificē tur in poena, qui scād [...]lizati sunt in culpa. that (as Thomas Aquinas speaketh, they may be edified by the punishment that were scandalized by the sinne. And thus S. Austin rightly saith, thatAug in Joan. tr. 124. Productior est poenae quàm culpa, ne parua putaretur culpa, si cum illa finiretur & poena. the punishment is continued longer then the sinne, lest the sinne should be esteemed but small, if the punishment should be ended together with it. And this M. Perkins well obserueth in generall concerning that example of the Israelites, that God though his iudgment proceeded not one way, yet would haue it to be seene another way, though not for punishment to them that repented and beleeued, yet for example to future times to take heed of cutting themselues off by vnbeleefe and disobedience from the heauenly rest, as these had done from the seale and Sacrament thereof, the Apostle to that purpose saying:1. Cor. 10.11. These things came to them for ensamples, and are written to admonish vs vpon whom the ends of the world are come. Now as we conceiue in generall of the faithfull of that people, so we do in particular of Moses and Aaron. M. Bishop vrgeth it set downe, that therfore they entred not, because they trespassed, because they were disobedient. And who maketh doubt, but that their trespasse and disobedience was the originall cause of the debarring of them? But stil we say, that the cause of this debarring of them being forgiuen, the effect still continued for other vse: which in them was not onely morall, but also mystical, God willing thereby to giue to vnderstand, that the Law, which was giuen by Moses, and the Priesthood that was executed by Aaron, could not bring vs to that eternall inheritance which was figured by the land of Canaan but onely Iesus, who was figured by Iosuah, could yeeld vnto vs the possession thereof. Thus S. Austin [Page 782] maketh mysticall and spirituall application thereof, affirming thatAugust. contra Faust. Man. lib. 16. cap. 19. Non introducebat populum in terram promissionis, ne videlicet lex per Mosen non ad saluandum sed ad conuincendū peccatorem data introducere putaretur. Ita Tertula [...]iuer Marcionem l [...]b. 3. Moses did not bring the people of Israel into the land of promise, lest the law which was giuen by Moses not to saue, but to conuict the sinner, shold be thought to bring vs into the kingdome of heauen. But fully to answer this point, and to stop M. Bishops mouth, let vs take that which the same S. Austin saith in another place:Idem in Psa. 98. Quaerimus vindictam in Moyse, propè nullam habet nisi quòd ad extremū a [...]t illi Deut, Ascende in montem & morere. A [...]t seni, Morere, tam peregeras [...]etates suas: nunquid nunquam erat moriturus? Quaelis illa vindicta? Ostendit ibi vindictam suam, vt diceret, Non intrabis in terrā promissionis, quā intraturus erat populus. Quandā figuram quorundam gerebat Moyses. Nam qui in regnum coelorū intrauit magna illa poena crat adie [...]ram illam non venire qua ad tempas erat promissa vt vmbram osteude ret & transi [...]e [...] Nonne mulit perfi [...]ntrauerunt in illam terram? Nonne in illa terra viuentes multa mala fecerūt & Deum offenderunt? Nonne & idolotriam secuti sunt in terra illa? Magnum erat non dedisse terram istam Moysi, sed Moses voluit gestare figuram eorum qui sub lege erant quia per Moysen data est lex, & ostendit eos qui sub lege esse vellent, & sub gratia esse nollent non intraturos interram promis [...]ionis. Ergo illud quod dictum est Moysi figura erat, non poena. Se [...] mers quae poena? Non intrare in illam terram quae poena quo intrauerunt indigni? We seeke Gods punishment in Moses, saith he, and he had in a manner none, but that God at last saith to him, Go vp into the hill and die. He saith to an old man, Go die: he had now finished his yeares; what, shold he neuer die? what punishment is this? He shewed him there his punishment, in that he said: Thou shalt not enter into the land of promise, to which the people was to enter. Moses did here beare a figure of some: for he being to enter into the kingdome of heauē, was it a great punishment not to come to that land which was promised, for a time to cary a shadow, and so to passe away? Did not many vnfaithfull men enter into that land? did not they that liued in that land commit many euils and offend God? did they not follow idolatry in that land? A great matter it was not to giue this land vnto Moses: but Moses was to beare a figure of them which are vnder the law, because the law was giuen by Moses, and he sheweth that they which would be vnder the law, and would not be vnder grace, should not enter into the land of promise. Therefore that which was said to Moses was a figure, not a punishment: what punishment was it to an old man to die? what punishment was it, not to enter into that land, into which vnworthy men did enter? Here then it is plaine, that the not suffering of Moses to enter into the land of Canaan, was not a matter of punishmēt, but a matter of figure. God took the occasion therof of his trespasse, but the trespasse being remitted, it was turned from being a punishment to him, to be a mystery of faith both to him and vs. But it were woorth the while here to question with M. Bishop, how he should make the not entring of all these into the land of Canaan, to be any satisfaction for their sins? what did they or suffered they, that might carie the name of a satisfaction? Did any thing herein befall them, but what befell to many iust and godly Fathers before that time? He saith, their dayes were shortened, but how were the dayes of Moses and Aaron shortened, when the one liued toDeut. 34.7. 120. and the other toNumb. 33.39. 123. yeares, almost double to that nūber of yeres which Moses noted for the ordinary [Page 783] time of the life of man,Psal. 90.10. The dayes of our age are threescore yeares and ten. Yea Moses was so old, as that he said,Deut. 31.2. I am a hundred and twentie yeare old: I can no more go in and out. Againe, we wonder, whereas M. Bishop hath told vs before, that such excellent holy personages by their ordinarie deuotions satisfied abundantly for their sinnes, how it came to passe, that all Moses deuotions for the space ofDeut. 2.14. eight and thirty yeares after, could not satisfie for that one sinne of his, but that it still hindred him frō entring into the promised land? Surely, M. Bishop cannot well tell vs how these things hang together. But to conclude this point M. Perkins had set downe by the words of the holy Ghost, the vse of Gods chastisements towards his children, and M. Bishop as loth to be acquainted therwith, saith nothing of it.1. Cor. 11.32. When we are iudged we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. The occasion thereof is our sinne:Ver. 30. For this cause many are weake and sicke amongst you, and many sleepe: but the vse thencefoorth is not for satisfaction but for saluation, that we may not be condemned with the world.
10. W. BISHOP.
Now to the next example, which M. Perkins maketh our third reason. King Dauid was punished for his aduoultrie after his repentance, for the child died, 2. Re. 12. and was plagued in the same kind of incest by Absolon: and when he had numbred the people, 2. Re. 24. he was after his owne repentance, punished in the death of his people.
M. Perkins answereth, that the hand of God was vpon him after his repentance: but those iudgements which befell him, were not curses to him properly, but corrections of his sinnes.
Reply. What dotage is this, to graunt the very same thing, which he would be thought to deny: but yet in other termes, that the simple (whom onely he can beguile) may not perceiue it: if the hand of God were vpon Dauid correcting him for his sin, and that after his repentance: did not Dauid then suffer temporall punishment for his sinnes before forgiuen? which is most properly to satisfie for them. Yea ouer and beside this punishment inflicted by God, he of his owne deuotion performed farre greater satisfaction, by putting on sack-cloth, lying on the bare ground, by watering his couch with tears, and making ashes his food, and in this most pitifull plight, he made most humble supplication vnto God, to wash him [Page 784] more and more from his iniquity: he neuer dreamed that this his satisfaction should be any derogation vnto the satisfaction of his Lord and Sauiour: Psal. 50. but in the Psalme saith: that such an humble and contrite heart, is a sweet sacrifice vnto God. We deny not but the punishing of one, is a warning and admonition vnto another, to take heed of the like: so may not they deny, but that correction is to the party himselfe, as an admonition to beware afterward, so a correction and punishment of the fault past. Psal. 50. Which S. Augustine vpon this verse of the Psalme, Thou hast loued truth, teacheth most plainly, saying: Thou hast not left their sinnes whom thou didst pardon, vnpunished: for thou before didst so shew mercy, that thou mightest also preserue truth: thou doest pardon him, that confesseth his fault, thou doest pardon him, but so as he do punish himselfe: and by that meanes both mercy and truth are preserued.
R. ABBOT.
This matter concerning Dauid was answered long ago by S. Austin against the Pelagian heretikes, who hauing set downe for a rule of the chastisements and afflictions of this life, thatAugust. de peccat. mer. & remis. lib. 2. ca. 34 supra Sect. 2. before forgiuenesse they are punishments of sinnes; after forgiuenesse the combats and exercises of the iust, as before was said, bringeth for example therof this that M. Bishop here obiecteth concerning Dauid. Tale aliquid nobis insinuatū est de Patriarcha Dauid ad quem cùm Propheta missus esset, ei (que) propter peccatum quod commiserat euē tura mala & iracundia Dei comminaretur, confessione peccati veniam meruit, & tamen consequuta sunt quae Deus fuerat comminatus vt sic humiliaretur à filio, &c. Cur dimisso peccato quod erat minatus impleuit? Respondebitur remissionem peccati factam ne homo à percipienda vita impediretur aeterna, subsecutum verò illius comminationis effectum, vt pietas hominis in illa humilitato exerceretur at (que) probaretur. Such a matter, saith he is insinuated vnto vs concerning the Patriark Dauid, to whom the Prophet being sent, and threatening vnto him the euils, that by the wrath of God should befall vnto him for the sinne that he had committed, by the confession of his sinne he obtained pardon, and yet those things followed which were threatened, that he should be so humbled by his sonne. Why did God fulfill that, when he had forgiuen the sinne? We are to answer, that the sinne was forgiuen, lest the man should be hindred from eternall life: but the effect of the threatening followed, that the pietie of the man might be exercised and proued in that humiliation. Here was iust occasion giuen to Saint Austine to haue mentioned Master Bishops satisfaction if he had knowne it, but he knew it not, and therefore said nothing of it. He denieth Dauids afflictions after forgiuenesse to be punishments: he maketh the vse of them to be thencefoorth onely for combate and exercise and triall of his pietie and faith. Therfore in calling them corrections as from a father [Page 785] in respect of time to come, not punishments as from a Iudge in respect of time past, we say nothing but what Saint Austine saith. As for Dauids mourning afterwards, expressed in the one and fiftieth Psalme, it was the testimony of his true repentance, the expressing of his desire to be disburdened of his sinne, and to be established by the grace of God, that he might not in such sort fall againe. His2. Sam. 12.16. fasting and lying on the earth, were to intreate the Lord for the sparing of the childs life: but in nothing that he did do we find any dreaming of satisfaction. He knew well that it was a derogation to the satisfaction of Christ to seeke in himselfe that satisfaction that was to be sought for in Christ alone. He knew, thatPsa. 51.17. a broken and contrite heart is a sweet sacrifice to God, but yet he knew it not to be a sacrifice propitiatorie for the sinne of man. It is not it selfe a satisfaction for sinne, but onely the disposition of him who seeketh to find satisfaction in the Sonne of God. And this broken and contrite heart grieuing and sorrowing for sinne, is that punishment whereof Saint Austine speaketh in the wordes which Master Bishop citeth, and which he calleth the punishing of a mans selfe, and is the affection wherewith we are to seeke forgiuenesse at Gods hands. Which when we are carelesse of, God striketh vs with his roddes and punishments to worke it in vs, and to make vs seeke the forgiuenesse of our sinnes. This the Apostle giueth to vnderstand when he saith,1. Cor. 11.31. If we would iudge our selues, we should not be iudged of the Lord, as if he should say, that because we iudge not our selues therefore doth the Lord iudge vs, that thereby we may be taught to iudge our selues. Thus our sinne is punished that it may be forgiuen, but after forgiuenesse thereof Saint Austine denyeth (as we haue heard) that any thing remaineth as a punishment for sinne, neither doth this place import any thing otherwise. As for the other instance that he vseth concerning the plague inflicted for the numbring of the people, it was more for the punishment of the people, then of Dauid himselfe for the numbring of the people, though by Dauids numbring of them God would take the occasion of it. Therefore the storie saith:2. Sam. 24.1. The wrath of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moned Dauid against them, in that he said: Go number Israel and Iudah. Here therefore necessarie it was, and standing with the glorie of God by Dauids prayer, that the sin of the people shold be forgiuen as well as Dauids sin. Dauid prayed [Page 786] for them. He offered a burnt offering as it were to tender vnto God the mediation of Iesus Christ, that for his sake he might be mercifull vnto them. Vpon this it is said:Ver. 25. The Lord was appeased towards the land, & the plague ceassed from Israel. This maketh plainly against M. Bishop, because it proueth directly, that the forgiuing of the sinne was the staying of the plague, not that the plague continued after the forgiuenesse of the sinne.
11. W. BISHOP.
Our fourth reason: The Prophets of God, when the people were threatened with Famine, the Sword, the Plague, or such like punishments for their sinnes, did commonly exhort them to workes of penance, as fasting, prayer, haire-cloth, and the like, to appease Gods wrath iustly kindled against them: which being performed by them, God was satisfied. So (for example sake) the Niniuites at Ionas preaching, doing penance in sack-cloath and ashes, turned away the sentence of God against them.
M. Perkins answereth, that famine, the plague, and such like scourges of God, were not punishments of sinnes, but corrections of a Father.
Reply. This is most flat against a thousand expresse texts of the Scripture; which declare, that for the transgressions of Gods commaundements, he hath sent those punishments vpon the people of Israel. And what is the correction of a father, but the punishing of a shrewd sonne for some fault committed, yet in a mild sort? Or doth the Schoole-master (which is Caluins example) whippe the scholer, or strike him with the Ferula, but to punish him for some fault? So that great Rabbins seeme not to vnderstand what they say themselues, when they admit those scourges of God to be the corrections of a Father, but not the punishment for a fault. As though fathers vsed to correct those sonnes who neuer offended them: or masters to beate such scholers as commit no faults.
But saith M. Perkins, these punishments be tending to correction, not seruing for satisfaction: what senslesse ryming is this? by due correction of the fault, the party is satisfied in iustice: and when he that hath offended doth abide such punishment as the grieuousnesse of his offence did require, there is both due correction of the offender, and due satisfaction vnto the party offended.
M. Perkins finally flieth vnto his old shift of imputatiue satisfaction: that forsooth our sufferings do not satisfie, but the party punished by faith layeth hold on the satisfaction of the Messias, and testifie the same by their humiliation and repentance.
Reply. As we first graunt that all satisfaction hath his vertue from the grace of God, dwelling in vs, which is giuen vs for Christs sake: so to say that Christs satisfaction taketh away all other satisfaction, is iust to begge the principall point in question, & therfore an old triuants trick, to giue that for a final answer, which was set in the beginning to be debated: looke vpon the forenamed example of the Niniuites, of whō it is not certaine that they had any expresse knowledge of the Messias, and therfore were farre enough off from laying hold on his satisfaction. But most certaine & euident it is in the text, that God vpon the contemplation of their works of penance, tooke compassion on them, and was satisfied; as by turning away the threatned subuersion, is most manifest.
R. ABBOT.
It is an old saying,Tertul. adu. Marc. lib. 4. Propter quod venimus, hoc age; Do that that we come for. M. Bishop buildeth here beside his groundworke. He propoundeth a Satisfaction to be made for sinnes past and pardoned, that is, after the forgiuenesse of the sins, and bringeth vs arguments to proue a satisfaction for the obtaining of that forgiuenesse. But we will take them as they come, though by their owne grounds they be worth nothing, there being no satisfaction to be made by a man, as we shall see hereafter, so long as he continueth in mortall sinne, and still continuing in it, vntill by forgiuenesse it be blotted out. The Prophets denounce famine, sword, pestilence. M. Perkins should not haue made any question, but that they denounce them as the punishments of sinne, as fruites and effects of Gods curse according to the law. So did God accordingly execute them in fury and wrath, for iust reuengement vpon a rebellious and vnthankfull people. The point of question stood not in this, neither needed M. Bishop to bestow so much paines for the prouing of it. Yet it is to be obserued, that although God in generall denounced and executed the same by way of reuenge and punishment, yet in particular he had alwaies a respect to the calling and sauing of his elect, turning those common iudgements to be vnto them occasions of repentance, [Page 788] & turning vnto God to obtaine of him remission of their sinnes and euerlasting life. To them therefore vpon their repentance the nature of punishments was altered, and they became meanes either to receiue them presently to endlesse blisse, or to further them in the way wherein they were to walke for the attainement of it. Of this enough hath bene said already; but the matter here is this, The Prophets denouncing such plagues, do withall call the people to repentance, to fasting, to praying, to putting on sackcloth and ashes. This being performed, saith M. Bishop, God was satisfied. Therefore he will haue vs to vnderstand, that the doing of these things was a satisfaction, that is, the paiment of a iust price vnto God, by which they merited the turning away of his fearefull and heauie wrath. But this argument of his followeth not, because we know, that a man in fauour may hold himselfe satisfied towards another vpon his humbling of himselfe, who yet receiueth not a satisfaction, that is, a iust and sufficient recompence for the debt that is owing him, or the wrong that is done vnto him. The seruant that ought his maisterMath. 18.24. ten thousand talents, when he was called to paiment, fell downe at his Maisters feete, and besought him for patience. His Maister herewith was appeased and satisfied, and forgaue him all the debt; and will any man hereupon say that he made his Maister satisfaction for the debt? So is the case betwixt God and vs. We humble our selues before him, we pray, we intreat him to forgiue vs. He is herewith satisfied, that is, contented and appeased, and remitteth the trespasse. Shall we now hereupon say, that our humbling of our selues, our intreatie and praier to forgiue vs, is the paiment of our debt? This is a mad conclusion as we take it, but such prety knots will serue at Rome to tye the Popes trinkets together, and they hold fast enough there, because no man must meddle with the vntying of them. But this matter as Maister Bishop handleth it, would require somewhat further to be considered of. We are therefore to vnderstand, as in some part hath bene signified before, that we are to put difference betwixt outward and temporall forgiuenesse, respecting onely a temporall & earthly benefit, and that inward and spirituall forgiuenesse, which serueth for the acquitting of the conscience, to the obtaining of eternall life. That outward and temporall forgiuenesse, is not indeede to be called a forgiuenesse of the sinne, but onely a forbearing [Page 789] of the punishment. And this forbearance God yeeldeth not onely to true and faithfull repentance, but also to the externall signes and tokens thereof, proceeding onely from worldly sorow, vpon feare of temporall plagues and punishments either imminent or incumbent. For we must know that God ordereth the administration and gouernment of the world, not onely for the bringing of his elect vnto eternall life, but so also as serueth for maintenance of publike order, and state, and societie amongst men. Such is the wickednesse of mans nature and pronenesse to mischiefe and violence, to lasciuiousnesse and filthinesse, and all kinde of iniquitie, as that the state of men would grow intollerable, if God did not take course both to restraine men from that enormitie and excesse of sinne whereto nature tendeth, and to giue encouragement to those courses, which serue for the common good and benefit of mankinde. To which purpose Cyprian very rightly saith,Cypr. cont. Demeir. Si nō intercederet rebus humanis diuina censura, quanta esset in hominibus audacia facinorum impr [...] nitate secura? If Gods censure and iudgement did not interpose it selfe amidst the doings of men, how great presumption would there be, growing secure and carelesse by the impunitie of of sinne? Now therefore when men grow to outrage & extremity, he sendeth amongst them hisEzech. 14.21. sore iudgements, the sword, the famine, the pestilence, which areTertul. de anima cap. 14. Reuera lucs & fames & bella, &c proremedi [...] deputanda, tanquam consura insolescentis generis humani. as it were the lopping & pruning of mankind, when they grow too proud and ranke, and hereby he redresseth the insolencies and disorders that are found amongst them. But when men vnderstanding the wrath and iudgement of God, do shew their dread and feare thereof, and yeeld themselues, though but ciuilly to be reclaimed, he sheweth himselfe outwardly appeased and satisfied, and putteth vp the sword which he had drawne against them. Thus though the Niniuites were heathens and infidels, yet when vpon the preaching of Ionas they put on sackcloth and ashes, and shewed tokens of repentance, God did forbeare the destruction that he had proclaimed against them. So when Ahab hearing by the message of Elias the fierce wrath of God conceiued against him, did shew himselfe moued thereat by1. Kings. 21.27.29. rending his clothes, and fasting, and lying in sackcloth, though he were a most wicked man, yet the Lord somwhat relented from the sentence that he had denounced, and deferred the execution thereof from the father to the sonnes time. In like sort the people of Israel when they euery while by idolatrie departed from God, yet vpon humbling of themselues at the feeling of Gods heauy hand, found [Page 790] mercy & deliuerance from the tiranny of their oppressours, though by the sequell it still appeared, that they did it with a faithlesse and false heart. Thus God yeeldeth temporall benefit to outward discipline and conformity to his lawes, and sheweth his regard thereof for the course of this life, euen in them towards whom he hath no purpose of euerlasting life. Now although towards infidels and hypocrites vpon outward submission, God shew himselfe outwardly satisfied and contented, and do yeeld thereto the remitting of temporall punishments, yet M. Bishop will not hereupon conclude, that they haue made a satisfaction to God for their sinnes, because they themselues teach, that no man liuing in mortall sinne of impenitencie or infidelity, can performe any worke of satisfaction vnto God. So he himselfe here telleth vs, that all satisfaction hath his vertue from the grace of God dwelling in vs, which is giuen vs for Christes sake; whereupon it followeth, that where the grace of God dwelleth not by the faith of Christ, there can be no vertue of satisfaction in any thing that is done. The more vnshamefast man he, within foure lines after to bring the Niniuites for a proofe of their satisfaction, of whom he himselfe saith, that it is not certaine that they had any expresse knowledge of the Messias (he should haue said, it is certaine that they had none) and therefore were farre enough off from laying hold on his satisfaction, and consequently were farre off from the participation of the grace of God. But all is one with him it carieth a shew, and that serueth his turne, making no conscience at all of abusing the ignorance or vnaduisednesse of his Reader, and onely regarding to vphold a side. But now as touching spirituall forgiuenesse of sinnes, for the acquitting of the conscience inwardly to God, all that mourne and weepe, that rend their clothes and lye in sackcloth and ashes, that is, that performe outward tokens of repentance, are not partakers thereof. The reason whereof is, because these workes of themselues do spiritually yeeld no satisfaction or contentment vnto God. Then do they obtaine true forgiuenesse and remission of sinnes, when they are vsed only as affections, wherewith we plead to the throne of the mercy of God the satisfaction of Iesus Christ, that not for the things which we do, but for his sake, andMath. 3.17. in him, according to his promise he may be well pleased towards vs. In his name, not in our owne we come vnto God; for his merits, not for owne we begge of him to be mercifull vnto [Page 791] vs; testifying by our repentance the feeling and grieuance of our wounds, but professing to expect in him onely the medicine for the cure. Neither do we herein begge the point in question, as M. Bishop alledgeth, but we giue him plaine and currant answer. We denie that which they affirme, that workes of penance are true satisfactions to God for sinne. They seeke to proue it, for that God vpon the doing hereof is appeased, and forgiueth sinnes. We answer, that where God vpon the doing hereof, giueth forgiuenesse of sins, it is not for the workes sake that is done, but for that the doer by faith seeketh and findeth the washing away thereof in the bloud of Iesus Christ, it being he onely of whom we are taught, thatCol. 1.14. in him we haue redemption through his bloud, euen the forgiuenesse of our sins. There are that do those workes, and yet haue no forgiuenesse; and therefore that other in the doing thereof obtaine forgiuenesse, it is not to be attributed to the workes themselues, but to somwhat else that is respected therein. And what is all our repentance, but a bootelesse sorow, a blinde horrour and anguish of minde, wherein there is nothing but darknesse and feare, but onely as it receiueth light and comfort in the bloud of Christ, for the mitigating and asswaging of it? If it selfe for it selfe can giue no comfort, it is no satisfaction in it selfe: and therefore in all our repentance our satisfaction is in him onely, who as S. Austine saith,Aug. in Psal. 31. Soluit quod non debebat, vt nos à debito liberaret. Paid that which was no debt of his, to free vs from our debt. These things are spoken by due and iust course, and therefore M. Bishop must take here againe the triuants tricke, in that he would with so bare a shift slip ouer a direct and formall answer.
12 W. BISHOP.
Our fift reason: Daniel giueth this counsaile to Nabuchodonosor:Daniel. 4. Redeeme thy sinnes with almes, and thy offences with mercy on the poore. If by such good deedes our sinnes may be redeemed, as holy writ doth testifie, then it followeth that such works yeeld a sufficient satisfaction for them, for redemption signifieth a full contentment of the party offended, as well as satisfaction.
M. Perkins answereth, The skilfull in the Caldey teach, that the word importeth rather a breaking off, then redeeming.
Reply. To Authors in the aire, without pressing of the proprietie of [Page 802] the word no answer can be giuen: but let vs admit that it be broken off; his sinne not being couetousnesse, but pride and lacke of acknowledging all kingdomes to depend vpon God, as the text it selfe doth specifie, To breake off this sinne by almes, and compassion of the poore, is nothing else but by such works of charity, in some sort to satisfie Gods iustice, thereby to moue him to take compassion of him. And that by almes-deedes we are cleansed from our sinnes, Luk. 11. our Sauiour himselfe doth teach, saying: Giue almes, and behold all things are cleane vnto you.
R. ABBOT.
This obiection serueth much for the clearing of that that hath bene said in the former section, and to open a way to the true vnderstanding of many phrases, which by the Papists are abused to the maintenance of their absurd position of humane satisfaction. We are to consider, what the person is to whom they are spoken, and in what respect the Prophet spake them. Nabuchodonosor was a heathen King, voide of the grace and spirit of God, hauing no knowledge, nor yeelding any acknowledgement of God, but what God by miracle wrested from him, and yet thenceforth drowning that also in pride, oppression, cruelty, tyrannie, and all kinde of iniquitie & iniustice. Now therfore by the doctrine of the Romish Schooles, he was not in case to do any worke of satisfaction. For M. Bishop telleth vs, as we haue seene before, that all satisfaction hath his vertue from the grace of God, and Thomas Aquinas saith, thatThom. Aquin. suppl. q. 14. art. 2. in corp. Sine charitate opera facta non sunt satisfactoria. works done without charity, haue no power of satisfaction, & therefore where grace and charity are not, no satisfaction can be done. If then Nabuchodonosor, were not capable in their meaning, to do a worke of satisfaction, how impudently do they deale to alledge that that was said to him, to the maintenance of their doctrine of satisfactions? How should he be aduised according to their meaning to redeeme his sinnes, from whom by their owne rules nothing could proceed, that might in their meaning be a redemption for his sins? Againe, here is nothing intended as touching the true forgiuenesse of sins, wherein consisteth the spirituall reconcilement of man to God, but onely as touching the auoiding of a threatned outward iudgement, and the preseruation of temporall & earthly state, which God yeeldeth [Page 803] euen to ciuill and morall change of former euill courses, as before was said. Daniel had threatned vnto him from God the losse of his vnderstanding, and the casting of him forth to the companie of bruite beasts. He aduiseth him yet to alter his former doings, by which he had drawne that sentence vpon himselfe, to trie whether haply God would be moued thereby to reuoke the iudgement which he had pronounced.Theod. in Dan. 4 Ʋn clementiae fructum percipere? Hanc eandē erga eos ostē dito qui vnam tecū sortiti sunt naturam: ita enim iudici persuadere poteris vt minas extinguat ne (que) sinat eas ad exitum perduci. Wilt thou, saith he, as Theodoret resolueth the speech, receiue the fruite of mercy? shew the same then to them who haue obtained the like condition of nature with thy selfe, for so thou maiest perswade the Iudge to put away his threatnings, and not to suffer them to be brought to effect. Where Hierome conceiueth, thatHieron in Dā. 4. Fecit iuxta Danielu consiliū, miserecordias in pauperes, & idcirco vs (que) ad mē sem duodecimū in eum dilata est sententia. Sed quia postea ambulans in aula Babylonis gloriatur, &c. bonum miserecordiae perdidit malo superbiae. Nabuchodonosor according to Daniels counsell, did shew mercy to the poore, and therefore for twelue moneths the sentence was deferred, vntill vpon glorying in his Babel, by sinne of pride he lost the benefit of mercy. So then we see the forbearing of the punishment graunted to a meere outward reformation, & yet the King being an infidell, there was no remission of the sinne. There could therefore be no satisfaction, because satisfaction cannot be without remission; whereof it followeth, that sith Daniels words had their effect without any satisfaction, therefore there can no satisfaction be concluded therof. For further confirmation hereof, we are to note what Origen saith as touching this matter, who obseruing, thatOrigē in Mat. trac. 35. Operis boni aliud est quod facimus propter homines vel secundum homines: aliud autē quod propter Deum vel secundum Deū, &c. Vt puta benè quis facit homini naturali iust [...]tia motus, no prepter Deū, quom [...]do faciebant interdum & gentes & multi faciunt homines. Opus illud ol [...]um est vulgare, non magnio doris, & tamen acceptabile apud Deum, sicut Daniel significat dicens ad Baltasar Deum non cognoscentem, Audi, &c. Tale aliquid dicit & Peirus apud Clementem, quoniam opera bona quae siunt ab infidelibus in hoc seculo eis prosunt, non & in illo ad consequend [...]m vitā aeternam Et conuenientèr quia nec illi propter Deum faciunt, sed propter naturam humanam. Qui autem propter Deum faciunt, idest, fideles, non solum in hoc seculo proficit eis, sed in illo, magis autem in illo. of good workes there is one sort which we do for men or according to men; another which we do for God or according to God, for example thereof saith: A man doth good being moued by naturall iustice, and not in respect of God, euen as heathens many times did and many men do. This worke, saith he, is but common oile, and of no great sauour, and yet it is acceptable with God, as Daniel signifieth, saying to a King that knew not God, Heare my counsel, O King, and redeeme thy sinnes with almes. Some such matter Peter also saith in Clement, that the good workes which are done by infidels, do benefit them in this world, but not in the world to come, for the obtaining of eternall life; and that very rightly, because they do them not for Gods sake, but onely as of the nature of man. But they which do these things in respect of God, that is the faithfull, haue benefit thereby, not [Page 794] onely in this world, but also in that, yea specially in that that is to come. Here is the true condition of Nabuchodonosors workes set forth vnto vs; he was an infidell, he knew not God; that which he did, he did it only by naturall instinct; God respected it no further but only for this world, and onely in that respect did Daniel say vnto him, Redeeme thy sinnes with almes, and therefore it must needes be granted, that the word of redeeming is very vnproperly vsed, & can haue no such meaning as M. Bishop intendeth by it. Now therfore albeit it be true which M. Perkins obserueth out of the learned in the Chaldee tongue, that the word which is by the vulgar interpreter translated to redeeme, doth properly signifie to breake off, yet he needed not to haue rested vpon that answer, but should rather haue taken the common translation, thereby to euict that the name of redemption hath vse with ecclesiasticall writers, without any intendment of Popish satisfaction. Forwords are not alwaies to be racked to their natiue and proper vse, but from it are borowed many times to import somewhat else, which in some respect may seeme neere vnto it. Redemption properly importeth the paiment of a iust price, for the setting of a captiue or bondman free. In this meaning it is vsed of our Sauiour Christ, who gaue himselfe for a price for vs, to set vs free from death and sinne, & to reconcile vs vnto God; but in this meaning to attribute vnto our selues any power or worth to pay any price, or to yeeld any valuable recompence vnto God for our sinnes, is a blasphemie intollerable, and a great impeachment of the sufficiencie of Christes redemption. Yet notwithstanding the terme of redeeming is otherwise many times vsed, when one thing is made consequent to the doing or forgoing of another, as the freedome of the bondman is to the paiment of the price. In this case the one is said to be redeemed by the other, not because it is a worthy price for the purchase, but because it is an opportunity for the obtaining or gaining of it. Thus Nabuchodonosor formerly said to his soothsaiers:Dan. 2.8. I know certainly that ye redeeme the time, that is, that ye vse your talke for the prolonging of the time. So are we said by forgoing the vanities and pleasures of the world,Ephe. 5.16. Col 4.5. to redeeme the time, because thereby we take the opportunity therof to bestow it to the Lords vse. Thus the heathen King was willed by almes-deedes to redeeme his sinnes, not as though his almes-deedes were any satisfaction to God for his sinnes, which by the [Page 795] doctrine of Poperie could not be, but because God for the common benefit of mankinde, hath vouchsafed to yeeld good for the onely outward forsaking of euill waies, howsoeuer inward regeneration finde no place at all. Thus a man is said with his goods to redeeme his soule, not for that worldly goods are a price for the sauing of a soule, God forbid; but for that by forgoing his goods, he findeth meanes and opportunitie of being saued by Iesus Christ. And in this sort ecclesiasticall writers are wont sometimes to attribute to workes of repentance and charity the redemption of our sinnes, not for that they tooke them in themselues to be any price, for the worth whereof God should be appeased towards vs, but onely because to the faithfull doers thereof for Christes sake, in whose name they are done, God hath made the promise of forgiuenesse of sinnes and euerlasting life. Now by that that hath bene said, we see that M. Bishops argument is fallen into this frame: Nabuchodonosor an infidell and heathen King, neuer partaker of forgiuenesse of sinnes, and not capable by the doctrine of the Church of Rome of doing any satisfaction for sinne, is willed to redeeme his sinnes with almes-deedes; therefore after forgiuenesse of sinnes, there remaineth yet a satisfaction to be made for the sinnes that are forgiuen. He that shall denie his argument, shall do him a shrewd turne; for how to proue it, he cannot tell. As for the place which he citeth out of S. Luke, it must import somwhat further then the words sound. For infidels as we haue seene of Nabuchodonosor do giue almes, and yet all things are not cleane vnto them, forTit. 1.15. to vnbeleeuers nothing is cleane, but euen their mindes and consciences are defiled. The Pharisees also to whom Christ there speaketh,Math. 6.2. gaue almes, and yet they were not clensed thereby. Yea, the Apostle S. Paul giueth vs to vnderstand, that1. Cor. 13.3. a man may giue all his goods to feede the poore, and yet being without charity and loue, it profiteth him nothing. But by the occasion of the words, the meaning of them will appeare. He hath said before,Luk. 11.39. Indeede ye Pharisees make cleane the outside of the cup and of the platter, but [...]. that which is within you, is full of rauening and wickednesse. Hereupon he addeth for reproofe; Ye fooles, did not he that made that which is without, make that which is within also? Then for correction and exhortation he bringeth in the words which M. Bishop alledgeth by halues; [...]. Yea, rather giue for almes those things that are within, & behold all things shall [Page 796] be cleane vnto you. Where presupposing as we may conceiue, that they did giue almes, or otherwise exhorting them so to do, he withall directeth the true manner of the giuing thereof, consisting not onely in reaching a gift with the hand, but in giuing the heart and affection, andEsa. 58.10. powring out the soule, as the Prophet speaketh, to the hungry; in shewing iudgement, and mercy, and fidelitie to our brethren, for the want whereof he taketh exception against them in the next words,Math. 23.23. as Saint Mathew expresseth the particulars thereof. Therefore he admonisheth them by these words, that as they were carefull outwardly to clense their cups and platters, so they should much more be carefull to clense their hearts, to voide themselues of hypocrisie, couetousnesse, briberie, crueltie, and to put on charity, compassion, mercy, iustice, and faithfulnesse, and then not only their dishes and vessels, but their almes-deedes, their meates and drinkes now defiled with rapine and couetousnesse, yea all things should be cleane vnto them. It is not for almes then that Christ saith, Behold all things shall be cleane vnto you, for almes it selfe may be defiled and vncleane, but for1. Tim 1.5. loue out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and faith vnfained. So that in effect the words of Christ are but the same with that which the Apostle saith,Tit. 1.15. All things are cleane to them that are cleane, that is, to them who in heart and conscience are purified and clensed. And becauseActs. 15.9. by faith the heart is purified, therefore he saith in effect, to them that beleeue all things are cleane. So then Maister Bishop reasoneth thus, To them that giue almes in true faith and a good conscience, all things are cleane; therefore by almes-deedes we are redeemed and purged from our sinnes. We denie the argument, because it is not by almes it selfe that all things are cleane vnto vs, but almes it selfe receiueth purity and cleanenesse from faith and a good conscience, without which it is in Gods sight defiled and vncleane.
13 W. BISHOP.
Math. 3. Luk. 3. Our sixt. Bring forth the worthy fruites of penance. That is, do such workes as become them who are penitent: Which (as S. Chrysostome expoundeth) are: He that hath stolen away another mans goods,Hom. 10. in Math. let him now giue of his owne: he that hath committed fornication, let him abstaine from the lawfull companie of his owne [Page 797] wife, and so forth: recompencing the workes of sinne, with the contrarie workes of vertue. The same exposition giueth Saint Gregorie,Hom. 10. in Euang. In Psal. 4. and to omit all others, venerable Bede interpreteth them thus. Mortifie your sinnes by doing the worthy fruites of penance, to wit, by afflicting your selues so much for euery offence, as worthy penance doth require, which will be a sacrifice of iustice, that is, a most iust sacrifice.
To this M. Perkins answereth, that this text is absurd, for the word repent, signifieth, onely change your minds from sinne to God, and testifie it by good workes.
Reply. His answer is most absurd, for we argue out of these words (Worthy fruites of penance:) and he answereth to the word going before, repent: which we vse not against them; and for his glose or testifying our repentance, is sufficiently confuted by the Fathers before alledged.
And Saint Iohn expresly maketh them the meanes to escape the wrath of God: saying, that the Axe was set to the roote of the Tree, and vnlesse by worthy fruites of penance they appeased God, they should be cut vp, and cast into hell fire: and seemeth to confute the laying hold on Christes satisfaction by faith: saying, it will not helpe you to say that yee are the Sonnes of Abraham, who was father of all true beleeuers: as much as if he had said, Trust not to your faith, hand off yee generation of vipers. For notwithstanding yee be the sonnes of the faithfull, vnlesse ye amend your liues, and for the euill workes which yee haue done heretofore, make recompence, and satisfie the iustice of God with good, yee shall be cast into hell fire.
R. ABBOT.
This argument is like his fellowes that are gone before. We must do such workes as become those that are penitent, therefore the workes that we do are satisfactions for our sinnes. A man would thinke that Maister Bishop should haue more discretion, then to bring such light stuffe in so waighty a cause. Though Maister Perkins had alledged it out of some of their bookes, yet reason would haue required, that he in the reuiew should haue better aduised of it. But we see, Trigge and Trugge will not part companie; vvhat his fellowes haue said, be it good or bad, true or [Page 798] false, he will say it to the death. Onely his memory faileth him a little, where he saith, that they vse no argument against vs from the words going before, Do penance, as they say; Repent, as we translate it; hauing forgotten that his maisters ofRhem. Testam. Annot. Math. 3.2. Rhemes made a stout argument from thence in behalfe of penance and satisfaction. Very impudently they dealt therein, because it is contrary to their owne doctrine, to vrge penance and satisfaction vpon them that are to be baptized, and Thomas Aquinas affirmeth it to be an iniurie to the bloud of Christ, as I haueOf Iustification. Sect. 20. before shewed; and therefore by their owne doctrine, the words of Iohn Baptist cannot be vnderstood of any such matter. But yet they were faine for a shift to take hold of that, because they had nothing else so colourably to serue turne in that behalfe. It was out of M. Bishops head what they had said, or else without doubt he would haue said the like. But M. Perkins hath rightly told him, that the Greeke word [...] there vsed by S. Iohn, signifieth the alteration and change of the mind from sinne to righteousnesse. It importeth no acts of penance, but inward reforming of our affections for the amendment of our liues. And therfore doth Athanasius say, that repentance hath it name from thence,Athanas. quaest. 162. Ideò poenitentia resipiscentia dicitur quod mentem à malo in bonum transferat. for that it transferreth or remoueth the minde from euill to good. M. Bishop will not stand vpon this; he vrgeth the other words, worthy fruites of penance. Howsoeuer he translate them absurdly, yet we approue his exposition of them, do such workes as become them that are penitent; but what followeth hereof for him? Surely we teach men to do such workes as become them that professe repentance, to recompence former workes of sinne with contrary workes of vertue; former neglect and carelesnesse, with due circumspection and watchfulnesse ouer their waies and conuersation. We teach that in grieuous sinnes our griefe & affliction of mind should be the more, and that both inwardly it is so, and outwardly appeareth so to be, where true repentance is, euen as greater wounds cause greater feeling and paine, and make men more earnest to seeke remedie and cure. But in all this we can finde no satisfaction, in all this we cannot finde that our affliction and sorow is the thing it selfe that workes the cure. It is the humbling of our selues to seeke mercie at Gods hands, for the washing away of our sinnes in the bloud of Iesus Christ, but wee know not how it selfe should be taken for a vvater to vvash vs from our sinnes. But yet [Page 799] M. Bishop will proue it so to be, because Iohn Baptist saith,Ver. 10. Now is the axe laid to the roote of the tree: euery tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruite shall be hewen downe and cast into the fire. Which is euen as much to the purpose, as if he had said iust nothing. We say also that euery tree that bringeth not forth good fruite, shall be hewen downe and cast into the fire, but still we say, what is this to satisfaction? We still require his proofe, that for the vertue and woorth of these fruites it is that God is appeased towards vs. But that cannot be; for a man cannot bring forth good fruite, except first of all he be made a good tree; forChap. 7.17. an euill tree cannot bring forth good fruite. And if he must first be a good tree that he may bring forth good fruite, then God must first be appeased towards him, which is by the faith of Iesus Christ,Rom. 3.25. whom God hath set forth to be our reconciliation or attonement through faith in his bloud. Our good fruites then are not the causes, but the effects of Gods being appeased towards vs. If we haue none, we are sure that we are in state of iudgement and damnation; and the sentence of Saint Iohn taketh hold of vs; but if we haue them, we are not to account them the redemption of our sinnes, but testimonies of the remission and forgiuenesse thereof. Yea but Saint Iohn, saith M. Bishop, seemeth to confute the laying hold on Christes satisfaction by faith. Where, or in what words? Marry because he saith, Say not in your hearts, we haue Abraham to our father. We may imagine that he had a vizard on his face whē he wrote this, that the paper might not see him blush. Why, what is there in these words against the laying hold on Christes satisfaction by faith? Forsooth he saith to them, it will not helpe you to say that ye are the sonnes of Abraham, who was father of all true beleeuers. Well, but what is this yet to laying hold on Christes satisfaction by faith? It is as much, saith he, as if he had said, trust not to your faith; hand off ye generation of vipers. This is a strange construction, that say not in your hearts, we haue Abraham to our father, should be as much as to say, Trust not to your faith. But it grew at Rome, and we know that things farre fetched are woont to be very strange. As for vs we conceiue in our simplicity that Iohns meaning was to reprooue them for flattering themselues, for that carnally they were the seede of Abraham, as if that were sufficient security for them towards God, when as in the meane time they neglected the repentance, and faith, and workes of [Page 800] Abraham. The true children of Abraham are theyRom. 4.12. who walke in the steps of the faith of Abraham, andIohn. 8.39. do the workes of Abraham, which they not regarding, could not be accounted the sonnes of Abraham, whose of-spring was reckoned according to the spirit, not according to the flesh. Thus doth our Sauiour testifie of them that they beleeued not; saying vnto them:Math. 21.31. Publicans and harlots shall go before you into the kingdome of God: For Iohn came vnto you in the way of righteousnesse, and ye beleeued him not, but Publicans and harlots beleeued him; and ye, though ye saw it, were not moued with repentance afterward that ye might beleeue him. Now is it not a wonder, that whereas it is apparent that they had no faith, yet Iohn Baptist should say vnto them, Trust not to your faith? Well, all this is nothing, he cannot serue the Popes turne that will not notably cogge and lye. The rest of his commentarie accordeth with this, where he foisteth in the satisfying of Gods iustice, there being nothing in the words of S. Iohn, that foundeth to that effect.
14. W. BISHOP.
Cor. 7.10. The 7. obiection with M. Perkins, Paul setteth downe sundrie fruites of repentance, whereof one is reuenge, whereby repentant persons punish themselues to satisfie Gods iustice, for the temporall punishment of their sinnes.
M. Perkins answereth. A repentant sinner must take vengeance of himselfe, and that is, to vse all meanes to subdue the corruption of nature, and to bridle carnall affections, which kind of actions are restrainments properly, but no punishments; directed against the sinne, but not against the person.
Reply. I neuer saw any writer so contradict himselfe, and so dull, that he doth not vnderstand his owne words. If this subduing of our corrupt nature, be restrainments onely from sinne hereafter, and not also punishments of sin past, how then doth the repentant sinner take vengeance of himselfe, which you affirme that he must do? Reuenge as euery simple body knoweth, is the requitall of euill past: We graunt that all satisfaction is directed against sinne, and not against the person, but for the great good of the man, albeit that for a season it may afflict, both his bodie and mind too, as Saint Paules former Epistle did the Corinthians, but this sorow being according vnto God, doth much benefit the person, as the Apostle declareth. For besides this reuenge taken on himselfe to [Page 801] appease Gods wrath, it breedeth (as it is in the text following) in our corrupt nature that loueth not such chastisement, A feare to returne to sinne, least it be againe punished, for where there is no feare of paines, & much pleasure, thither our corruption will runne headlong. It stirreth vp also in vs, Indignation against sinne, and all the wicked instruments of it, A defence and clearing of our selues, with the honester sort, And an emulation, and desire to flie as farre from sinne as other our equals, and consequently A loue of vertue and honest life, which freeth vs frō that sorow and all other troublesome passions, all which are plainly gathered out of the same text of S. Paul.
R. ABBOT.
The Greeke fathers Chrysostome Theophylact, Oecumenius, and Hierome amongst the Latines, do referre the reuenge there spoken of by the Apostle to the punishment of the incestuous man, whereby they maintained the authority and due regard of the lawes of God. But we further very willingly yeeld, that by reuenge is also meant a wreaking of a mans anger, as I may terme it, vpon himselfe; being offended and grieued at himselfe for the sinne that he hath done, and therefore bending himselfe to crosse and thwart those desires by which he was led vnto it. This the Scripture teacheth vs by the termes ofMath. 16.24. denying our selues, Col. 3.5. mortifying our earthly members, 1. Pet. 4.1. suffering in the flesh, Gal. 5.24. crucifying the flesh with the affections and lusts of it, andRom. 6.6. destroying of the body of sinne. Thus men occasion requiring, giue themselues ouer to fasting, and weeping, and mourning, and forbearing of accustomed delights, yea and to open rebuke and shame with men, hauing by publike offence made themselues a scandall to the Church. This reuenge we denie not; we say that hereby we testifie both to God and men the displeasure and offence that we haue taken against our selues; we teach others to take heed, and carefully to shun those occasions whereby we haue fallen; we labour hereby that the tēptations of sin may no more in the like sort preuaile against vs; but we are still to seeke of that vse which M. Bishop maketh of it, that this anger of ours against our selues is a price of satisfaction for the appeasing of Gods anger. To this being the very point, he saith neuer a word; he telleth vs of reuenge, but he prooueth not that this reuenge is a matter of [Page 802] satisfaction. We say that to this reuenge of true and faithfull repentance God graunteth remission of sinnes, but we say he graunteth it, because we seeke it, not in the merit of our reuenge, but onely in the bloud of Iesus Christ.
15 W. BISHOP.
Lastly, saith M. Perkins: They make three works of satisfaction, Prayer, Fasting, and Almes-deedes.
For the first, it is meere foolishnesse to think, that a man by prayer can satisfie for his sins, it is all one as if you had said, that a begger by asking an almes can deserue the almes, or a debtor by requesting his creditor to pardon his debt, should thereby pay his debt.
That Prayer doth appease Gods iustice, and obtaine pardon, God himselfe is witnesse, Psal. 49. saying: Call vpon me in the day of tribulation, and I will deliuer thee. Prayer cannot be made without faith in Gods power, and hope in his goodnesse, and therefore must needes be pleasing in Gods sight: by prayer we humble our selues before God, and acknowledge his [...]mnipotencie, and our infirmity. By prayer we lament with bitter teares our owne ingratitude, folly, and wickednes, and bewaile the grieuousnes of our sinnes: such prayer made King Dauid (as his Psalmes do testifie) water his couch with teares, making them his foode day and night: and by them he satisfied for his former offences. So did a farre greater sinner then he, [...] Paral. 33. King Manasses: who falling into tribulation, prayed vnto the Lord his God, and did great penance before the God of his fathers, and prayed, and intreated earnestly, and God heard his prayers, & brought him back againe to Ierusalem into his Kingdome. Now to M. Perkins Similes. A begger doth not deserue his almes, because he makes not this former kind of prayer, but the short sleight one of the Protestants from the lips outward. The like we say of a debter, whose creditor being a needy man, will not be paid without mony, but God who needs none of our goods, highly esteemeth of an humble & contrite heart, grieued much for hauing sinned in the sight of God, and humbly suing vnto him for pardon. Math. 18. To such a one he said: Did I not forgiue thee all thy debt, because thou besoughtest me?
R. ABBOT.
Maister Bishops arguments are like the foxes whelpes, neuer a one better then other and all starke naught. It is strange to see [Page 803] what shuffling and shifting he vseth to make some good shew of a bad cause. The question is, whether prayer be a worke of satisfaction, that is, a worke of that woorth and price, as that by the merit thereof we make God a iust and sufficient recompence for the offence that we haue done. For the proofe hereof he alledgeth the sentence of the Psalme:Psal. 50.15. Call vpon me in the time of trouble, and I wil heare thee. So then his reason is this, God hath promised to heare vs when we pray vnto him, therefore prayer is a worke of satisfaction. As much as if he should say, the prince promiseth a traitour vpon his submission and intreatie to giue him his pardon: therefore his submission and intreaty is a sufficient recompence for his treason. We may see how maruellously the Romane religion sharpeneth mens eye-sight, that they can see mans satisfaction there, where God onely signifieth his owne merciful disposition. Yea but God doth thereby witnesse, that prayer doth appease Gods iustice and obtaine pardon. Yea but what need a pardon when the sin is already pardoned? for prayer is made a worke of satisfaction after the forgiuenesse of the sinne, as I haue shewed before. A very ridiculous deuice, that God first remitteth the trespasse, and we afterwards for a punishment: and to make God amends and satisfaction, must say, Forgiue vs our trespasses. Therefore when he speaketh of obtaining pardon, he doth but seeke by words of truth to colour absurd dotages of falshood and error. The vse of prayer is indeed not to make satisfaction, but to craue pardon. It appeaseth Gods iustice by the intreating of his mercie, whilest we beseech him to heare vs, not for our prayers sake, but for Christs sake; not by the merit of our satisfaction, but by vertue of his intercession; not for the works sake which we do, but for his truths sake, for that he hath promised so to do to them that call vpon him. By our prayer we request him to forgiue vs, that is, not to vrge vs to satisfaction, and is it not an absurd fancy to affirme prayer it selfe to be a satisfaction? And what do men in this case, but mocke and dally with God, in asking him forgiuenesse, when in the meane time they thinke to make him a full and iust requitall of his wrongs, so that there shall be nothing to be forgiuen? For what remaineth to be forgiuen where there is yeelded a sufficient recompence for the offence done? M. Bishop goeth on and telleth vs, that prayer cannot be made without faith. It is true, & by faith it is that our prayer obtaineth all things at Gods [Page 804] hand. But of faith it is true which S. Ambrose saith, thatAmbros. de Poenitent. lib. 2. cap. 8. Tanquam ex syngrapha fides impetrat, nō tanquam ex debito. it obtaineth as by deed of gift, not by way of debt. It looketh not to our satisfaction, but to the promise of God through the mediation of Iesus Christ. Further, he alledgeth idlely and impertinently, that prayer is pleasing vnto God: that by it we humble our selues before him, acknowledging his omnipotencie, and our owne infirmitie; that thereby we lament and bewaile the grieuousnesse of our sinnes. He mentioneth king Dauid watering his couch with teares, and making them his food day and night: & Manasses greatly humbling himself, as the text saith, (not doing great penance as he translateth) & intreating the Lord, so as that the Lord heard him, &c. Now all these things are according to the Prouerbe, Pro rastris ligones; we cal for rakes, and he sends vs mattocks; we demand one thing, and he answereth another. We say that prayer is pleasing to God; we confesse all these vses and effects thereof, but what is all this to the proouing of satisfaction? how doth hee make it appeare that that which Dauid and Manasses did, they did it with opinion or purpose to make satisfaction for their sinnes? I would aske him here with what face he could thus set himselfe to delude his Reader with empty shadowes and shewes of vaine discourse, but that I see his whole booke in a manner is made of such delusions. But here to shew the absurdity of this assertion of theirs, that prayer is a matter of satisfaction, M. Perkins had said, that it is all one as if they should say, that a begger by asking of almes should deserue his almes, or that a debter by requesting his creditor to pardon the debt, should thereby pay the debt. See now what a scholerlike answer M. Bishop hath returned. To the first he saith, A begger doth not deserue his almes, because he makes not this former kind of prayer, but the short sleight one of the Protestants from the lippes outward. Thus full simply he giueth a gird at the Protestants prayers, to shift himselfe from answering for their owne. But what if the begger do make that kind of prayer, and with much lamentation craue an almes, is he thereby to expect it as deserued and due vnto him? hath he hereby any iust right and title to that which he craueth? Surely, if it be due vnto him, it is no almes, or if it be an almes, then it is not due vnto him. Why could not Master Bishop conceiue the instance as well of the earnest and hearty request of the begger, as of that short sleight one from the lips outward, but that he [Page 805] was put to his shifts, and was glad thus in a cloud to steale away? But it is some further matter that he hath respect vnto. For we Protestants are content to pray simply as Christ hath taught, not thinking any vertue to consistEccles. 5.2. in multitude of words, nor imagining that by the length of our prayers we are to preuaile with God, or that by the often saying of them he is the more affected with them, but measuring prayer by the intention and affection of the heart, vttering it selfe according to the motion of it selfe, either by few or many words. We pray not by rule, nor offer our deuotions to God by taske and tale, knowing it to be butAugust. Epist. 121. cap. 10. Multum loqui est rem necessariam superfluis agere v [...]rbis. babling to moue a necessary matter to God with superfluous and needlesse words But the new Catholikes are like the old heathens, who thought themselues to be the betterMath. 6.7. heard for their much babling and often repeating, and therefore they say their prayers by number and stint, as if they would make therof a charme or inchantment to bind God to their will. A man for a penance must say so many Pater nosters, and so many Auemaries, and so many Creedes, and when he hath so done, he is man good enough, he hath made satisfaction for his sinnes. In one of their bookes there are seuen short prayers before which there is this Rubricke:Horae beatae Mar. Virg. secundum vsum Sarum. Quicunque instatu gratiae existens deuotè dixerit septem Orationes sequentes, cum 7. Pater noster, & 7. Aue Maria ante imaginem pietatis, mer [...]bitur 56 millia annorum indulgent. &c. Whosoeuer being in the state of grace, shall deuoutly say these seuen prayers following before the Crucifixe, with seuen Pater nosters, and seuen Auemaries, he shall obtaine sixe and fifty thousand yeares of pardon; fourteene thousand granted by Saint Gregorie, fourteene thousand by Nicholas the fifth, and those doubled by Sixtus the fourth. O what a horrible vertue there is in the number of Seuen, when it comes to prayers and Pater nosters, and Auemaries! what a foule rule would he make in Purgatorie, that should vse euery day to say these prayers? He should haue so many thousand yeares to spare from himselfe as that he might rid a great murth of soules out of that cruell prison. Such a like foolerie do we find in theirIesus Psalter in the end of the Manual of meditation, &c Iesus Psalter, commended for that the glorious name of Iesus is therein called vpon foure hundred and fiftie times: in which there are fifteene principall petitions, which must be said euery one by themselues ten times, and you may say them vpon your tenne fingers, (to be sure to keepe iust reckoning) or else vpon tenne beades, and in euery of these tenne times the name of Iesus is thrice repeated, thirty times in euery petition, as for example:
- [Page 806]1 Iesu, Iesu, Iesu, mercie.
- 2 Iesu, Iesu, Iesu, mercy.
- 3 Iesu, Iesu, Iesu, mercy. &c.
- 1 Iesu, Iesu, Iesu, helpe me.
- 2 Iesu, Iesu, Iesu, helpe me.
- 3 Iesu, Iesu, Iesu, helpe me, &c.
- 1 Iesu, Iesu, Iesu, strength me.
- 2 Iesu, Iesu, Iesu, strength me.
- 3 Iesu, Iesu, Iesu, strength me, &c.
till in euery [...]e ye make vp the number often. Now I trow the short, sleight prayers of the Protestants be not comparable to these deuotions: no maruell if both heauen and hell be coniured at so often repeating of the name of Iesus. What Circe might be thought likely to bewitch men so farre, as to giue any regard to such drunken fancies? What Prophet, or Apostle, or Father, or Martyr, or Confessor hath giuen thē any example of praying in this sort? Or if they haue no example of it, why do they thus lewdly entangle simple soules with an opinion of deuotion in that wherein there is nothing but absurd and heathenish superstition? These now are the prayers of satisfaction, by which M. Bishop will haue vs to vnderstand, that there is a difference betwixt Catholikes and beggers; for Catholikes say their prayers often ouer, and thereby they merit much. And yet we see, that an importunate hungry begger will stand long, & go ouer his beggers dittie, as often as M. Bishops poenitent doth his Pater noster and his Creed, who for all that, can claime nothing as due vnto him for the paines that he hath taken. And if a begger by his instance and earnestnesse can merit nothing at a mans hands, shall we thinke that a Catholike begger by his instance can merit and deserue at the hands of God? Beleeue it that list: as for vs we know that prayer craueth by way of almes, and therefore by way of merit can expect nothing.
His exception to M. Perkins second comparison is as ridiculous and vaine as the former: The like we say of a debter, saith he, whose creditor being a needy man will not be payed without money. But what if the creditor be not a needy man, but will be content without any [Page 807] money to remit the debt? What, are all creditours needy men, and are there none found that forgiue debts? doth M. Bishop know neuer a Catholike that sheweth so great compassion vpon a poore man, humbly intreating him in that behalfe? If he do not, we suspect their charity: if he do, we suspect his honestie, who would mocke his Reader with such a paltry shift, telling vs an idle tale, what it is wherewith the creditor is payed, when our speech is of intreatie to remit the debt? But in this case it is cleare, that as it is absurd to say, that the debters intreaty for the forgiuing of his debt, may be called a satisfaction for the debt: so it is absurd to say, that our prayer to God for the forgiuenesse of our sinnes, may be called a satisfaction for our sinnes. There is no disproportion whence he may take any aduantage against the force of this exception. But yet further he maketh God by this meanes like vnto his needy creditour. For as the creditour must be appeased by money, so must God by merit, and on both parts satisfaction is required. What it is wherewith the satisfaction is made it skilleth not, be it to God one way, and to the creditor another way; but on both sides there must be iust and worthy satisfaction. He would make vs beleeue, that God freely forgiueth nothing, but either we must by merit purchase our release, or else we must lye by it, till we haue payed the vttermost farthing. Yea and that must be many times for mony also: for although God himselfe take no mony for Pardons, yet the Vicar of Rome doth for him. An humble and contrite heart will not serue the turne, he must pay for it that will be pardoned. Thus M. Bishops shifts fall out amisse on euery side, and he can say nothing to serue his turne. Better were it for him to yeeld to the truth, then thus to shame himselfe by fighting so childishly against it. In a word we tell him, that God indeed esteemeth an humble and contrite heart, grieuing for sinne, and suing for pardon, but he esteemeth the same as suing for pardon, not as presuming of satisfaction. A strange suter is he, that thinketh suite to be satisfaction, or that by requesting a pardon he iustly deserueth to be pardoned. He alledgeth that it is said,Mat. 18.32. Did not I forgiue thee the debt, because thou besoughtest me, but yet he doth not find that it is said, I forgaue thee the debt, because by beseeching me thou madest me a full recōpence & satisfaction for the debt. If he had made satisfaction therby, then it should not haue bene said afterwards, which M. Bishop should haue [Page 808] remembred:Vers. 34. His master was wroth, and deliuered him to the iaylers till he should pay all that was due vnto him. There could nothing remaine due, where iust satisfaction had bene made.
16. W. BISHOP.
Secondly, saith M. Perkins: Fasting is a thing indifferent of the same nature with eating and drinking, no more conferring to the kingdome of heauen, then eating and drinking doth. What an Epicurian and fleshly doctrine is this? Why then did the Niniuites fast, put on sack-cloth, and lye on the ground (all which bodily afflictions are reduced to fasting) rather then eate, and drinke, and presume of Gods mercy, if the one had bene as acceptable to God as the other? Why is S. Iohn Baptist commended for his rough garments and thin diet, if cherishing the flesh please God as well as punishing of it? Christ saith expressely: That if we fast in secret, his heauenly Father will repay vs openly: will he reward eating and drinking so liberally? but of fasting we shall haue a whole Chapter hereafter. Therefore brieflly I here conclude, that this doctrine tendeth to the establishment of the kingdome of Atheists and Epicures, whose sweet speech is: Let vs eate, and let vs drinke, for after death there is no pleasure: true, for such belli-gods and their followers.
R. ABBOT.
That fasting of it self is a thing indifferent neuer wise man made any doubt. No man euer yet in a right mind thought it to be a matter of vertue to keepe a mans belly emptie. Surely, if to fast be a vertue, then to eate and drink is a vice, because whatsoeuer is contrarie to vertue is vice. If fasting of it selfe be a good worke, a man may do a good worke against his will, because a man may be made to fast, when he hath more will to eate. But it might please his wisdome to vnderstand, that some things simply and of themselues are good: other some things simply and of themselues are euill: othersome of themselues are neither good nor euill, but yet are instruments and may be vsed either to good or euill. Of this last kind are riches, health, strength, walking, sitting, waking, sleeping, mariage, [Page 809] virginitie, and such like, by which for the things themselues a man is neither the better nor the worse, but by a good man they may be applyed to good, and by an euill man to euill. Of the same nature are eating, drinking, fasting, for none of which can a man be called better then another man, because they are things indifferently common both to good and euill, although by a good man they may be vsed to good. And therefore as Iohn Baptist cameMat. 11.18.1 [...] neither eating nor drinking, so the sonne of man came both eating and drinking, to giue to vnderstand, that neither eating nor fasting of themselues do make vs any whit the more accepted in the sight of God. Neither did our Sauiour Christ by eating and drinking cherish the flesh in such sort as it is vnlawful to cherish the flesh, which is meant of the vices, not of the substance of the flesh, by wantonnesse, intemperancie, and excesse, not by moderate and sober feeding and diet: in which respect let him remember what the Apostle saith, thatEph. 5.29. neuer any man hated his owne flesh, but loueth and cherisheth it, euen as the Lord doth the Church: thereby noting them to be vnnaturall monsters rather then men, of whom he speaketh in another place, who placeCol. 2.23. religion in not sparing the body, and not hauing it in any honour to satisfie the flesh. As for the Niniuites, if they had but only fasted, they had done as good as nothing, what had they done more then their cattle did? But they fasted to humble themselues to God, and to shew their feare of his iudgement, and for these things God vouchsafed to respect their fast. And thus he thatMat. 6.17.18. fasteth in secret, not to fast, butTertul. de poen. leiunijs preces a al [...]re. by fasting to cherish prayer; not to afflict the body, but to affect the soule: that is, that vseth the one not for it selfe, but for the other, not for1. Tim. 4.8. bodily, but for spirituall and godly exercise, him the Father seeth in secret, and will reward him openly. It is not simply fasting, that God requireth, but humiliation and prayer; he requireth fasting accidentally, onely as a support and help therof. Therefore the doctrine of Poperie is most absurd and senslesse, which maketh fasting distinctly by it selfe, and for it selfe, not only an act of Gods worship, but also a matter of merit, such as whereby we make satisfaction to God, and purchase of him the remission of our sinnes. M. Bishop alledgeth somewhat concerning fasting, as we see, but concerning this vse of fasting, though it were the matter in hand, he had nothing at all to say. As for his cauils they are handled before inSect. 18. answer to his Epistle to the King. The kingdom [Page 810] of Atheists & Epicures in the whole world doth not flourish more then in the Court and Church of Rome, and I do almost perswade my selfe, that M. Bishop in his owne conscience is perswaded that it is so. I doubt not but he would tell a prety tale in this behalfe concerning their masters the Iesuites, but that now his tongue is tyed vp, and he must say no more, he hath bene taught what it is to tell vs tales out of their schoole.
17. W. BISHOP.
Lastly, he saith, that almes-deeds cannot be workes of satisfaction for sinnes: for when we giue them as we ought, we do but our duty, and we may as well say, that a man by paying one debt, may discharge another, as to say by doing his duty, he may satisfie Gods iustice for the punishment of his sinnes. A man might suppose, that this man were pretily well seene in Carolo Buffone, that thus ruffleth in graue matters with his simple Similes.
That almes-deeds redeeme our sins, purge vs from them, and make all things cleane vnto vs, hath bene already proued out of holy Scriptures, I will ioyne thereunto this one testimony of that holy Martyr S. Cypriā: Our frailty could not tell what to do,Serm. de opere & eleemos. vnlesse the goodnesse of God by teaching vs the workes of iustice and mercy, had shewed vs a certaine way of preseruing our saluation, which is, that with alms-deeds we might wash cleane away the filth of sinnes, which we had contracted after Baptisme. The holy Ghost speaketh in the Scripture, and saith: Sinnes are purged by almes-deeds and faith.
Now to M. Perkins Simile. We deny that a man is bound to giue all the almes that he can: we are bound to giue that which we may well spare, when there is great want: but almes (which is a part of satisfactiō) is not giuen out of our superfluitie, but spared from our necessarie vses, and is many times bestowed, when there is no such great need, vpon building Schooles, Colledges, Hospitals and Chappels. And this may serue to answer M. Perkins Similes against these three works of satisfaction. If any man desire to know why we make speciall reckoning of these three works, it is principally for two causes: First, we being to satisfie, must performe it with such things as be our owne, which be of three sorts, either they belong to our soule, or to our bodie, or to our externall goods. The goods of our mind we offer to God by prayer, by fasting, and other [Page 811] reasonable bodily discipline, we exhibite vnto him a liuing hoast,Rom 12.1. holy and pleasing God. By almesdeeds we make him an agreeable present of our goods. Secondly, all sinne as S. Iohn teacheth, 1. Epist. 2. may be reduced into three principall heads. The concupiscence of the flesh, that is lechery, which is cooled by fasting and such like afflicting of the body: Concupiscence of the eyes, couetousnesse, which is purged and chased away by almesdeeds: and pride of life, which is suppressed by humble prayer, and often meditation of our owne miseries.
R. ABBOT.
Simple similes, saith M. Bishop. Now he may be taken for a very simple man, who to answer simple similes is forced to vse such simple shifts. We may wonder at the blindnesse of these arrogant and presumptuous hypocrites, who thus stand vpon their terms with God, of doing more for him then they are bound to do, more then by dutie they owe vnto him. Euery man of common ordinary pietie and deuotion confesseth, that whatsoeuer we are, or whatsoeuer we haue, either within vs or without vs, we owe all to God,Act. 17.28. In him we liue, and moue, and haue our being. Of his bountie we receiue, and by his mercie we enioy whatsoeuer we enioy. So litle interest haue we in any thing in his sight, as that at his commaundement we are to leaue whatsoeuer we haue. In all the gifts therefore which we giue in his name and for his sake, we are to say and to acknowledge, Tua ex tuis tibi offerimus, Of thine owne we offer vnto thee that which is thine owne, and nothing but thine owne. And although God haue not determined vnto euery man all particular vses of those benefites wherewith he hath endowed them, yet he hath taught euery man to remember himselfe to be the Lords steward for that portiō which he hath, and that to him he shal giue account of the disposing of it. He hath giuē euery man leaue to vse the same according to the state and calling whereunto he is called, and for the lawfull vpholding and increasing of it, and accordingly to haue respect of those that are his,1. Tim. 5.8. for whom he that careth not to prouide, hath denied the faith, and is worse then an infidel; but yet so, as that he otherwise alsoTit. 3.14. learne to do good works for necessary vses, that he be not vnfruitfull; that as he is a member of the body of Christ, so he employ that which he hath as occasiō requireth, to the publike benefit [Page 812] and vse of the same body. And this is one part of the thankes that we ow vnto almightie God, not to think much when there is cause to bestow some part of that which we haue to the honor & seruice of him at whose hands we haue receiued all. Which, he that neglecteth to do, and turneth all to priuate vse, and to the building of his owne house, bringeth vpon himselfe the iudgement denounced by the Prophet, and commonly verified before our eyes,Habac. 2.9.10 He that coueteth an euil couetousnes to himselfe, that he may set his neast on high to escape frō the power of euill, consulteth shame to his owne house. Now seeing all that we haue is Gods, and we can no way sufficiently recompence the mercy that he hath shewed in bestowing the same vpon vs, what extreme madnesse is it to imagine, that thereout we can yeeld him a iust and worthy price of redemption and satisfactiō for our sins? Spare we neuer so much from our necessary vses, and giue we neuer so much as it were out of our owne bellies, yet our consciences should tell vs that it is not the thousandth part of that which God hath deserued of vs; and shall we be so witlesse as to thinke that that wee doe may be a sufficient recompence for the wrongs that we haue done vnto him? It is worthy to be noted which the Apostle teacheth vs, that2. Cor. 8.1.3. to be willing beyond our power to minister to the Saints is a grace of God bestowed vpon vs. It is the fruite of Gods loue towards vs to carry this minde towards those that are his. What strange men then are they, who of that which is the effect of Gods loue and mercie towards vs, will make a matter of our merite and desert towards God? In a word, M. Bishops answer is a most idle dreame; and because we can do nothing but what we owe to God, and all infinitely too little to shew foorth our thankfulnesse towards him, we must say as M. Perkins doth, that in giuing almes as we ought, we do but our dutie; and that to say that by almes-deeds we may satisfie for our sinnes, is the same as to say, that a man by paying one debt may discharge another. But yet it concerneth them to sticke hard for the maintaining of this deuice, for in all the ports of Rome there is not a ship that hath brought in more rich lading then this hath done. For hereby they haue had the commaundement of mens purses, their goods and lands; and whilest they haue borne them in hand, that from necessary vses they must take somewhat for the redeeming of their sins, they haue made them rob their wiues, [Page 813] their children, posteritie and friends, to bestow vpon holy Church, as they called the gifts which they craued for themselues. By this pretence, likeExod. 10.15. the Grashoppers of Egypt, they deuoured all that was greene vpon the earth: whatsoeuer was delightsome and pleasant they found meanes to make it theirs. And hence came those rich endowments of religious houses, men vpon conscience of sinne sparing no cost, in false hope to find some comfort thereby, asAnswer to the Epist. Ded. sect. 31. before was said. And this point of satisfaction was so much the more willingly entertained, because they that were loth to trouble themselues with fasting and prayer, yet found helpe enough hereby, for thatThom. Aquin: supplē q. 15. art. 3 ad 3. Eleemosyna aliorum vices supplere potest inquantum alia satisfactionis opera per eleemosynam quisque sibi mercatur quodammodo in ijs quibus eleemosynam tribuit. almes may supply or serue in steed of the rest, inasmuch as by it a man in some sort buyeth for himselfe the other workes of satisfaction in them to whom he giueth almes. This is the wonderfull vertue of the almes that is enioyned by a Popish Priest, that when a man neither fasteth nor prayeth, yet it maketh other mens fastings and prayers serue the turne for the remission of his sin. And this was the notable cosening deuice of those holy votaries, to make men beleeue (as before hath bene mentioned) that they had a facultie to transport their merits and satisfactions to the vse of them that were beneficial vnto them, verifying in themselues that which the Apostle S. Peter had prophesied of them,2. Pet. 2.3. Through couetousnesse with fained words they shall make merchandize of you. But M. Bishop here in malice to the Iesuits, quite passeth by religious houses, as if the almes of satisfaction did not belong to them. Howsoeuer he be outwardly pacified, yet manet alta mente repostum, it is neither forgotten nor forgiuen, if he knew which way to worke his will. As for Schooles, Colledges, Hospitals, Chappels, the building of them (if it be in the true faith of Christ) is a gracious and godly worke, but when they are so done, they are done as testimonies of our thankfulnesse and dutie to God, not as satisfactions for our sins. Now although he haue hitherto proued nothing as touching satisfaction, yet presuming that he hath so done, he ioyneth to that supposed proofe the testimony of Cyprian, saying thatCypr. de Eleem. Nec habebat quid fragilitatis humanae infirmitas atque imbecillitas faceret nisi iterū pietas diuina subueniens iustitiae & misericordiae operibus ostensis viam quandam tuendae salutis aperiret, vt sordes post modum quascunque contrahimus eleemosynis abluamus. our frailty and weaknes could not tell what to do, vnlesse the mercy of God helping vs had by shewing vs the workes of iustice and mercy, opened vs away for the preseruing of our saluation, that by almes-deeds we clense or wash away whatsoeuer filth of sin we contract after baptisme. Which words of Cyprian, if we construe them in rigour as they sound, do containe a most dangerous [Page 814] and vnchristian assertion, and such as all men rightly minded do abhorre, that by Christ all our sins are forgiuen in baptisme whatsoeuer we haue done, but that whatsoeuer we sinne afterwards is to be purged and cleansed by our selues. Whereof it must follow, that we who are baptized in infancie haue no further benefite of Christs redemption, but that we receiue then for the freeing of vs from the bond of originall vncleannesse. Yea and if the way wherby after baptisme we are to be cleansed from our sinnes be almes, in what case must they be who onely receiue almes, and haue none to giue, and therefore want that meanes for the forgiuenesse of their sinnes? But the true doctrine of the Gospel setteth Christ before vs, not onely in baptisme, but afterwards also to beIoh 1.29. the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinne of the world. S. Iohn being baptized, speaketh of himselfe amongst others, and saith it to them that are baptized,1. Ioh. 2.2. If any man sinne, we haue an Aduocate with the Father, Iesus Christ the iust, and he is the propitiation for our sinnes. The true confessiō of which point of faith S. Austin deliuereth, in saying thatAugust. cont. 2. epis. Pelag. li. 3 ca. 6. Caro Christi verū est & vnicum sacrificium pro peccatu, non solùm his quae vniuersa in baptismate diluuntur; verumetiam his quae post ex huius vitae infirmitate surrepūt, propter quae quotidiè vniuersa in oratione ad Deū clamat Ecclesia, Dimitte nobis, &c. et dimittutitur nobis per singulare sacrificiū pro peccatis. the flesh of Chrst is the true and onely sacrifice for sins, not onely those which altogether are washed away in baptisme, but those also which afterwards steale vpon vs by the frailtie of this life, for which the whole Church crieth dayly in prayer to God, forgiue vs our trespasses, and they are forgiuen vs by that onely sacrifice for sinnes. We learne here another maner of lesson then Cyprian there teacheth, that after baptisme, not the sacrifice of our almes, but the onely sacrifice of the bodie of Christ is the remission of our sinnes. M. Bishop must giue vs leaue rather to beleeue Austine speaking according to the Scripture, then Cyprian speaking directly against the Scripture. And therefore wee aunswer him as the same Austine did the Donatists, when they alledged an Epistle of Cyprian against him,Cont. Crescon. lib. 2. cap. 31 Nos nullam Cypriano facimus iniuriā cū eius quaeslibet literas à canonica diuinarum Scripturarum authoritate distinguimus, &c. Et cap. 32. Ego huius epistolae authoritate non teneor, quia liter [...]s Cypriani non vt canonica [...] haebeo. sed eas ex canonicis considero, & quod in eis diuinarū scripturarū authoritati congruit, cum laude eius accipio, quod autem non conguit, cum pace eius respuo. We do Cyprian no wrong to distinguish any writings of his from the authoritie of holy Scripture. We are not bound to the authoritie of this epistle (or sermon) because we account not Cyprians writings as canonicall, but consider them by the Canonicall Scriptures, and what therein agreeth to the authoritie of holy Scripture, we receiue it with his praise, but what agreeth not, by his leaue we refuse it. Albeit because we find Cyprian elsewhere acknowledging in the name of all the faithfull, thatCyprian. de orat. Dom. Ipsum habemus apud Patrē Aduocatū pro peccatis nostris. we haue Christ with the Father to be the Aduocate for our sinnes, [Page 815] thereby confessing the effect of Christs redemption to be extended to the whole course of our life, we dare not conceiue, howsoeuer his words be very harsh, that his meaning was so bad as thereby it may seeme to be. And to iustifie himself to conceiue no otherwise but that the washing and cleansing of vs from our sinnes amidst all our almes and deuotions consisteth not in that which we do, but in the bloud of Christ, he saith in another place,Idem ser. de ablut. pedum. Clementissime magister quoties ego doctrinae tuae transgressus sum regulas; quoties edicta tua Domine sancte contempsi, & cùm diceres mihi, Reuertere, non sum reuersus: cùm minareris, non tim [...]: cùm bonus esses & lenis, exasperans fui. Vltra septuagies septies in coelum & coram te peccaui. Quis tot sordes abluet? qui [...] abradet stercora cōglobata? Quicquid dicat Petrus, necesse est vt ipse nos abluas; neque enim lauare nos possumus, sed in omnibus quae agimus indulgentiae tuae lauacro indigemus, &c. Apud te fons vitae est, et miserationum quae à seculo sun [...] profunditas infinita; abluisti nos baptismo, lauasti sanguine tuo, semper lauas quotidiana peccata donando. O mercifull Lord, how often haue I transgressed the rules of thy doctrine; how often (O holy Lord) haue I despised thy commaundements, and when thou saidst vnto me, Returne, I haue not returned; when thou threatnedst, I feared not; when thou wast good and gentle, I haue prouoked thee: beyond seuentie times seuen times I haue sinned against heauen and before thee. Who shall wash away so much filth? who shall take away the mucke that is thus growne together? Let Peter say what he will (in refusing to be washed) we haue need that thou wash vs, for we cannot wash our selues, but in all things that we do, we stand in need of the washing of thy pardon and mercie. With thee is the well of life, and the infinit depth of mercies which haue bene from euerlasting: thou hast washed vs in baptisme, thou hast washed vs in thy bloud, thou alwayes washest vs by forgiuing our daily sinnes. By these words he giueth plainly to vnderstand, that he did not think the washing and cleansing of vs to consist in the merit of our almes, but in the forgiuenesse of our sins. He confesseth that in all that we do, we stand in need of pardon, and therefore cannot be imagined to thinke that any thing that we do is a satisfaction for our sinnes. In the other words therefore we must conceiue his purpose to be onely to note and set forth the acts and affections of them who truly and faithfully seeke remission of their sins by the mercie of God in the bloud of Iesus Christ, albeit being instant and earnest, as men are wont to be to presse that that he had in hand, he runneth into inconuenient phrases and speeches, which otherwise stand not with the rule of Christian saith. Those workes of mercie and compassion towards our brethren, are the true fruites and effects, the consequents and companions of that contrite and broken heart, that repentance and faith to which God hath made the promise of his mercy, and therfore because in the doing thereof we find mercy, he so speaketh thereof as if by the works themselues we obtained that mercie, when yet it is not for the workes sake that God accepteth vs, but for Christs sake, whom by our workes [Page 816] we shew that we vnfainedly seeke, and do truly beleeue in him. And as for the place of Scripture which he alledgeth, though by error of the scribe perhaps it be, that there is noted in the margent the fourth of Tobie, yet these words not being found in Tobie, and the words that are in Tobie being cited afterwards, he therein alludeth vndoubtedly to a saying of Solomon in the Prouerbes; but forcing the text, and putting in almes and faith in steed of mercy and truth. Which words of Solomon, if a whining aduersary by instance and importunitie will vrge vpon vs to expound of the mercie and truth of man, it must be read and construed according to the same meaning which is already expressed,Prou. 16.6. In mercie and truth iniquitie shall be forgiuen, that is, where mercy and truth are, there is forgiuenesse of sinnes, as to note the conditions of the persons whose sins are forgiuen, not the thing by vertue whereof they are forgiuen. But we haue no warrant of any other Scripture in any other meaning to tie it to our mercie and truth, and therefore must vnderstand it of the mercie and truth of God, of which the Prophet Dauid speaketh, when hauing signified the forgiuenesse of the sinnes of Gods people, and the nearnesse of his saluation to them that feare him, he addeth for the cause thereof,Psal. 85.10. Mercie and truth are met together. Of which also the Euangelist S. Iohn saith,Iohn 1.17. Grace and truth, that is, mercie and truth come by Iesus Christ. Thus then by mercie and truth iniquitie is forgiuen; not by any merite or worke of ours, not by any satisfaction that we can make, but by the mercie of God, truly performing the promise that he hath made of the remission of sinnes by the bloud of Iesus Christ. As for the booke of Tobie noted as I said in the margent, and from whence Cyprian afterwards alledgeth other words of almes deliuering from death and purging all sinne, it is not of sufficient authoritie to proue vnto vs any matter of faith, the auncient Church testifying of it, and the rest of the same sort, as Hierome and Ruffinus haue recorded, thatHieron. prolog. galeat. Igitur sapientia Solomonis & Jesu filij Sirach liber, & Iudith & Tobias non sunt in Canone. Sic Ruffin. in expos. Symb. they are not canonicall, and S. Austine affirming thatAugust. deciuit. Dei. lib. 17. ca. 20. Aduersus contradict [...]resnō tanta firmitate proferuntur qua scripta non sunt in Cano [...]e Iudae [...]rum. the writings which are not in the Canon of the Iewes (as none are but what they had written in their owne tongue) are not with so great authoritie alledged in matters of question and contradiction. Albeit we will not disauow those words in that meaning, as I haue before expressed, that almesdeeds deliuer from death and purge vs from sinne, as arguments for proofe that we are deliuered from death and purged from sin, [Page 817] not as causes effecting and working the same purgation, or if we will vse the name of causes, as causes to our apprehension & knowledge, not as causes of the essence and being of the thing. But take all these speeches how we wil, it shall appeare (God willing) in the next sectiō that they make nothing at al for M. Bishop, and that they are impudently wrested to that purpose for which he alledgeth them. In the meane time for the conclusion of this section he telleth vs a reason why they make speciall reckoning of these three workes for satisfaction, but the ground of his reason fully ouerthroweth all the assertion thereof. Being to satisfie (saith he) we must performe it with such things as be our owne. But say we, we haue nothing of our owne, but whatsoeuer we haue is his,Rom. 11.36. of whom, and through whom, and for whom are all things. Therefore as before hath bin concluded, we cannot satisfie at all. Whether they be goods of the mind, or of the bodie, or externall goods, we owe all vnto him, and we do but pay him with his owne. His applying of the words of the Apostle to fasting is absurd. Reasonable bodily discipline, saith he; whereas the Apostle byRom. 12.1. reasonable seruice meaneth that that is mentall and spirituall, and thereby agreeable to God, who isIohn 4.24. a spirit, and will be worshipped in spirit and truth, not any1. Tim. 4.8. bodily exercise which profiteth little, as the same Apostle speaketh. So the other words of a liuing sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, are misapplied to a particular act of fasting, hauing a generall reference to the whole course of a Christian life and conuersation. I omit the rest of his words as idle.
18. W. BISHOP.
But now to knit vp this question: let vs heare briefly what the best learned and purest antiquitie hath taught of this satisfaction done by man; and because M. Perkins began with Tertullian, omitting his auncients: let vs first heare what he saith of it in his booke of penance. How foolish is it (saith he) not to fulfill our penance, and yet to expect pardon of our sinnes, this is not to tender the price, and yet to put out a hand for the reward: for God hath decreed to set the pardon at this price: he proposeth impunitie to be redeemed with this recompence of penance.
His equall in standing, and better in learning, Origen thus discourseth: [Page 818] See our good Lord tempering mercie with seueritie,Hom. 3. in lib. Judic. and weighing the measure of the punishment in a iust and merciful ballance: he deliuereth not vp a sinner for euer. But looke how long time thou knowest thy self to haue offended, so long do thou humble thy selfe to God, and satisfie him in the confession of penance.
That glorious Martyr, and most learned Archbishop S. Cyprian, is wonderful vehement against them that would not haue seuere penance done by such as fell in persecution: Lib. 1. ep. 3. saying: That such indiscreet men labour tooth and naile, that satisfaction be not done to God, highly offended against them.Lib. 3. ep. 14. And saith further, That he who withdraweth our brethren from these workes of satisfaction, doth miserably deceiue them, causing them that might do true penance, and satisfie God their mercifull Father, with their prayer and workes, to perish dayly, and to be more and more seduced to their further damnation.
Orat. in illa verba, attende tibi. Idem Ambr. ad virg. lap cap. 8. S. Basil sath: Look to thy selfe, that according to the proportion of thy fault thou mayst hence also borrow some help of recouering thy health. Is it a great and grieuous offence? it hath then need of much confession, bitter teares, a sharpe combat of watching, and vncessant and continued fasting: if the offence were light and more tollerable, yet let the penance be equall vnto it.
Orat in sanct. lum. S. Gregory Nazianzē saith: It is as great an euil to pardon without some punishment, as to punish without all pitie. For as that doth loose the bridle to all licentiousnesse, so this doth straine it too much.
Jdem de paup. amor.By compassion on the poore and faith, sinnes are purged, therefore let vs be clensed by this compassion, let vs scoure out the spots and filth of our soules with this egregious herb that makes it white, some as wool, others as snow, according to the proportion of euery mans compassion and almes.
De Helia & Ieiun. S. Ambrose saith, We haue many helpes whereby we may redeeme our sinnes: hast thou mony? redeeme thy sinne, not that our Lord is to be bought and sold, but thou thy self art sold by thy sins, redeeme thy selfe with thy workes, redeeme thee with thy money. And, Epist. 82. how could we be saued, vnlesse we washed away our sinnes by fasting?
S. Hierome maketh Paula a blessed matron say, My face is to be disfigured, which against the commaundement of God I painted: my bodie is to be afflicted that hath taken so great pleasure: my [Page 819] often laughter is to be recompenced with continuall weeping: my silkes and soft clothing is to be changed into rough haire. Reade another Epistle of his to the same Eustochium,Ad Eustoch. de obitu Paulae. about the preseruing of her virginitie, and see what penance himselfe did, being a most vertuous yong man.
S. Augustine saith, He that is truly penitent,Epist. 54. looks to nothing else then that he leaues not vnpunished the sinne which he committed: For by that meanes, not sparing our selues, he whose high and iust iudgement no contemptuous person can escape, doth spare vs.
And he sheweth how that a penitent sinner doth come to the Priest, and receiue of him the measure of his satisfaction.Lib. 50. hom. Hom. 50. cap. 11. Cap. 15. And saith directly against our Protestants position, That it is not sufficient to amend our manners, and to depart from the euill which we haue committed, vnlesse we do also satisfie God for those things which we had done.
S. Gregory saith, That sins are not onely to be confessed,Lib. 6. in 1. Reg. but to be blotted out with the austeritie of penance.
I will close vp these testimonies with this sentence of our learned countriman venerable Bede: Delight (saith he) or desire to sinne,Jn Psal. 1. when we do satisfaction is lightly purged by almesdeeds and such like: but consent is not rubbed out without great penance: now custome of sinning is not taken away but by a iust and heauie satisfaction.
R. ABBOT.
Here M. Bishop knitteth vp the question, but he knitteth it (gentle Reader) with a bow-knot; if thou haue but skill to pull the right string, thou shalt presently loose all that he hath knit. Aske him, and let him tell thee the true state of the question here disputed, and thou canst presently discerne, that of these so many testimonies by him alledged, there is none, not so much as 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 [Page 820] 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 vnderstād this secret of theirs, thou art to obserue that in sin they affirme two things,Bellar. de paen. lib. 4. cap. 1. Cum homines in Deū peccant, amicitiā simul & iustitiā violant. Ac pro amicitia reformanda, nō potest homo Deo satisfaceremam satisfactio hominis erga Deum acceptatione ipsius Dei necessari [...] indi [...] get: acceptatio autem amicitiā praesupponit. Et praeterea vt satisfactio sit aliquo modo ad aequae [...] tatem, oportet vt sicut offensio habuit infinitatem quandā ex parte obiecti, sic habeat satisfactio infinitatē aliquam ex parte principij satisfacientis. Proinde requiritur vt opera satisfactoriae fiant à spiritu Dei hominē inhabitante, siue ab ipso homine vt membro Christi ac filio Det iam per gratiam & charitatē 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? [Page 821] 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 satisfactiō, 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, thatBellar. de poen. lib 4. ca. 1. Si veteres Patres interdū actionibus humanis tribuere id videntur vt Deū ex inimico amicum reddant at (que) adeò pro expianda culpa satisfaciant, interpretandi sunt d [...] 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 ofIbid. lib. 2. cap. 12. Vbi poenitentia dicitur meritum, pretium, sati [...]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 proueLib 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, asBeat. 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 isTertul de poen. Quicquid mediocritas nostra ad poenitentiā semel capessendam & perpetuò continendā 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 itIbidem. Quàm stultū poenitentiam non adimplere & veniam delictorum sustinere? hoc est, pretiū non exhibere, ad mercē manū emittere. Hoc enim pretio Dominus veniam addicere instituit, &c. a folly not to fulfill penance, and yet to expect pardō, 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 powersOrigen. in lib. Iudic. hom 3. Vt humiliet cum qui nimis fuerat exaltatus, vt affligat, vt conterat do nec resipiscat & quaerat dominum, &c. Abijciatur superbiae odor iste teterrimus. &c. [...]e fortè irascatur Dominus & tradat nos, &c. & humilitatem quam in scientia Christi docere debuimus, in correptionis nostrae tribulatione discamus: sed vide benignum Dominum misericordiam cum seueritate mis [...]entem & ipsius poenae modum iusta & clementi libratione pensantem. to humble him that was exalted, to afflict him, to breake him vntill he repent and seeke the Lord; exhorting to put away pride least the Lord be angrie and giue vs vp into the hands of the enemie, that by the trouble of correction we learne that humilitie which we should haue taught in the knowledge [Page 822] of Christ. Hereupon he inferreth that aduertisement of Gods tempering mercie with seueritie, waighing the measure of his punishment by a iust and mercifull consideration, namely in that sort as he hath before deliuered,Tradidit humiliādos vt salubri medicinae ratione contraria contrarijs curarentur. that in manner of a wholsome medicine, one contrarie may be cured with another. Therefore he saith thatNon in perpetuum tradit delinquentes, sed quanto tempore errasse te nosti, &c. tanto nihilominus tempore humilia teipsum Deo et satisfacito [...]t in confessione poenitentiae, &c. quia si te ipse emendaueris, si te ipse correxeris, pius et misericors est Deus qui vindictam temperet ab eo qui illam poenitendo praeuenit. God doth not giue ouer a sinner for euer, as to note that all that he doth is but to bring a man to repentance; which being done, he is satisfied. Whereupon he giueth aduice to a man, that according to the time that he knoweth himselfe to haue erred or offended, so he humble himselfe, and satisfie God in the confession of repentance; because (saith he) if thou reforme and amend thy self, God is gracious & mercifull to withhold punishment from him who preuenteth it by repentance. Now what is all this but that which the Apostle saith,1. Cor. 11.31. If we would iudge our selues, we should not be iudged of the Lord? He exhorteth to preuent Gods iudgement, to humble our selues, to repent, to cast away our pride, to seeke God, to satisfie him by confession and acknowledgement of our sinnes, that God being gracious and mercifull may forbeare to punish vs, but we finde nothing of that that we seeke for, that hauing humbled our sinnes, and being reconciled to God, and hauing obtained forgiuenesse of sinnes, we shall remaine bound to punishment and satisfaction for our sinnes. The words cited out of Cyprians epistles, concerne them who in the time of persecution had fallen and denied Christ, whom he would not haue to be restored to the communion of the Church vntill they had publikely lamented their grieuous fall, and giuen good tokens of their true and faithfull repentance. Therefore he blameth them that too lightly and easily receiued them againe, hereby causingCyprian. lib. 1. epi. 3. Proponitur sacrilegis atque dicitur, ne ira cogitetur Dei, non timeatur iudiciū Domini, ne pulsetur ad Ecclesiā Christi, sed sublata poenitentiae nec vlla exomologesi criminis facta pax à non veris presbyteris verbis fallacibus praedicetur, &c. that they conceiued not the wrath of God, that they feared not the iudgment of the Lord, that they knocked not at the Church of Christ, but without repentance and open confession of their sinne had false peace preached vnto them with deceitfull words. Here is therefore no speech of satisfaction after peace and reconcilement to God, but only for the obtaining of this peace. And this is euident by the very words cited by M. Bishop, wherin Cyprian blameth them that withheld men fromIbid. Elab [...]rant ne indignanti Deo satisfiat. satisfying God being angry; and he applieth them against vs, for denying satisfaction when God is pleased. In the other place Cyprian saith, thatLib. 3. epist. 14. Possunt agentes poenitentiam veram Deo Patri ad misericordià precibus & operibus suis satisfacere. shewing true repentance they might by their prayers and works satisfie God to the procuring of mercy: and M. Bishop alledgeth it [Page 823] to proue a satisfaction when men haue already procured mercie. Cyprian speaketh of a satisfaction, for want whereof menJbid seducuntur vt magis pereant & qui se erigere possunt plus cadant. perish, and as M. Bishop translateth, are seduced to their further damnation, and M. Bishop applieth it to a satisfaction, for want whereof men perish not nor are damned, but must make it vp in Purgatory fire. The words of Basil are as impertinent as the rest. He sayth nothing but what we say, that the greater wound should cause the greater paine, the greater sinne the greater sorow, that we may so much the more earnestly seeke reconcilement to God, by how much the further we haue departed frō him; but no shadow is there of satisfactiō to be made after that we are reconciled vnto him. The last of his words containe the summe of all the rest:Basil. orat. in illud, Attende tibi. Adaequetur peccato poenitentia. Let the repentance be equall or proportionable to the sin. To the like sentence of Ambrose he referreth vs in the margent;Ambr. ad virg. lapsam. Grandi plagae alta & prolixa opus est medicina; grande scelus grandem habet necessariā satisfactionem. A great wound had need of a very effectuall and long cure: a great sinne had need of great satisfaction. The words immediatly going before are these:Peccator si sibi non pepercerit à Deo illi parcitur, etsi futuras poenas gehennae perpetuas in hoc paruo vitae spacio compensauerit, seipsū ab aeterno iudicio liberat. If the sinner spare not himselfe, then the Lord will spare him; and if in the short space of this life he shal recompence the euerlasting paines of hel that are to come, he freeth himself from eternall iudgement. It is apparent therfore that he speaketh of a satisfaction whereby to obtaine forgiuenesse of sinnes for the auoiding of the eternall paines of hell, not of a satisfaction after forgiuenesse, for the auoiding of the temporal paines of Purgatory. He writeth it to a virgin that had yeelded her self to be defiled and corrupted, and calleth her to publike and perpetuall penance, denying her any remission or pardon in this world.Ibid. Inhaere poenitentiae vs (que) ad finem vitae, nec tibi praesismas ab humano die posse veniam dari quia decipit te qui hoc tibi polliceri voluerit. Quae enim propriè in Dominii peccasti, ab illo solo te cōuenit in die iudicij expectare remedium. Continue in thy penance or repentance euen to the end of thy life, and do not presume that of mans day any pardon can be graunted thee, for he deceiueth thee that will promise that vnto thee. For thou which hast sinned properly against the Lord, must of him alone expect remedie at the day of iudgement. A hard censure, and vnworthy of Ambrose, and so contrary to that which otherwhere he hath written, as that we may well question whether it be his or not; but it being plainly denied her to haue forgiuenesse, how deceitfully is this example brought to proue satisfaction after forgiuenesse. With as great fraud he alledgeth Gregory Nazianzen, who in that place inueigheth against the Nouatian heretikes, denying repentance to them that fell after baptisme, according to the censure now mentioned vnder the name of Ambrose. Against that rigor he saith, thatGreg. Nazian. ora. 39. in sancta lumina. In eodē vitio sunt tā effraenata et omni animaduersionis meus soluta licentia, quā saeua, nec vlla clemētia temperata condemnatio; illa omnes habenas vitijs laxans, haec vehementiori astrictione praefocans. in like sort are to be blamed both vnbridled [Page 824] licence freed frō all feare of punishment and cruel condemning, not mingled or tempered with clemency and mercy; the one loosing the bridle to all vices, the other stifling men with ouermuch straightnesse. Nicetas in his cōmentary thus expresseth it,Nicet. ibid. in comment. Parem [...]ea sententiae reprehensionem poenā (que) mere [...]ur qui v [...]l p [...]cc [...] [...]s nulla p [...] [...] ciūt [...] [...]mnes hab [...] [...]mit. [...] qui eos [...] [...]nant v [...] [...] consequ [...] [...] [...]iae sp [...] [...]u relinq [...]. They alike deserue to be reproued and punished, who either punish not offenders at all, but giue them wholly the bridle, or do so condemne them as that they leaue them no hope to obtaine pardon. He speaketh of the external gouernment and discipline of the Church, wherin he blameth that men should be left at liberty to offend without feare of punishment; and again blameth such extremity and rigor, that offenders when they repent, should be excluded from hope of pardon: and what is this to proue that men being pardoned by God, must notwithstanding yet make him a satisfactiō for their sinnes pardoned? No man I suppose is so blind, but that he seeth the falshood of this citation. The other out of the same Father is of the same condition. He speaketh of mercy and compassion, as meanesOra [...]. 27. de amore pauperum. Miseratione purgemur, animi (que) labes et inquinamenta egregia illa herba detergamus, &c. to purge sins, to scoure out the spots and filth of our soules; but he saith nothing of satisfactiō to be made after that those spots and filth are purged and scoured. Of the saying of Solomon which he alledgeth, I haue spoken in the former section: only it may be added, that whereas he for mercy and truth readethMisericordia & fide peccata purgantur. By mercy and faith sins are purged, or iniquitie is forgiuen, which the Hebrew text beareth very well, we may vnderstand it of Gods mercy in giuing, and our faith in receiuing the forgiuenes of sins, the promise thereof being made to them that beleeue in him. Againe he bringeth vs Ambrose speaking ofAmbr. de Heliae & ieiun. cap. 20. Habemus plura subsidia quibus peccat [...] nostra redimamus. Habes pecuniam: redime peccatum tuum, &c. Et ep. 82. Quae nobis salus esse potest nisi teiunio eluerimus peccata nostra? redeeming our sins with our mony, & washing away sins with fasting; but we heare nothing of satisfaction or redemption after the forgiuenesse of our sins. Yea when he saith that the Lord is not to be bought and sold, he giueth vs to vnderstand, that he meaneth not that by our mony we purchase or merit at Gods hands, and therfore can not be said therby to make him satisfaction for our sins. That which he saith of redeeming, he wil haue it vnderstood of freeing our selues from the cords or bonds of our sins, that we may not be holden by the custome of them, whilest by well doing we resist and crosse the practise and lusts thereof, that they may not continue to bring vs vnto death.Ibid. Non venalis est Dominus. sed tu ipse venalis es. Peccatis tuis venundatus es. Redime te operibus tuis: redime te pecunia tua, &c. Venenum veneno excluditur. Veneno mors repellitur, vita seruatur. The Lord (saith he) is not to be bought and sold; but thou art so. Thou art sold to thy sins. Redeeme thy selfe by thy workes: redeeme thy selfe by thy mony. By one poison another poison is excluded: by the poison (of the Mammon of iniquitie) death is repulsed, life is preserued. [Page 825] Here is a redemption for the excluding of sinne, not to pay a satisfaction for it; to set vs free from the bondage of committing sinne, not to purchase the forgiuenesse of it. Nay of that he hath said immediatly before,Ibid. Confugiamus ad mediciā qui vulnera superiora curauit, et siquid superest acerbitatis medela non decrit. Etsi quid iniuriae fecimus memor nō erit qui semel donauit. Etsi graeuia deliquimus, magnū medicū inuenimus, magnam medicinam gratiae eius accepimus Magna enim medicina tollit peccata magna. Let vs flie to the Physition who hath cured our former wounds, and if any bitternes be remaining, there shal not want a medicine. And if we haue done wrong, he will forget it who hath once pardoned. Albeit we haue greatly offended, we haue a great Physition, we haue receiued the great medicine of his grace: for a strong or great medicine taketh away great sinnes. That which is next alledged out of Hierome concerning Paula, signifieth her lamentation of her former life, and setteth out her repentance of her sinnes,Hieron. epitap. Paulae. Jtaleu [...]a peccata plāgebat vt eam graussimorum criminū crederes ream. which being but small, as Hierome saith, she so bewailed, as that a man would haue thought her guiltie of grieuous offences; but that proueth not that she meant to make satisfaction hereby for pardoned sinnes, neither doth he say any thing to that effect. No more doth he as touching himselfe in the other epistle to Eustochium, where he sheweth what hardnesse he endured at the first in the wildernesse to subdue the heate and lust of youth, hauing as he saith,Hieron. ad Eustoch. Ob gehennae metum tali mecarcere ipse damnaueram. for the feare of hell condemned himselfe to that prison, but not so much as any word that he did any thing there for penance or satisfaction for his sinnes. This is so wisely applied, as that we may well thinke M. Bishop put it in of his owne head, there being nothing either in words or in matter likely to serue the turne. As little helpe hath he in the next citation which is out of S. Austine, who telleth Macedonius the Lieutenant concerning them who being condemned to death, had their liues and pardon begged by the Bishops, thatAugust. ep 54. Quosdam qu [...]r [...] manifesta sunt crimina à vestra seueritate liberatos à societate remouemus altaris, vt poenitendo placare possiut quem peccando contempserant séque ipsos puniendo. they kept many of them whose crimes were manifest from the participation of the sacrament, that by repentance and punishing themselues they might appease him whom in their sinnes they had despised. Hereupon he inferreth:Nā nihil aliud agit quem veraciter poenitet nisi vt id quod mali fecerit impunitū esse non sinat. [...]o quippe modo sibi non parcenti ille parcit cuius altū iustum (que) iudiciū nullus cōtempt [...] euadit. For he which truly repenteth, laboureth nothing else but not to suffer that euill which he hath done to be vnpunished: for by that meanes when he spareth not himselfe, he is spared of him whose secret and iust iudgement no despiser shall escape. Which words being plainly deliuered of that repentance whereby God is appeased that he may not punish, what do they make to the proofe of a punishment which they say God inflicteth when he is appeased? Concerning this punishing of our selues, I refer thee to that which before hath bin said by occasion of another sentence of S. Austine in the tenth section. [Page 826] The other place is manifestly spoken of publike penitency, S. Austin exhorting euery man in the guilt of those sins of which the Scripture teacheth, thatGal. 5.21. they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdome of God, August. hom. 50. Cùm in se protulerit seuerissimae medicinae sententiā veniat ad Antistites per quos illi in ecclesia claues ministrantur, & acciptat satisfactionis suae modū vt in offerendo sacrificio cordis contribulati denotus & supplex id tamen agat quod non solum illi prosit ad recipiendam salutē, sed & caeteris ad exemplum, vt si peccatum eius non solum in graui eius malo sed etiam in scandalo est aliorum, at (que) hoc expedire vi [...]litati ecclesiae videtur antistiti in notitia multorum veletiam totius plebis agere poenitentiaem non recuset. to pronounce sentence against himself of a sharp medicine, to come to the Priests by whom the keyes of the church are ministred vnto him, and of them to receiue the maner or measure of his satisfaction, that being deuout and humble in offering the sacrifice of a troubled or contrite hart, he may yet do that which may not onely do him good for the receiuing of saluation, but others also by example, that if his sin be not only to the grieuous hurt of himself, but also to the scandal of others, and it so seem to the Priest or Bishop expedient for the profit of the Church, he refuse not to do penance in the knowledge of many or of the whole church. This is again a repentance for the receiuing of the forgiuenes of sins & saluation, but no other satisfaction, required not onely for the good of the offender, but also for the good of other men and of the whole church, whereas M. Bishops satisfaction concerneth only the man himselfe to be deliuered from Purgatory paines. To the same effect is that which he citeth further out of the same Homily:Ibid. Non sufficit mores in melius commutare, & à factis malis recedere, nisi etiā de his qua factae sunt satisfiat Deo per poenitentiae dolorem. It sufficeth not to amend our manners and to depart from euill doings, vnlesse for those things which we haue done we satisfie God by sorrow of repentance. To what end that satisfaction is vsed, he sheweth presently after:Non enim dictū est tantùm vt abstineatis à peccatis, sed & de praeteritis, inquit, Dominum deprecare vt tibi dimittantur. For it is not said only that we should abstaine from sins, but pray to God also saith he (namely Ecclesiasticus) for the things that are past, that they may be forgiuen thee. Here is all still for forgiuenes of sins, but nothing of satisfaction when sin is forgiuen. So when Gregory saith, thatGreg in 1. Reg lib. 6. Non solum confitenda sunt pec [...]ata, sed etiam poenitentiae austeritate delenda sins are not only to be confessed, but also to be blotted out by austeritie of penance or repentance, he speaketh of a penance for the blotting out of sin, not of penance whē the sin is already blotted out. So doth Beda expresly apply his speech to the purging, the blotting out, the pardoning of sin. Beda in Psal. 1. Delectatio seu voluntas peccandi quando ad satisfactionem venitur leuitèr eleemosynis & alijs talibus purgatur; consensu [...] verò non nisi graut poenitentia deletur; consuetudo autem nonnisi recta & ponderosa satisfactione absoluitur. Delight or desire to sin when we come to satisfaction is lightly purged with almsdeeds & such like; but consent is not blotted out by great repē tance; but custome of sin is not pardoned but by iust and waightie satisfaction. Thus (gentle Reader) of all that M. Bishop hath cited, yea and of all that Bellarmine hath cited, there is not one that speaketh to the point in question, as touching satisfaction after forgiuenesse of sins. No, it is a late deuice of the Schoolmen, which when they [Page 827] had set it abroch, they desired to colour and to giue it tast by citing sentences of the Fathers as touching satisfaction, when as the Fathers speake of satisfaction in one meaning, and they apply them in another. But I suppose I haue not yet giuen thee full satisfaction, vnlesse I further adde somewhat as touching the auncient Fathers vsing of this terme of satisfaction. It is therefore to be vnderstood, that the same was first applyed to that publike penance, whereby open and notorious offenders did satisfie the Church, that is, giue sufficient and approued testimonie and assurance of their true and vnfained repentance for their sinnes. When any in the time of persecution had fallen by renouncing the name and faith of Christ, or had otherwise committed any great and scandalous trespasse to the grieuance of his brethren, to the obloquie of religion and slaunder of the Church, but especially to the offence of almighty God, and prouoking of his wrath both against himselfe, and them also with whom he liued, he was by the publike censure of the Church secluded from the Communion, and cut off from the societie of the faithfull and godly, as vnworthy to be reckoned a member of Christ, or partaker of the hope that is by him. But yet there was alwaies hope of restitution remaining to them who vpon conuenient triall were found penitent and grieued for the euill which they had done. To this purpose therefore they were enioynedSee hereof Tertul. de poenitentia, and the collections of Beatus Rhenanus in the argument of that booke. publike cō fession of their sinnes. They had their place appointed them in the Church, where they stood lamenting and mourning, & with weeping and teares cast themselues to the ground, praying to God for themselues and commending themselues to the prayers of the assembly. It was prescribed them by watching, by fasting, by course, and vncouth apparell to afflict and humble themselues, that euery way their griefe and sorrow might be seene. Which being duly performed the Church was satisfied, and taking compassion on them restored them againe to brotherly societie, and to the communion of the Church, and hereof first was the name of satisfaction taken vp. It was not therefore a satisfaction whereby they meant to make God a iust recompence for their sinnes, or as by paying a price of woorth and value to merit and purchase their owne pardon, but onely a satisfaction whereby the Church would be certified of their true repentance towards God, as not enduring that any man shold [Page 826] [...] [Page 827] [...] [Page 829] be accounted a member amongst them, who by sinne had made himselfe a stranger to God, vntill they saw reason to be perswaded that God would be pleased to be reconciled to him againe. They could not looke into the heart to see any mans repentance and sorrow, but by mens deuout submitting themselues to the ordinances of publike censure and discipline they would be induced to the perswasion thereof, and being thereof perswaded, they receiued him againe whom before they had reiected. Hereof Saint Austin saith very plainely to shew the the end of it;Aug. Enchir. cap. 65. Cor concritum & humiliatum Deus nō spernit. Ʋerum quia plerun (que) dolor alterius cordis occulius est alteri, ne (que) in aliorum notitiā per verba vel quaecunque alia signa procedit, cùm sit eoram illo cui dicitur, Gemitus met [...] à te non est absconditus, r [...]ctè constituuntur ab ijs, qui Ecclesiae praesunt temporae poenitentiae, vt fiat etiam satis Ecclesiae in qua remittuntur ipsa peccata; extra cam quippe non remittuntur. A contrite and humbled heart God despiseth not, but yet because commonly the griefe of one mans heart is secret to another, and cometh not by any words or signes to the certaine knowledge of others, being in the sight of him to whom it is said, My groning is not hid from thee, therefore rightly are there appointed certaine times of penance, that the Church also may be satisfied wherein sinnes are forgiuen, because out of it there are none forgiuen. Here is the true vse of those publike satisfactions. It is true that God yeeldeth to the contrite and broken heart remission and forgiuenesse of sinnes, but in scandalous trespasses he will haue the knowledge thereof to be taken in the forgiuenesse of the Church. A man in that case sinneth not against God onely, but also against the Church, in prouoking Gods anger, as before was said, not onely against himselfe, but also against them, in corrupting others, so much as in him lyeth, by his euill example, in causing aduersaries by that occasion to speake euill of the Church. God therefore would that as the Church is interested in the wrong, so it should also be interested in the forgiuenesse thereof, so as that in this case no man is to presume of forgiuenesse with God, who is not so much as in him lieth, reconciled to the Church of God. This our Sauiour Christ hath confirmed in the Gospell:Mat. 18.18. Whatsoeuer ye bind on earth shall be bound in heauen, and whatsoeuer ye loose on earth, shall be loosed in heauen. Iohn 20.23. Whose sinnes ye remit, they are remitted; whose sinnes ye retaine, they are retained. So then the forgiuenesse of the Church is to be accounted as it were an admission to forgiuenesse with God, and a man taketh the one to be to him a confirmation of the other. Now the Church is to forgiue according to the same rule as God forgiueth, onely him that is penitent and grieued for his sinne, and therefore in such sort, as hath bene said, requireth satisfaction for certificate and assurance of such repentance. [Page 829] And this is specially that satisfaction which is so much spoken of in the writings and records of the auncient Church. But yet will M. Bishop say, the matter is not sufficiently cleared, because howsoeuer the name of satisfaction might haue originall from hence, yet we find them to haue applied the same to God also, and to haue taught men by such and such works to satisfie and appease the wrath of God. And we deny not indeed but that so they haue done, but yet we say, that they neuer spake of satisfaction in any such meaning as the name of it now importeth in the Church of Rome. Farre were they from hauing any thought, that any thing they did could be a satisfaction, that is, a iust and sufficient, and worthy recompence for their sinnes: but yet they called repentance by the name of satisfaction, as to note that it is the thing wherewith God is satisfied, that is, contented and appeased, not for the thing it selfe, but for that he hath promised to accept those passions and teares, and workes which are the issues and streames of a broken and contrite hart, carefully seeking his mercy, and humbly crauing remission and pardon in the name of Iesus Christ. In this sence they translated the name of satisfaction from the Church to God, and from publike to priuate repentance, neuer imagining, that any man would be so mad as to conceiue merit there where they taught the sinner to aske mercy, where they taught that the whole effect of that that is done consisteth in Gods mercy, through the merit of Iesus Christ.Hesych. in Leuit. 7 lib. 2. Christus nobis propitiatio factus est, ergo in ipso omne poenitentiae sacrificium ministratur & agitu [...] & omne quod ex poenitentia quis consequitur ad eum refertur. Christ is made our attonement, saith Hesychius: therfore all the sacrifice of repentance (or penance) is administred and done in him, and all that a man obtaineth by repentance is referred to him. It is not then for our repentance sake, but for Christs sake, that in repentance we obtaine that mercy that we do obtaine. And to that purpose very notably serueth that which Chrysostome, mouing question in the name and behalfe of a sinner, and making answer thereto, very learnedly and religiously speaketh in this sort:Chrysost. de poenit. hom. 3. Siue in Hypou [...] uemate in Esaiaē, Cùm omnem vitam in peccatis detriuerim, si me poenituerit, fiamne saluus? Prorsus fies. Vnde hoc liquet? Ab ipsa Domini tui benignitate, non ex tua poenitentia mihi sumo fiduciam. Poenitentia enim tua non praeualet tantam abstergere malorum eluutem. Poenitentia si sola fuerit, meritò tibi metuendum est, sed quoniam poenitentiae Dei clementia, Dei (que) pietas iuncta est, confide. I haue spent all my life in sinne, and if I repent, dost thou thinke I shall be saued? Yea verily, saith he. But how shall I be certaine of that? or what perswasion can induce me to thinke so? I take assurance hereof from the mercie of the Lord, not from thy repentance. For thy only repentance [Page 830] auaileth not to wash away so great filth of sin. If there be thy only repentance, thou art iustly to be afraid, but because Gods mercy & cōpassion is ioyned with repentance, therefore be of good cheare. Here is nothing attributed to repentance for it selfe, but onely to the mercy of God vouchsafing to yeeld fauour and forgiuenesse to the repentant. Therefore do they hang the whole fruit of repentance vpon faith: forAug. de vera & falsa poen [...]t. cap. 2. Fides fundamentum est poenite [...]tiae, &c. Poenitentia itaque quae ex fide non procedit, vtilis non est. saith, saith S. Austin, is the foundation of repentance, and the repentance which proceedeth not from faith is vnprofitable. Ambros. de poenit. lib. 1. ca. 8 Ergo & agendā poe [...]t [...]n [...]am & tribuend [...]m veniam credere nos conuenit, vt veniam tamen tā quam ex fide speremu [...], non tanquam ex debito. We are so to beleeue, saith Ambrose, both the doing of penance, and the yeelding of pardon, as that notwithstanding we hope for pardon, as by faith and not as of debt. Here is then no popish opinion of penance and satisfaction expecting remission by way of debt and duty as a thing deserued, but in the middest of our repentance or penance, we are taught to hope for pardon onely by the faith of Iesus Christ. Therfore S. Bernard saith, thatBernard. de verb. lib. Iob. In sex tribulat. Sola nim [...]rū secundi Adae tribulatio purgat, quos contaminauit offensio sola prioris; non quod propriae cuiquā sufficere possit satisfactio. Quid est enim omnis poenitētia nostra, nisi quod si non compatimur, omninò non possumus conregnare. it is the onely suffering of the second Adam, that purgeth vs whom the only offence of the first Adam did defile; I say not (saith he, alluding to that which before he hath said concerning repentance and mortification) that any mans owne satisfaction can suffice him: for what is all our repentance, but onely that if we suffer not with him, we cannot raigne with him. By our repentance then which he expresseth before in weeping for our sinnes, in bearing our crosse, in mortifying our members, in offering our selues a sacrifice to God, herby he saith we become like vnto Christ in suffering, and so are fitted to raigne with him, but yet the purging of vs from sinne he denyeth to these things, and reserueth it to Christ alone. For we may aske as Ambrose doth:Ambros. in Psal 118. Ser. 20 Quibus laboribus, quib [...]s iniurijs possumus nostra leuare peccata? By what paines or by what sufferings (or bearing of wrongs) can we abate or ease our sinnes? By which question he plainely declareth, that they did not hold the paines and sufferings of repentance or penance to be properly any purgation or satisfaction to take away sinnes. And this appeareth by Saint Austine when he saith:Aug. in Psal. 129 Quae propitiatio ista nisi sacrificium? Et quod est sacrificium nisi quod pro nobis oblatū est? Sanguis innocens fusus deleuit omnia peccata nocentium. What propitiation is there but sacrifice? what sacrifice but that which was offered to vs? The innocent bloud being shed, hath blotted out all the sinnes of offendours. To which purpose elsewhere he saith, thatJdem contra aduers. Leg & Proph. lib. 1. cap. 18. Singulari & solo vero sacrificio pro nobis Christi sanguis effusus est. for the singular and onely true sacrifice, the bloud of Christ was shed for vs. But most religiously and Christianly is that spoken which hee saith [Page 831] yet in another place:Idem contrae 2. Epist. Pelag. lib. 3. cap. 5. Omnium piorum sub hoc onere corruptibilis carnis & in huius vitae infirmitate gementium spes vna est, quòd aduocatū habemus. &c. It is the one onely hope of all the godly groning vnder this burthen of corruptible flesh, and in the infirmitie of this life, that we haue an aduocate with the Father Iesus Christ the iust, and he is the propitiation for our sinnes. If there be no propitiation, that is, no satisfaction, but only sacrifice, & no sacrifice, but the bloudshed of the Son of God; if our only hope with God be this, that we haue with him Christ for our aduocate & attonement for our sins: if by al our paines and sufferings we cannot ease our selues as touching our sinnes, but onely the suffering of the second Adam be the purgation thereof; if amidst all our penances we are to hope for pardon by faith, that is, by fauour and not by debt, not trusting to any merit of our repentance, but to the mercy of God, and referring all the fruite thereof to Iesus Christ, then farewell Popish satisfaction; the Fathers that speake of satisfaction say nothing for that satisfaction: but at Rome this brat was borne, and we must leaue it to be buried there. The Fathers haue spoken of redeeming our sinnes, purging our sinnes, washing our sinnes, blotting out our sinnes by prayers, by almes-deeds, by fasting, by good workes, but amidst this improprietie of words they haue retained, as we see, a faithfull acknowledgement of the true Christian faith. Albeit, why do I speake of improprietie of words as in them, when we our selues vpon occasion forbeare not to speake as they haue spoken? For which of vs is there that maketh question to say, It is a satisfaction to God, when a sinner turneth from his euill way: repent thee of thy sinnes, amend thy wicked life, humble thy selfe before God, aske mercy and forgiuenesse and God is satisfied. Redeeme thy former crueltie with mercie, thine oppressions with almes-deeds, and let the Mammon of iniquitie serue thee for the sauing of thy soule. Wash away the filth of thine vncleanenesse with bitter teares, and with fasting and mourning blot out that guilt which the delights and pleasures of sinne haue written against thee. Thou hast hitherto bene retchlesse towards God, make him recompence hereafter both in thine owne deuotion and care, and in seeking the recouerie of other men. Thus we speake, and who doth not thus speake, both in this kind and in other sort also, when yet we impute not to those things which we commend, any vertue of cleansing or washing of vs from our sins, but onely intend to note the affections and dispositions which are the fruites and testimonies of that true faith and repentance, wherby [Page 832] we seeke the washing away of out sinnes onely in the bloud of Iesus Christ. And if we sometimes doubt not thus to speake, how much more securely would the Fathers vse such phrases, when yet there was no feare of those misconstructions of heresie and Apostacie, which haue since preuailed in the Church of Rome? We haue seene Bellarmine before acknowledging out of their principles, that the Fathers in these phrases imported only merit of fauour and grace, not merit of woorth and purchase, and therefore setting aside the name of merit, let vs not doubt but that they meant in all their speeches to vphold the grace and fauour of God by the mediation of Iesus Christ. They taught men amidst all their deuotions to aske pardon of Gods mercie, and therefore could not be thought to teach them, that by the same deuotions they did deserue it. In a word I conclude this point, with a speech or two of Chrysostomes, which I wish thee gentle Reader to compare with the doctrine which M. Bishop here hath brought vs from Rome:Chrysost. de beato Philogonio. Ego testificor ac fide iubeo quod si quisquā nostrum qui peccatis obnoxij sumus, ex animo vere (que) promittat Deo se posteà nū quam ad illa rediturum, nihil aliud Deus requirat ad satisfactionem viteriorem. I testifie (saith he) and giue thee warrant, that if any of vs who are subiect to sinne, (or guiltie of sinne) do heartily and truly promise vnto God neuer to returne to the same againe, God doth require no further satisfaction. Againe, vpon the words of the Apostle,1. Cor. 11.31. If we would iudge our selues we should not be iudged of the Lord, he saith thus:Jdem in 1. Cor. hom. 28. Non dixit, si puniemus, si suppliciū de nobis sumemus sed, si dijudicaremus, hoc est, si nostra tantùm voluerimus peccata cognoscere, si condemnare n [...]sipsos, liberaremur vti (que) & ab huius & à futuri seculi supplicijs. The Apostle saith not, If we would punish our selues, if we would take reuenge of our selues, but If we would iudge our selues, that is, if we would onely acknowledge our sinnes, if we would condemne our selues, we should be deliuered both from the punishments of this world, and of the world to come. Here we see, that after true repentance, there is no further satisfaction: that after true acknowledgement and confession of our sinnes, there is no reseruation of punishment, but by the mercie of God we are set free both from the punishments of this world and of the world to come, whereby all that M. Bishop here hath built, is vtterly ouerthrowne.
19 W. BISHOP.
And if you please in few words, to heare the Protestants workes of penance and satisfaction: in stead of our fasting, and other corporall correction, they fall to eating, and that of the best flesh they can get, and take in the Lord all such bodily pleasure, as the company of a woman [Page 833] will affoord. In lieu of giuing almes vnto the poore, they pill them by fines and vnreasonable rents: and by vsurie and craftie bargaines, are not ashamed to cosen their nearest kinne. Finally, in place of prayer, and washing away their owne sinnes by many bitter teares, they sing merrily a Geneua Psalme, and raile or heare a railing at our imagined sinnes, or pretended errours. And so leaue, and lay all paine and sorrow vpon Christs shoulders, thinking themselues (belike) to be borne to pleasure and pastime, and to make merry in this world.
R. ABBOT.
A shrewd wench hearing her mother at angry words with her neighbour, and well knowing her mothers desert, gaue her this counsell, Call her whore first, mother, for feare lest she call you whore. M. Bishop knew very well, that there is sufficient cause for vs to call his mother whore, and to vpbraid the Church of Rome with the poisoned and abhominable fruites which their doctrine of satisfactions bringeth foorth. Therefore he thought it good policie in her behalfe to follow the counsell of the vnhappy girle, and to call whore first, that by laying some slanderous imputations of euil behauiour vpon vs, he might breake and abate the odiousnesse of those vncleane and filthie corruptions which he knew were iustly to be obiected against them. He knew well, that if we should paint them out from top to toe, we should make the Church of Rome to appeare a monster, most vgly & deformed, such as that all men may thereby take iust occasion to detest her. To giue him some taste of their good fruites, let him remember that of the Court of Rome it was said long since:
Ibi. Manifestè comperium est Ecclesiā Romanā Dei indignationem incurrisse. Ipsius enim magistratus & rectores non populi deuotionem, sed marsupia plena quarunt denariorum; non animas Deo lucrifacere, sed reditus capere & pecunias congregare, religiosos opprimere, poena, vsura, simonia & alijs diuersis argumentis alienae vsurpare. Non curatur de iustitiae & honestate, &c. Adeo inualuit Romanae Ecclesiae in satiabilis cupiditas confundens fas (que) nefas (que) quòd deposito rubore veluti meretrix vulgaris & effrons omnibus venalis & exposita vsuram pro paruo, si [...]oniam pro nullo inconuenienti reputauit, ita vt alias prouincias sua contagione macularit, &c. Foetor Curia Papali [...] vsque ad nubes fumum teterrimum exhalauit. It is manifestly found, saith Matth. of Paris, that the Church of Rome [Page 834] hath incurred the indignation of God. The gouernours and rulers therof do not seeke the deuotion of the people, but the filling of their owne purses; not to gaine soules to God, but to take rents and to gather mony, to oppresse them that are religious, by penaltie, vsurie, symonie, and diuers other deuices to get other mens goods into their hand; there is no care of iust and honest dealing. The insatiable couetousnes of the Church of Rome is growne to that passe confounding right and wrong, as that being past blushing, like a common and shamelesse harlot, setting her selfe to sale, and being exposed to all men, she accounteth vsurie for a small inconuenience, and simonie for none: so as that with her contagion she hath defiled other countries. The stinch of the Popes Court hath breathed out a most noysome fume euen to the very clouds. Of those times Abbas Vrspergensis speaketh in this sort:Abbas V [...]spergensis in Chr. Tunc coeperunt multiplicars ma [...]a interris. Ortae siquidem sunt in hominibus simultates, doli, perfidiae, tradit [...]ones vt se inuicem trad [...]nt in mortem & interitū. Rapinae, depraedationes, depopulationes, terrarū vastationes, intē diae, seditiones, & bella & rapinae, siue in stratis, siue in latrocinijs iustificatae sunt, vt omnis homo ia [...]a sit periurus, & praedictis faci [...]r [...]bus implicatus, vt vix excusari possit quin sit in his sicut p [...]pulus sic & sacerdos. Then began mischiefes to be multiplied vpon the earth: for there arose amongst men discords, deceits, trecheries, treasons, so as that they betrayed one another to death and destruction. Spoyling and preying one vpon another, destructions and wastings of countries, burnings, seditions, warres and rapines, whether in the streets, or in places of robberies were iustified, so as that now euery man is guilty of periurie, and wrapped in these foresaid wicked acts, and it cannot be excused, but that as the people is in these things so is the Priest. Platina the Popes Secretarie breaketh out in passion thus:Platin. de vit. Pontif. in Marcellino. Quid futurum nostrae aetati arbitramur, qua vitia nostra eo creuere vt vix apud Deum misericor diae locum nobis reliquerint? Qu vitae sit auaritia Sacerdotū, quanta libido vndique conquisita, quanta anabitio & pompa, quanta superbia & desidia, quāta ignoratio tum s [...]psius tum doctrinae Christianae quàm paerua religio & simulatae potiús quàm vera, quàm corrupti mores, vel in prophanis hominibus quos seculares vocant detestandi, nihil attinet dicere, cum ipsi ita apertè & polam peccent acsi inde laudem quaererent. What do we thinke shall befall in this our age, wherin vices are grown to that, that they haue scant left any place of mercy with God. How great the couetousnesse of Priests is, especially of them that are in place of gouernement, how great their licentiousnesse affected euery way: their ambition and pompe, their pride and slouth, their want of knowledge both of themselues and of the doctrine of Christ, how little deuotion and that more counterfeited then true, how corrupt their manners are, to be detested euen in profane and secular men, it skilleth not to say any thing, for that they sinne so apparently and openly, as if they sought to be commended for it. And in another place thus:Idem in Stephano 3. Nunc adeò refrixit pietas & religio, non dico nudis pedibus, sed caligati & cothurnati vix supplicare dignantur. Non flentinter eundum, vel dum sacrificatur, sed rident & quidem impudenter: de his etiam loquor quos purpura insigniores facit. Non hymnos canunt, id enim seruile videtur: sed [...]ocos & fabulas ad risum concitandum inter senarrant. Quo quis dicactor est & petulantior, eò maiorem in tam corruptis maribus laudem merciur. Seueros & graues viros reformidat hic noster clerus. Now is pietie and deuotion waxen so cold, as that I say not bare-footed, nay hosed and booted, they scant vouchsafe to pray. They weepe not as they go, or when they are at the sacrifice: but they laugh and that impudently, I speake euen of [Page 835] them whom their purple garments grace aboue other men: they sing not the Hymnes, for that seemeth a base matter, but they tell one another tests and tales to make each other laugh. The more prating and sawcie a man is, the more is he thought in this corruption of manners worthy to be commended; our Clergie brooketh not staied and graue men. In Gregor. 4. Adeo in omnem luxum & libidinem sese effundit Ecclesiasticus ordo. The ecclesiasticall state hath giuen it selfe ouer to all luxurie and wanton lust. Mathew of Paris said of the time wherein he liued,Mat. Paris. in Henr. 3. anno 125 [...]. Qui his temporibus malus non est, optimus reputatur: Jniquus cùm laedere cessat, prodesse iudicatur. In these times he that is not a bad man, is thought to be very good; the iust man when he forbeareth to hurt, is deemed to do good. Yea, and Machiauell one of the fathers of the Romish generation yet did not doubt to say further, thatMachiauel. disput. de rep. l. 1. cap. 12. Nusquā minùs vel pietatis vel religionis est, quàm in ijs hominibus qui viciniores Romae habitant. no where was there lesse pietie or religion, then in those that dwelt neerest to Rome. I do here but point at some few things that come next to hand, but he that would discourse this matter as it deserueth, and would gather the flowers of Romish conuersation out of their owne stories, or set forth the sanctified behauiours that are to be seene at Rome, at Venice, in Italy, Spaine, Portugall, Fraunce, amongst this Catholike generation, yea or discouer the prety trickes of many of our Catholikes here at home, should make it cleare enough that M. Bishop doth but play the hypocrites part, in offering toMat. 7 3. plucke a mote out of his brothers eie, and not seeing the great beame that is in his owne eie; it would appeare that he hath small cause to bragge of the fruites of their doctrine of Pardons and satisfactions.Marsil. Patau. de sens pacis part. 2. cap. 26. Veniae promissio perniciosa & insana doctrina & seductio animarum, à Christianis omnibus contemnenda & cauenda. A madde and pernicious doctrine, as Marsilius Patauinus called it long agoe, the beguiling of soules, worthy to be despised, and fit to be taken heede of of all Christian men: by which the Germanes complained,Cent grauam. German. art. 3. Profligata Christi pietas & extincta, quando quilibet pro modo pretij quod in merces illas expendit peccandi impunitatem sibi pollicetur. Hinc stupra, incestus, adulteria, periuria, homicidia, furta, rapinae, foenora & to [...]a malorum semel originem traxerunt. Quod enim malorum amplius iam horrebunt mortales quando sibi peccandi licentiam & impunitatem nedum in hac vita, sed & post obitum aere licet immodico comparari posse persuasum habet. that the religion of Christ was abandoned & extinguished with them, for that euery man for a summe of mony bestowed vpon pardons promised to himselfe a liberty to sinne without any punishment. Hence whoredomes, say they, incests, adulteries, periuries, murthers, thefts, robberies, vsurie, and the whole sinke of mischiefes haue had their beginning. For what will men feare any longer, when they be perswaded, that for mony, thogh it be much, not in this life only, but after death also they may get a licence and impunity of sinne. And indeede it is true which Hierome saith, thatHieron. in Mat. 19. Faciliùs sacculus contemnitur quàm voluptas. men more easily set light by their mony, then they do by their pleasure, Cyprian. lib 2. epist. 2 Quod redin [...] potest, non timetur. neither doth any feare that which [Page 836] he may redeeme or buy out for mony, as Cyprian speaketh. Therefore when they perswaded men that they might satisfie for their sinnes, and that almes was the most speciall worke of satisfaction, and did supply the want of other satisfactions, as before was said, they that were of ability to giue almes liberally, that is, to stop the mouthes of begging Friers, were hereby thrust forward to all manner wickednesse, which either by secrecie they could conceale, or wherein by power they could vphold themselues, that humane lawes might take no hold of them. These things are more apparent both by storie and by sight, then that M. Bishops wit can serue to colour or hide them. It is nothing therefore that he telleth vs of their fasting, and almes, & praiers, inasmuch as they do these things to purchase thē selues liberty to sinne freely, and to take their pleasure otherwise. And whatsoeuer he can otherwise alledge hereof, he is to remember that Chrysostome saith, thatChrysost. Op. imper. in Mat. hom. 19. Quae sunt vestimenta ouilia? Species videlicet simulatae religionis; eleemosyna simulata, oratio simulata, ie iunium simulatum, & caeterae speci [...]s pietatis quibus se vestiunt lupi rapaces. counterfeit almes, and fasting, and praier, are the sheepes clothing that serue to couer rauening wolues. With these sheepes garments the Pharisees of old couered their biting and destroying of soules. They wereActs. 26.5. Epiphan. haer. 16. de Pharisaeis. a most straite sect, they fasted twice a weeke, they lay some vpon thornes, other some vpon stones, other some vpon boords of small bredth, that they might easily fall beside, by this meanes to afflict themselues with watching, that they might attend to praying, they vowed continencie, some for foure, some for eight, some for ten yeares. By these dissembled deuotions they crept into the minds of the people, they seduced and beguiled them, and held them bound to their traditions, andMat. 23.14. deuoured widowes houses vnder pretence of long prayers. By the same pretences M. Bishop and his fellowes2. Tim. 3.6. creepe into houses, and leade captiue simple women laden with sinnes, and led with diuers lustes, and make them their instruments for theTit. 1.11. subuerting of the husbands and whole houses, and intangling of them, with the superstitions and abhominations of the man of sinne. Albeit being more cunning then the Pharisees, they take such good course with their fasting and corporall afflictions, as that they neither abate their flesh nor their filthy lust, but by practise of shrift and confession, they insinuate themselues into the affections and secrets of the same women, and thereby take aduantage against them to gaine them to their will. He twiteth vs with taking pleasure in the company of a woman, but they by not being tied to the lawfull companie of one, do reserue to themselues a liberty of abusing [Page 837] many. And no maruell that such good fruites proceede from them, with whom it is a position, thatCoster. Enchirid. cap. 15. propos. 9. Sacerdos si fornicetur aut domi cōcubinam foucat, tametsi graui sacrilegio se obstringat, grauiùs tamen peccat si contraehat matrimoniū. it is greater sacriledge for a Priest to marry, then to commit fornication or to keepe a concubine, yeaCampeg. apud Sleidan. Cōmen [...]. lib. 4. Si sacerdotes mariti fiant multo esse grauius peccatū quàm si plurimas domi meretrices alant. that by keeping many harlots he sinneth not so much. As for vs we liue in mariage as did Abraham, Rom 4.11. the father of all that beleeue, as Isaac, Iacob, the Patriarkes, the Priests, the Prophets, and other righteous men, and as the first Christians did, who all pleased God, and were accepted in his sight. We know there is no offence in mariage, because it is the ordinance of God, but we detest their vowed virginitie, by pretence whereof they wickedly defile themselues with the vncleannesse of the diuell. He telleth vs againe of eating the best flesh that can be gotten, but we eate whether fish or flesh as lawes permit, what the prouidence of God doth yeeld vs, giuing God thankes, neither are we so scrupulous therein as he and his fellowes, who whether in fish or in flesh being forsooth ghostly fathers, take it in scorne not to be entertained with the best. Whereas he mentioneth their almes, we finde it in former times which they bragge of, not to haue bene such, butMath. Paris. in Henr. 3. anno. 1258. Deficiente annona pauperū multitud innumerabilis mortua est, & inuē ta sunt passim eorum corpora tumida praefame & liuentia, quina vel sena in porcarijs, ster. quilinijs & lutosis plateis, &c. that in a time of dearth innumerable poore people haue died like dogs vpon dunghils, and in swine-sties, and in the streetes, without any compassion taken for their comfort and reliefe. And no maruell, because almes was reduced by them to the maintenance of idle lozels in religious, houses, as now it is to their nightwalking and wandring Circumcellions, but as for the true almes for the reliefe of the poore and needy, we doubt not but it is more faithfully exercised by vs, then it was or is by them. Of racking poore men by fines and vnreasonable rents, he shall see examples enough amongst their Catacatholike disciples, of whom there be some, who for the colouring of their impious cruelties, do alledge concerning their tenants, liuing in due obedience to their Prince according to the lawes of God, that they are heretikes, and therefore that it skilleth not how they deale with them, not knowing that though their religion were the truth, yet it should concerne them which the Apostle saith;Gal. 6.10. Whilest we haue time let vs do good to all men, though specially to them that are of the houshold of faith. Concerning vsurie, let him remember what Mathew of Paris reported of old concerning the Pope,Math: Paris. in Henr. 3. anno. 1247 Papa qui forma & exemplum totius teneretur esse religionis vsurarius est man [...]fectus. The Pope, saith he, who should be the patterne and example of all religion, is an open vsurer. He had here in England his bankers who were termedJdem anno. 1235. Caursini mercatores Papales. Ca [...]rsini, who did [Page 838] vse that trade of merchandise in his behalfe. Againe for craft and cosening, let him remember how the same Mathew describeth the PopesAnno 1234. Argumentosas extortiones excogitans. Excogitata muscipulatione pecun [...]am emungere edoctus. Verba elegantissima quae corda hominum lapidea viderentur penetrare nisi facta humilitati ac iustitie luce clariùs aduersantia sequerentur. extortions cloked with arguments and reasons, his mousetraplike deuices his goodly words, such as might moue hearts of stone, but that his deedes followed very clearely repugnant to humility and iust dealing. Anno 1240. Absurdum videbatur etiam simplicibus quàm diuersis muscipulis simplicem Dei populum substantia sua moliebatur Romana curia priuare, nihil petens nisi aurum & argentum. It seemed absurd, saith he, euen to simple men, to see by how diuers traps the Court of Rome crauing nothing but gold and siluer, practised to rob the poore people of God of their substance. Now therefore M. Bishop gaineth no credit to his doctrine of satisfactions, by charging these enormities vpon vs, inasmuch as they are found much more intolerably in the Pope himselfe, and therefore much more in them who are the members of so bad a head. Whosoeuer amongst vs do sinne in these kindes, and cause the people of God to grieue, and his enemies to blaspheme his truth, we teach them, and they shall finde, that1. Thess. 4.6. God is the auenger of such things, and his iudgement shall in due time finde out their sinne. Of the ridiculous absurditie of their satisfactorie praiers I haue spoken before. His words of bitter teares are but formall; Catholike eies are too tender to be made red with bitter teares, and the forme of their praiers fitteth not thereto. Our singing of Geneua Psalmes as he calleth them, indeede Dauids Psalmes, though many of them haply turned into English meeter at Geneua, is a deuotion prescribed by the holy Ghost, saying by the Apostle,Col. 3.16. Let the word of Christ dwell in you plenteously, in all wisedome, teaching and admonishing your owne selues in Psalmes, and Hymnes, and spirituall Songs, singing with a grace in your hearts to the Lord. If being merry in good sort we thus sing Psalmes, we therein follow the rule of S. Iames, Iames 5.13. Is any man merry? let him sing. Yea, and we hold it for a notable token of the apostasie of the Church of Rome, that it hath so abandoned this point of Christian exercise and deuotion, from all both publike and priuate vse. We do not raile but performe the office of carefull pastours and teachers in noting their sinnes and errours not imagined onely, but verie sensible, nor onely pretended, but proued by the testimonie of him who is truth, and cannot erre. As for that which he saith of laying all paine and sorow vpon Christes shoulders, it is true that we do so indeede, as touching satisfaction for sinne, but otherwise God wanteth not meanes to lay paines and sorowes vpon those that are his, to make them know that they are not borne to pleasure and pastime, [Page 839] but to Act. 13.36. serue the counsell of God, & to glorifie his name. The Church of Rome swarmeth, as before hath bene noted, with Atheists and Epicures, that cary the shew of that perswasion, but amongst the true professors of the Gospell, there are no such found.
CHAPTER 7. OF TRADITIONS.
1 W. BISHOP.
MAister Perkins. Traditions are doctrines deliuered from hand to hand, either by word of mouth or writing, besides the written word of God.
His first conclusion as touching our consent.Concl. 1. We hold that the verie word of God was deliuered by Tradition from Adam to Moses, who was the first Pen-man of holy Scripture. Item, that the Historie of the new Testament (as some for eight, not eightie, or as other think for twenty yeares) went frō hand to hand by Tradition, till penned by the Apostles, or being penned by others, was approued by them. Hitherto we agree (but not in this which he enterlaceth) that in the state of nature, euery man was instructed of God immediatly in both matters of faith and religion: for that God thē as euer since vsed the ministerie as well of good fathers, as godly maisters; as Enoch, Noe, Abraham, and such like, to teach their children and seruants the true worship of God, and true faith in him; otherwise, how should the word of God passe by Tradition from Adam to Moses, as M. Perkins affirmeth, if no child learned any such thing of his father, but was taught immediatly from God? but M. Perkins seemeth to regard little such pettie contradictions.
R. ABBOT.
M. Perkins meaning is plaine enough without any contradiction. God in the beginning reuealed his will vnto our father Adam, not by writing, but familiarly by word of mouth. He left it not thenceforth meerely to passe from man to man, but as he first gaue [Page 840] this light by immediate reuelation from himselfe, so afterwards he continued, renewed, and confirmed the same, raising vp some in all times to be neere vnto him, to whomHeb. 1.1. in diuers manners, by speech, by visions, by dreames, by sundry illuminations and inspirations, he imparted the knowledge of himselfe, and endued them with eminencie of gifts and authority, to be2. Pet. 2.5. preachers of righteousnesse both to their owne families, and to other whom the Lord would call. It is not true then which M. Bishop would so gladly fasten on, that the doctrine of faith passed by tradition, in such sort as the question of traditions standeth betwixt them and vs. They pretend that Christ taught his Apostles diuers and sundry doctrines which he would haue wholy left without writing to the custody of the Church, and to be reported successiuely from man to man to the worlds end. But God did not in those first ages leaue his word in any such sort wholy to the memory and report of men, as trusting to their fidelity for the successiue deliuering of that which at first had bene receiued, but he himselfe tooke vpon himselfe the custody of his owne tradition, and continued still to report what he had first taught, knowing the chanel of humane conceipt to be more corrupt, thē that the streame of diuine truth can long runne pure & cleare therein. And this may sufficiently perswade vs, that our Sauiour Christ would not leaue any part of his religion to so vncertaine and doubtfull course, & so subiect to the corruptions of humane deuices. If God would euer haue had his truth to passe altogether from hand to hand, vndoubtedly he would haue taken that course in the beginning, when men liuing so long, might be likely to confirme and settle in their posteritie what they should beleeue. But he saw there would be no safety, vnlesse he himselfe still continued to be an instructour vnto them. He knew how subiect men are to alteration and change, how easily one man mistaketh that which is rightly deliuered by another, how readily men sometimes come short, sometimes go too farre; how one mans fancy conceiueth one way, & another mans another way, and that we can neuer keepe any straight and euen path, so long as instruction is no otherwise had, but from man to man. Therefore where God himselfe attended not to keepe the fire burning which he had kindled, it soone went out: where men were left onely to tradition, they soone degenerated from that seruice of God, wherein they had bene brought vp vnder iust and righteous parents. [Page 841] There is no likelihood therefore that God finding so little safety in tradition in the beginning, would leaue his Church now to be guided by tradition in the end. Nay, when he thought good somwhat to withdraw himselfe from that familiar conference & dealing with men, he would otherwise supply the want thereof, & prouide for the safety of his people, by appointing a standing oracle of a written law, to which all men at all times might resort to be informed as touching duty and seruice towards God. And as in the creation of the world, howsoeuer the light were at first sustained and spread abroad by the incōprehensible power of God, yet when he created the Sun, he conueighed the whole light of the world into the body thereof, so that though the Moone & starres should giue light, yet they should shine with no other light, but what they receiued from the Sun, euen so in the constitution of the Church, howsoeuer God at first preserued & continued the knowledge of his truth, by immediate reuelation from himselfe to some chosen men, by whose ministerie he would haue the same cōmunicated to the rest, yet when he gaue his word in writing, he conueighed into the body of the Scriptures the whole light of his Church, so that albeit there should be Pastours and teachers therein, to shine as starres to giue light to others, yet they should giue no other light, but what by the beames of the written law was cast vpon thē. Which beames albeit they shined not then altogether cleare & bright, many things being lapped vp in obscure & dark mysteries, & rather signified by figuratiue ceremonies, then expressed in plain words, yet were they not to walk by any other light, nor to go without the cōpasse of the writtē word; only what was obscure therin, God by his Prophets frō time to time made more & more apparent, vntill by Iesus Christ in the writings of his Apostles & Euangelists, he set vp a most full & perfect light. Now then in M. Perkins meaning it is true, that from Adam to Moses the word of God passed from man to man by tradition, that is, by word onely & not by writing, and thus as M. Bishop alledgeth, good fathers & godly maisters taught their childrē & seruants the true worship of God, & true faith in him. But it is true also which he signifieth in the second place, that they whō God thus raised vp to be teachers & instructours of others, receiued not the word only by tradition from others, but had reuelation & confirmation thereof immediatly from God himselfe. Therefore there is no argument to be [Page 842] taken hence to giue any colour to Popish tradition, nay we may iustly argue, that if God would haue had the religion of Christ to be taught in any part without writing, he would haue taken the course which he did then by immediate reuelation, to continue and preserue the integritie and truth thereof.
2. W. BISHOP.
His 2. Concl. We hold that the Prophets, our Sauiour Christ, and his Apostles, spake, and did many things good and true, which were not written in the Scriptures, but came to vs by Tradition: but these were not necessary to be beleeued: For one exāple he puts; that the blessed virgin Mary liued & died a virgin: but it is necessary to saluation to beleeue this, for Helui dius is esteemed by S. Augustine an Heretike for denying it. De haeres. ad Quod. hae. 84.
R. ABBOT.
It is necessary to saluation to beleeue that our Sauiour was conceiued and borne of a virgin. We perswade our selues also according to the common iudgement of the Church, that she so continued and died, but yet we deny it to be any matter of saluation so to beleeue. We say as S. Basil doth, thatBasil de human. Christi generat. Hoc nunc suspicionem generat ne forsan posteaquam puritate sua generationi dominicae per spiritū sanctū administratae seruiuit tum demū nuptialia opera viro Maria nō negauerit. Nos verò licet nihil hoc doctrinae pretatis [...]ffi [...]eret (nam donec dispensabatur Christi generatio necessaria erat virginitas, quid verò postea sit factū ad mysterij huius doctrinam non anxiè cō [...]ungendū est) v [...]runtamē, &c. it should be no whit preiudiciall to the doctrine of faith, that the virgin Mary after that she had in her virginity serued for the generation of Christ, should performe the office of a wife to her husband. Her virginity was necessary till the birth of Christ was accōplished, but what was afterwards done, is not too scrupulously to be adioined to the doctrine of this mysterie. But yet that no man might to the scandall and offence of deuout persons, affirme rashly that she ceased to be a virgin, he sheweth that the places of the Gospell, which seeme to giue suspition thereof, do not euict it, but may well be construed otherwise. And therefore Heluidius for mouing an vnnecessary question hereof, to giue occasion of publike disturbance, and for affirming rashly, that which he had no warrant sufficiently to proue, was iustly condemned & reiected by the Church, neither can we approue any th [...]t shall do as he did.
3. W. BISHOP.
His 3. Concl. We hold that the Church of God hath power to prescribe [Page 843] ordinances and Traditions touching time & place of Gods worship: And touching order & comlinesse to be vsed in the same (mary with these foure caneats:) First, that it prescribe nothing childish or absurd. See what a reuerent opinion this man carieth of the Church of God, gouerned by his holy spirit, that it neuerthelesse may prescribe things both childish and absurd. But I must pardon him, because he speaketh of his owne Sinagogue, which is no part of the true Church. Secondly, that it be not imposed as any part of Gods worship: This is contrary to the conclusion, for order and comelinesse to be vsed in Gods worship, which the Church can prescribe, is some part of the worship. Thirdly, that it be seuered frō superstition, &c. This is needlesse; for if it be not absurd, which was the first prouiso, it is already seuered from superstition. The fourth, touching multitude may passe; these be but meere trifles: That is of more importance, that he termeth the decree registred in the 15. of the Acts of the Apostles, a Tradition: whereas before he defined Traditions to be all doctrine deliuered, besides the written word. Now the Acts of the Apostles is a parcell of the written word, as all the world knowes: that then which is of record there, cannot be termed a Tradition.
R. ABBOT.
The cautions set downe by M. Perkins are materiall & necessary against the vsurpations of the Church of Rome, which hauing forsaken the direction of the spirit of God in the word of God, is now led by1. Kings. 22.23. a lying spirit, by1. Tim. 4.1. spirits of errour; and therefore in her ordinances and traditions swarueth from the grauity and wisedome of the holy Ghost. The ceremonies of the Masse are apish and ridiculous toies; whereby in that which Christ instituted for a most sacred and reuerend action, they make the Priest more like to a iugler or to a vice vpon the stage, in his duckings and turnings, his kissings & crossings, his lifting vp and letting downe, his putting together the forefinger & the thomb, and another while ioining both his hands; his putting to the right eie & then to the left, with a number of such other absurd and foolish deuises. The like absurdity haue I noted before, that when the Priest hath pronounced absolution and forgiuenesse, they appoint a man for penance to say, Forgiue vs our trespasses, and againe, that they make their praiers like a charme, which to worke their effect, must be said ouer thus or thus many times. I remember I haue read some where, that one of the Popes [Page 844] would haue ordered that the Pope & his Cardinals should ride vpon Asses in token of humility, & for imitation of Christ, riding into Ierusalem vpō an Asse. The Cardinals thought that the foole rid the Pope, & took this for a childish and idle fancy. Now if the Pope the head of their Church, could be possessed with so childish & vaine a toy, why should we doubt but that against their Church there is cause of the first caution, that the Church is not to prescribe any thing that is childish or absurd? The second caution is, that nothing be imposed as any part of Gods worship. This, saith M. Bishop, is cō trary to the conclusion. And why so? For order and comlinesse to be vsed in Gods worship, saith he, is some part of the worship. But who taught him that deepe point of Philosophy, that an accident is a part of the subiect, that the beauty or comelinesse of the body is a part of the body? Order and comelinesse are matters of ceremony, not of substance; of outward ornament, not of inward deuotion, properly and immediatly respecting men, but by consequence onely reduced to God, & therfore can be no parts of the worship of God. The third caution is, that what the Church prescribeth, be seuered from superstition & opinion of merit. Of opinion of merit M. Bishop saith nothing, which is a case that in high degree toucheth the Church of Rome, which of her own traditions hath made meritorious works, and hath bewitched the people, to thinke that by the obseruation thereof they may purchase & deserue heauen. As touching superstition, he saith the caution is needelesse, for if it be not absurd, saith he, which is the first prouiso, it is already seuered frō superstition. Which indeed is rightly spoken according to the truth of the thing, because in truth all superstition is absurd, & therefore there should need no distinction betwixt that that is superstitious, and that that is absurd, but yet the distinction here hath vse in respect of the opinion of men, because many things are superstitious, which yet with men are hardly deemed absurd, for thatCol. 2.23. they haue a shew of wisedome, as S. Paul saith, in voluntary religion and humblenesse of mind, and in not sparing the body, so that they many times blind the eies of thē that seem to be of very good sight. And this is the case of many Popish traditions, wherein as there are many things so absurd, as that they are faine to vse their wits to deuise couers & excuses, that they may not appeare to be so grosse as they are, yet many other there are which are so fairely varnished with colours of piety & holinesse, as that by the means therof Satan first preuailed to bring thē into the Church, [Page 845] dazeling the eies of mē that they saw not the mischiefe that in time he should work thereby to the religion and faith of Christ. The last caution is, that the Church of God be not burdened with the multitude of traditions. A thing wherof S. Austin cōplained in his time, thatAugust. epist. 119. Tam multis praesumptionibus sic plena sunt omnia, &c. Ipsā religionem quā pancissimu & manifestissimis celebrationū sacramentis miserecordia Dei esse liberam voluit scruilibus oneribus premunt vt tolerabilior sit cōditio Iudaeorū, qui etiamsi tempus libertatis non agnouerint, tamē legalibus sarcinu, non humanis praesumptionibus subijciunti [...]. all was full of manifold presumptions, and that the religion which the mercy of God would haue to be free, by hauing but a very few & very manifest sacraments & obseruations, was so oppressed with seruile burdens, as that the state of the Iewes was more tolerable thē it; who though they knew not the time of liberty, yet were subiect to the burdens of Gods lawes, not to mens presumptions. This cautiō, M. Bishop saith may passe, but in this the Church of Rome hath more deepely offended, then did those times whereof S. Austin complained, hauing infinitely intangled the consciences of men, with the multiplicity of her witchcrafts & sorceries, & endlesse variety of superstitious obseruations. These things now M. Bishop telleth vs, are but meere trifles, but the reason is, because he wanteth vnderstanding to cōceiue the waight and importance of thē. And from that want it proceedeth, that he alledgeth a triflle indeed as a matter of more importance. That is that M. Perkins calleth the decree registred in the fifteenth of the Acts by the name of a tradition, hauing before defined traditions to be all doctrines deliuered beside the written word. But if his sight had serued him, he might very readily haue seene, that in the first place M. Perkins had defined traditions as they are in question betwixt vs & them, and referreth the same only to matters of doctrine, in which sort we admit of no traditions, but that here he speaketh of traditions more generally, in such sort as we grant traditions, as he expresseth, which are the positiue & temporary ordinances & cōstitutions of the Church. The decree then of the Apostles was no tradition in that meaning wherin we questiō traditions, because it was no matter of doctrine, but only of cōuersation & temporary obseruation, but in the general vse of the name of traditions, it was a matter of tradition, because all ordinances of the Church are imported by that name.
4. W. BISHOP.
The Difference. Catholikes teach, that besides the written Word, there be certaine vnwritten traditions, which must be beleeued and practised, as both profitable and necessary to saluation. We hold that the Scriptures containe in them all doctrine needfull to saluation: whether it concerne faith or manners, and acknowledge no traditions for such, as he who beleeueth them not, cannot be saued.
Before we come to the Protestants reasons against Traditions, obserue that we deuide Traditions into three sorts: the first we termed Diuine, because they were deliuered by our blessed Sauiour, who is God: the second, Apostolical, as deliuered by the holy Apostles: the third, Ecclesiasticall, instituted and deliuered by the Gouernours of the Church, after the Apostles daies. And of these three kinds of traditions, we make the same account, as of the writings of the same Authors: to wit, we esteeme no lesse of our Sauiours traditions, than of the foure Gospels, or any thing immediatly dictated from the holy Ghost. Likewise as much honour and credit do we giue vnto the Apostles doctrine vnwritten, as written. For inke and paper brought no new holinesse, nor gaue any force & vertue vnto either Gods or the Apostles words; but they were of the same value and credit vttered by word of mouth, as if they had bene written. Here the question is principally of diuine traditions, which we hold to be necessary to saluation, to resolue and determine many matters of greater difficulty. For we deny not but that some such principall points of our Faith (which the simple are bound to beleeue vnder paine of damnation) may be gathered out of the holy Scriptures: as for example; that God is the Creator of the world, Christ the Redeemer of the world, the holy Ghost the sanctifier: and other such like Articles of the Creed.
R. ABBOT.
Traditions saith M. Bishop, are of three sorts, Diuine, Apostolicall, & Ecclesiasticall. Which distinction in some meaning standeth good, but as he expresseth the meaning of it, it is absurd. For if Apostolike traditions be expounded of doctrines, as he expoundeth them, what warrant hath he to put difference betwixt diuine and Apostolike traditions, when the Apostles for doctrine deliuered nothing but what they themselues had receiued frō God? Our Sauiour limited their commission in this sort,Mat. 28.20. teaching them to do whatsoeuer I haue commanded you. Accordingly they professed to do.1. Co [...]. 11.23. I haue receiued of the Lord that which I haue deliuered vnto you, saith Saint Paul. 1. Thess. 4.2.8. We gaue you commaundements by the Lord Iesus, and he that despiseth these things, despiseth not man but God. Gal. 1.11 12. The Gospell which was preached by me, I receiued it not of man, nor was taught it, but by the reuelation of Iesus Christ. Therefore Tertullian saith of them, thatTertul. de praescript. Nec ipsi (Apostoli) quicquam ex suo arbitrio quod inducerent elegerūt, sed acceptam à Christo discipl [...] nam fideliter nationibus adsignauerunt. they did not vpon their liking make choise of any thing to bring in, but faithfully assigned to the Nations the doctrine which they had [Page 847] receiued of Christ. So that if Traditions be vnderstood of doctrine, there is no reason to make any difference betwixt the traditions of Christ, & the traditions of the Apostles, because they are both one. But if we wil make difference betwixt them, we must call Apostolike traditions, onely such ordinances whether written or vnwritten, as the Apostles prescribed for ceremony & vsage in the Church, as the obseruation of the memoriall of the natiuity, death, & resurrection of Christ, the alteration of the seuenth day from the Iewes Sabbath to the day of Christes resurrection, the precept of the Apostle of preaching bareheaded, & such like. And in these traditions we may note that they were sometimes subiect to diuersity according to diuersity of places, as was at first the feast of Easter sometimes subiect to alteration & change, where there might be reason of any such alteration, as wereIude vers. 12. the feasts of charity first vsed by the Apostles, & afterwards abolished for the abuse of them, & as that order of the Apostle for preaching bareheaded, it being by the custome of that time a signe of honour and authority so to do, whereas since it is become a matter of authority to preach with the head couered. The obseruation ofActs. 20.7. Apoc. 1.10. the Lords day we hold perpetuall & vnchangeable, because we find it noted in the Scriptures to haue bene frō the Apostles, and there can be no reason of reuersing or altering what they ordered therin. If thus M. Bishop will speake of Apostolike traditions, we acknowledge the name of thē, but Apostolike doctrines we know none but such as are also to be acknowledged for diuine. Thus therefore the question is of diuine traditions, that is, doctrines of faith & of the worship and seruice of God, which we deny to be any, but what are comprised in the written word of God. Now of diuine traditions, he telleth vs some parabables, which it seemeth he himselfe did not well vnderstand. We hold them, saith he, to be necessary to saluation, to determine matters of greater difficulty. Be like then they are not necessary for thēselues, but only to determine matters of greater difficulty, and those that are not necessary for the determining of matters of greater difficulty, are not necessary to saluation. By this meanes a number of their traditions must fall, Purgatory, praier for the dead, inuocation of Saints, Popes Pardons, worshipping of idols & images, and the rest, because no matters of difficulty are determined thereby. Againe, we deny not, saith he, but that some such principall points of our faith, which the simple are bound to beleeue [Page 848] vnder paine of damnation, may be gathered out of the Scriptures. It seemeth then that the simple are not bound vnder paine of damnation, to beleeue the rest that cannot be gathered out of the Scriptures, & if he say they be so bound, then that clause of his was very idlely and impertinently inferred. But we must pardon him; it seemeth he wanted sleepe the night before, and therefore being very drowsie, could not well consider of that he wrote.
5 W. BISHOP.
M. Perkins goeth about to proue by these reasons following, that the Scriptures containe all matter of beliefe necessary to saluation. Testimonie, Deut. 4.2. Thou shalt not adde to the words that I cōmand thee, nor take any thing there from. Therefore the written word is sufficient for all doctrine pertaining to saluation. If it be said, that this is spoken as well of the vnwritten as written word; for there is no mention in the text of the written word: then M. Perkins addeth, that it must be vnderstood of the written word onely, because these words are as a certaine preface set before a long Commentarie made vpon the written Law.
Answer. Let the words be set where you will, they must not be wrested beyond their proper signification. The words cited signifie no more, then that we must not either by addition or subtractiō, change or peruert Gods commandements, whether they be written or vnwritten. Now to inferre, that because they are as a preface vnto Moses law, that therfore nothing must be added vnto the same law, is extreame dotage. Why thē were the bookes of the old Testament written afterward, if God had forbidden any more to be written or taught, besides that one booke of Deuteronomie? Shall we thinke that none of the Prophets that liued and wrote many volumes after this, had read these words; or that they either vnderstood them not; or that vnderstanding them well, did wilfully transgresse against thē? one of these the Protestants must needs defend, or else for very shame surcease the alledging of this text for the al-sufficiēcy of the writtē word.
R. ABBOT.
M. Bishops allegations are too simple & childish to moue the Protestants to surcease the opposing of that text of Moses against vnwritten traditions & doctrines.Deut. 4.2. Ye shall put nothing to the word that I command you, saith Moses, neither shall ye take ought there from, that ye may keepe the commandements of the Lord your God which I command you, thereby giuing to vnderstand, that euery putting too or taking fro, is a breach of the cōmandement of the Lord. Against the exception [Page 849] which M. Bishop vseth, that these words may be vnderstood of commandements as wel vnwritten as written, M. Perkins answereth, that these words are as a preface to a long cōmentary or exposition of the written law, & therfore do import, that to the written law nothing is to be added, nothing to be taken from it, but that onely was to be done, which is contained therein. Now howsoeuer M. Bishop doat, yet the case is plaine, that because Moses spake thus in respect of the written law, therefore the Israelites were to admit of nothing but what was written in the law. But saith he, why then were there bookes of the old Testament and of the Prophets written afterwards, if God had forbidden any more to be written or taught, but that one booke of Deuteronomy? Behold a cosening Sophister, who seeth well, and knoweth, that saue onely by falshood and deceipt he auaileth nothing. We say not that of the booke of Deuteronomy onely, but of the whole written law Moses said, Ye shall put nothing to it, &c. Againe we do not say, that God did forbid any more bookes to be written or taught, but that no matter of doctrine, of faith, or of the worship of God, should be receiued, or written, or taught, but what was deriued from the written law. Now then I wish thee gentle Reader to obserue how the wise man in his owne answer circumuenteth and ouerthroweth himselfe. Moses saith, Ye shall put nothing to the word which I cōmand you, nor take ought therefrom; now tell vs M. Bishop of what word did he say this? He telleth vs, that we must vnderstand it of the word whether written or vnwritten. Be it so, but you will confesse then, that to the word of God deliuered by Moses, written or vnwritten nothing is to be added, because the words of Moses plainly expresse so much, and how then came it to passe, that so many bookes were written afterwards? We hope you will not deny but that Moses therein taught the Israelites whatsoeuer was necessary to saluation: how then doth it stand, that the rest of the Prophets added so much more in writing? To vse your owne words, shall we thinke that the Prophets read not these words, or vnderstood them not, or did wilfully transgresse them? We would gladlie heare whether of these you vvill say. The man is mute, and he hath nothing to answer: if he answer as he must, his answer fully serueth our turne, for defending the onely written law of Moses, that the bookes that were after written by the Prophets, serue to explane and declare the law, & to [Page 850] shew the experiment & practise of it, but adde no point of doctrine, nor teach any article of religion towards God but what Moses hath written in the Law. But for the further strengthening of this argument, it is to be noted that Moses testifieth of himself, thatExod. 24.4. he wrote all the words of God. In another place it is said,Deut. 31.9.10 Moses wrote this law, and deliuered it to the Priests and to all the Elders of Israel, and cōmanded them saying, Euery seuenth yeare thou shalt reade this law before all Israel. The law then which he gaue them, he gaue them in writing, that they might read it, & it might be read vnto them. It could not haue bene said Moses wrote this law, if he had written but a part of it, and left another part vnwritten. Nay, it is said further afterwards;Ver. 24. When Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a booke vntill he had finished them, then Moses commanded the Leuites saying, Take the booke of this law, and put it in the side of the Arke, &c. It is apparent then that Moses gaue not ouer writing the words of the law, vntill he had finished them, that is, vntill he had written all the words of the law, so that there was no word of the law, but that that was written in the booke of the law. And therfore that which is set downe by Moses, Deut. 27.26. Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them, is thus related by the Apostle,Gal. 3.10. Cursed is euery one that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law to do thē; therby to shew, that all the words of the law are written in the booke of the law, & nothing left vnwritten that was any part or parcel thereof. Thus when God would giue direction to Iosuah, Iosuah. 1.7. to obserue and do according to all the law which Moses had commanded him, giuing him charge according to the instruction of Moses here spoken of, not to turne away from it to the right hand or to the left, either by putting too or taking fro, to shew what he meant by all the law he addeth, Let not this booke of the law depart out of thy mouth, but meditate therein day and night, that thou maiest obserue and do according to all that is written therein. Here againe it is plaine, that to obserue all the law of Moses, is to obserue all that is written in the booke of the law. And out of this place Cyprian being vrged by Stephanus Bishop of Rome with tradition, argueth against the receiuing of vnwritten traditions;Cyprian ad Pōpetum. Vnde est ista traditriot Virumnè de dominica & Euā gelica authoritate descendens, an de Apostolarum mandatis at (que) epistolu veniens? Ea enim fa [...]ienda esse quae scripta sunt, Deus testatur, & protonit Iesu Naue diceus, Nō recedet, &c. Whence is this tradition, faith he? Whether descendeth it from the authoritie of the Lord and of the Gospell, or commeth it frō the cōmandements and epistles of the Apostles? For that those things must be done which are written, God testifieth, [Page 851] saying to Iosuah, The booke of this law shall not depart out of thy mouth, &c. Where he plainely sheweth that out of these words he intendeth this conclusion, that concerning faith and deuotion towards God, as we are to do the things that are written, so what is not written we are not to do. And this now is cleare by the place that we haue here in hand: for if all that Moses commanded were written, and nothing was to be added to that that Moses commanded, then nothing was to be added to that that was written, and those things which were written afterwards were no additions, but only declarations and confirmations of those things which he had before written. And thus did the ancient Fathers vnderstand that that is said of adding or diminishing as touching the written word.Tertul aduers. Hermog. Adoro scripturae plemdinem &c. Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina: si non sit scriptum timeat vae illud adijcientibus aut detrahentibus destinatum. I reuerence the fulnesse (or perfection) of the Scripture, saith Tertullian, Let the schoole of Hermogenes shew me that that which he saith is written; if it be not written, let him feare the wo that is appointed to them that adde or take away. And so Basil saith, thatBasil. ser. de fide. Manifestus est fidei lapsus & liquidum superbia virium vel respuere aliquid eorum quae Scriptura habet, vel inducere quicquam quod scriptum non est, cùm Dominus dicat, Oues meae vocem meam audiunt; alienum aut [...]m non sequuntur, & Apostolus per humanum exemplum vehemētèr prohibeat aliquid in diuinis scripturis vel addere vel demere, cum dicit, Hominis quidem Testamentum, &c. it is a manifest falling from faith, and an apparent sinne of pride, either to refuse any thing that the Scripture hath, or to bring in any thing that is not written, seeing our Lord Iesus Christ saith, My sheepe heare my voice, they do not follow a stranger; and the Apostle by a humane example greatly forbiddeth in the holy Scriptures either to adde any thing, or take away, when he saith, A mans testament when it is cōfirmed, no man refuseth or addeth any thing to it. Hereby then it is plaine, that the forbidding to adde or take away, hath reference to the written word of God, and therefore that the doctrine of faith and religion is to be taken from thence onely, and nothing therin to be admitted but what hath the warrant of the holy Scriptures.
6. W. BISHOP.
M. Perkins His 2. testimony: Esa. 8.20. To the law and testimony, if they speake not according to this word, it is, because there is no light in them: Here the Prophet teacheth (saith M.P.) what is to be done in cases of difficulty: men must not run to the Wisards and Southsayers, but to the law and to the testimony, commending the written word as sufficient to resolue all doubts whatsoeuer.
Answ. By the law and testimony in that place, the 5. bookes of Moses are to be vnderstood: if that written Word be sufficient to resolue all doubts whatsoeuer, what need we then the Prophets? what need we the Euangelists and the Epistles of the Apostles? what Wizard [Page 852] would haue reasoned in such sort? The Prophet willeth here, that the Israelites who wanted wit to discerne whether it be better to flie vnto God for counsell, then vnto Wizards and Soothsayers, do see what is written in the law of Moses concerning that point of consulting-Wizards: which is there plainely forbidden in diuerse places. Now out of one particular case, whereof there is expresse mention in the written word, to conclude that all doubts and scruples whatsoeuer are thereby to be decided, is a most vnskilfull part, arguing as great want of light in him as was in those blind Israelites.
R. ABBOT.
If M. Perkins had thought himselfe to be so wise as M. Bishop doth himselfe, we should certainely haue condemned him for a wizard; what we thinke of M. Bishop in the meane time, we leaue it to him to consider of. The Prophet in the place alledged, dehorteth the faithfull from yeelding to the wicked motions and counsels of hypocrites and vnbeleeuers, who casting away all trust and confidence in God, and relinquishing the yoke of obedience to him, sought by other helpes and meanes to secure and establish themselues against the daungers which they imagined to themselues: who as they had giuen themselues ouer to idolatrie, so followed the course of idolaters in this behalfe, and for aduice and direction in such things as concerned thē for their safetie, they sought & taught one another to seeke to Southsayers, and such as vsed familiar spirits, and tooke vpon them to call vp the soules of dead men to giue answer to such things as should be demanded of thē. By them they would be instructed what to do, and what course to take for their owne good, & hereby were hardened in their abhominations and apostacie frō God, to the further prouocation of his wrath against themselues. He therefore aduertiseth the faithfull and godly not to ioyne with them in any such doings, but when they shold perswade them to enquire of any such wicked persons, rather to answer themEsa. 8.19. Should not a people enquire at their God? Euery nation seeketh to their owne God. The Lord is your God, will ye not seeke to him? will ye go for the liuing to them that are dead? Hereupon he addeth the words here questioned:Vers. 20. To the law and to the testimonie: if they speake not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Wherin he giueth to the people of God a generall direction to go to the law & to the testimony, to be instructed what waies they ought [Page 853] to walke in, and to hearken to none, to follow none but only such as speake vnto them according to that word. The Prophets of God called men one way; false Prophets, wizards and Southsayers called men another way; he teacheth them therefore a sure way to know to whom to commit themselues, by considering who spake according to that word. Now to this the wizard giueth vs a wizard like answer, that the Prophets willed them to see what was written in the law of Moses concerning that point of consulting wizards. So then there is no more here said but this, that if the wizards do not say vnto thē, that they are not to consult with wizards, it is because there is no light in them, and who but a wizard would haue made such a construction of the place? The Prophet teacheth them in generall to seeke to the law of God for aduice and answer of such things as touching which they went to consult with wizards & southsayers; to be directed thereby in seeking to prouide for their owne safetie; thence to take resolution of their doubts; and to take it for certain, that they led them in darknesse, whosoeuer should draw them to other waies then could be warranted thereby.Basil. in Esa. cap. 8. Vnaquae (que) natiorem ambagiosam & quaestionem de quae cupiebat edoceri suo proporebat Deo dissoluendā. Quos supponebāt esse Deos, his offerebant diluendas inquisitiones suas Euery nation, saith Basil vpon that place, did propound to their God the doubt and question wherof they desired to be taught, to haue resolution thereof: whom they tooke to be gods, to them they offred their questions to be answered. Therfore he sheweth that the people of God for answer of their doubts, should go to God in going to the law and to the testimony Aducit Deus legem velut manuductionem viam tibi praemumentem. Vis certò persuaderi quae sint futura? Prouide sedulò vt quae tibi lex facienda praescripsit, opere expleas diligentèr, & certus opperitor iucundissimā fruitionem repositorū tibi bonorū, &c. Bonis perfru [...] siquidem desideres, quae praescripta sunt mandata, opere exequitor. which God hath giuen, as to guide vs by the hand, & to direct vs the way. Wilt thou then, saith he, be certainly perswaded what shall hereafter befall thee? Prouide diligently to do the things which the law cōmandeth thee to do, and waite assured of the most ioyfull fruition of the good things which are prouided for thee. If thou desire to enioy good things, performe the commandements that are prescribed vnto thee. By Basils iudgement then it is plaine, that the words haue further meaning, then to refer thē to the law concerning that one particular of consulting wizards. But Hierome goeth yet further, & tels vs the meaning of the Prophet in this sort:Hieron. in Esa. cap 8. lib. 3. Si de aliquo dubitaris, &c. si vultis nosse quae dubia sunt māgis vos legi et testimonijs tradite scripturarum. If ye doubt of any thing, if ye would know the things that ye doubt of, referre your selues to the law and to the testimonies of the Scriptures. What wil M. Bishop say now, wil he cal Hierom a wizard as he hath done M.P. for saying the Prophets meaning to be, that the Scripture, the written word shold resolue thē of al that they doubted towards God? Yea & the law it self sufficiently warranteth vs so to cō ceiue. [Page 854] Deut. 12.32. Whatsoeuer I cōmand you, take heed you do it, saith Moses, thou shalt put nothing therto, nor take ought therefrō. Those words M. Bish. vulgar Latin expoundeth thus:Quod praecipio tibi hoc tantùm facito Domino. What I cōmand thee, that onely do to the Lord, thou shalt put nothing thereto, &c. Now we haue seene before, that Moses committed to writing whatsoeuer he commāded. If then nothing were to be done to the Lord but what Moses commanded, and all that Moses commanded was written, then by the written word all doubts were to be resolued as touching those things that were to be done to the Lord, and nothing to be done but that that was written. But saith M. Bishop, what need we then the Prophets? what need we the Euangelists and the Epistles of the Apostles? I haue answered him before, but yet let me tell him here, that Faustus the Maniche denying God the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ to be the author of the old Testament, when he was vrged that Christ approueth the same in saying, I came not to destroy the lawe, but to fulfill it, replied, that it could not be that Christ should say so, because the author of the Law had said, that nothing should be added to the law, nor taken from it. Saint Austine answereth him, thatAugust. cont. Faust. Manich. lib. 17. cap. 6. Venit legem adimplere non vi legi adderentur quae decrant, sed vt fierent quae scripta erant, quod ipsa eius verba iestantur; Non enim ait, Jo [...]a vnum aut vnus apex non transiet à lege donec addantur quae desunt, sed donec omnia fiant. Christ came to fulfill the Law, not as that any thing should be added which was wanting to the law, but that the things should be done which are written therein, as his words (saith he) do shew: for he doth not say, Not one iot or title of the law shall passe, till the things be added which are wanting, but till all things be done. Hence therefore we answer M. Bishop once againe, that the Prophets writings were no additions of doctrine, but onely explanations of the law, and so likewise that the writings of the new Testament do adde nothing to the law, but onely do further declare, and withall set foorth the accomplishment of those things that were foreshewed & prophecied in the law. And therefore Paul in preaching the Gospell, professethAct. 26.22. to say no other things then those which the Prophets and Moses did say should come: so that to vse the distinction that Vincentius Lyrinensis vpon other occasion vseth, though the Euangelists and Apostles spake in a new manner, yet they spakeVincent Lyr. Eadem quae didicisti doce, vt cùm dicas nouè non dicas noua. no new matter, or to allude to Saint Austines words, though they varied in the tense, yet they differed not in the signification of the word, but in both times, or in all times the same doctrine was preached, the same faith continued, the latter affirming nothing but what was confirmed by the writings of them that went before.
7 W. BISHOP.
3. Testimony, Ioh. 20.31. These things were written, that ye might beleeue, that Iesus is the Christ: & in beleeuing, might haue life euerlasting. Here is set downe the ful end of the Gospell, that is, to bring men to faith, and consequently to saluation: to which, the whole Scripture alone is sufficient without Traditions.
Answ. Here are more faults then lines: first, the text is craftily mangled, things being put instead of miracles. For S. Iohn saith, Many other miracles Christ did, &c. but these were written, &c. Secondly, S. Iohn saith not, that for faith we shall be saued, but beleeuing we shold haue saluation in his name, which he clipped off: thirdly, remember to what faith S. Iohn ascribes the means of our saluation, not to that wherby we apply vnto our selues Christs righteousnesse, but by which we beleeue Iesus to be Christ the Messias of the Iewes, and the Sonne of God, which M. Perkins also concealed.
Now to the present matter, S. Iohn saith, that these miracles recorded in his Gospell, were written, that we might beleeue Iesus to be the Sonne of God; and beleeuing, haue saluation in his name, &c. Therefore the written word containes all doctrine necessary to saluation.
Answ. S. Iohn speakes not a word of doctrine, but of miracles: and therfore to conclude sufficiency of doctrine out of him, is not to care what one saith. But M.P. foreseeing this, saith, it cannot be vnderstood of miracles only; for miracles without the doctrine of Christ, can bring no man to life euerlasting: true, and therefore that text speaking onely of miracles, proueth nothing for the sufficiencie of the written Word. Christs miracles were sufficient, to proue him to be the Sonne of God, and their Messias: but that proueth not S. Iohns Gospell to containe all doctrine needfull to saluation: for many other points of faith must be beleeued also. And if it alone be sufficient, what need we the other three Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, or any of their Epistles, or the same S. Iohns Reuelations? Finally, admit that S. Iohns Gospell were al-sufficient, yet should not Traditions be excluded; for Christ saith in it in plaine termes, Ioh. 16. that he had much more to say vnto his Apostles, but they as then being not able to beare it, he reserued that to be deliuered vnto them afterward: of which high mysteries S. Iohn recordeth not much in his Gospel after Christs resurrection; and so many of them must needs be deliuered by Tradition vnwritten.
R. ABBOT.
More faults then lines, saith M. Bishop, but very slender proofe doth he bring of any fault. First, he cauilleth that the text is mangled, and things put in instead of miracles. The words are thus:Ioh. 20.30. Many other signes also did Iesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this booke: but these things are written that ye might beleeue that Iesus is Christ the Son of God, and that in beleeuing ye might haue life through his name. Where we translate the Greek relatiue [...], being in the neuter gender, these things, because it hath not reference only to miracles mentioned in the former verse, but to the matter of the whole book, S. Iohn here intending to set foorth the end & purpose of all that he hath written. For beingHier. Proem in Matth. Cum esset in Asia & tam tunc haereticorum seminae pullularent, Cerinthi, Hebionis, & caeterorū qui negant Christum in carne venisse, coactus est ab omnibus penè tunc Asiae Episcopis & multarū Ecclesiarum legationibus de diuinitate saluatoris altiùs scribere in Asia, as Ierome saith, and the seeds of heretickes beginning to grow, of Cerinthus, Ebion and others denying Christ to haue come in the flesh he was forced by almost al the bishops of Asia, and by messages from other churches, to write more deeply then the other Euangelists had done, of the diuinity of our Sauior Christ. Here then he signifieth that he hath so done: these things (saith he) are written, that ye may beleeue that Iesus is Christ the Son of God. Therefore Cyrill saith hereof:Cyril. in Ioan. lib. 12. cap 61. Quasi repetendo quae scripsit intentionem Euā gelij manifestat. As it were repeating or recounting the things which he hath written, he manifesteth the intent of his Gospell. The first fault then pretended by M. Bishop is no fault, because the relatiue implieth generally what the Euangelist hath written according to the intent and purpose of his Gospell. The second fault is ridiculously alledged; for whē M. Perkins collecteth that by faith we be saued, how doth he meane it, or how doth any man meane it, butActs. 3 16. by faith in the name of Christ? As touching the third point, it hath beneOf Iustification. Sect. 18. before declared, that to beleeue that Iesus is Christ the Son of God, importeth the applying vnto vs of the merit and righteousnes of Christ. For as a man mayThom. Aquin. 22 q. 2. art. 2. ad 3. Credere D [...]ū non conuenit infidelibus sub ea ratione qua ponitur actus fidei. Non enim credunt Deum esse sub his conditionibus quas fides determinat. beleeue that there is a God, or that God is, and yet be still an infidell, wanting that beleefe therof which is properly the act of faith, as Thom. Aquinas noteth, so a man may in some sort beleeue that Iesus is Christ the Son of God, & yet not so beleeue it as the Scripture nameth it for the act of iustifying faith, because he beleeueth it not vnder such conditions as are determined by the doctrine of faith. If it be taken only for an act of vnderstanding as the Papists take it, a mā may beleeue it without any fruit, because the diuels so beleeue: but the beleefe of the heart which the Scripture intendeth, importeth affiance, and trust, and inward feeling, and [Page 857] comfort of that which it beleeueth, whilst therby we apply vnto our selues the benefite of the merit & passion of Christ, expecting therby the remission of our sins. But now frō noting of faults M. Bishop cometh to a finall answer, that because S. Iohn speaketh of miracles, not of doctrine, therefore these words proue nothing for the sufficiency of the written word. Where M. Perkins exception still standeth vnremoued, that because by miracles without doctrine we cānot attaine to that faith wherby we beleeue that Christ is the Son of God: therfore the words of the Euangelist cannot be restrained to miracles only. For others did miracles, as great, yeaIoh. 14.12. greater then Christ did, as by example we see whenAct. 5.15. by the shadow of Peter, and byChap. 19.12. napkins and handkerchifes from Paules body the sicke are healed, which we reade not of Christ himselfe. By miracles therfore Christ is not discerned, vnlesse by doctrine accōpanying the same he be made known vnto vs, & therefore the words of the Euangelist must be referred to the doctrine also whereby he teacheth to make vse of the miracles of Christ. So S. Austin referreth the words both to those things which Christ did and said;Aug. in Joan. tract. 49. Sanctus Euangelista testatur multa Dominum Christum & dixisse & fecisse quae scripta non sunt. Electa sunt autē quae scriberentur quae saluti credentium sufficere videbantur. The holy Euangelist testifieth, that Christ both did and said many things which are not written, and for the ouerthrowing of M. Bishops answer, and iustifying of our assertion he addeth: but those things were chosen to be written, which seemed sufficient for the saluation of them that beleeue. Cyril speaketh more expresly:Cyril. in Ioan. lib. 12. cap. 68. Non omnia quae Dominus fecit conscriptasunt, sed quae scribentes sufficere putarunt tam ad mores quàm ad dogmata, vt recta fide & operibus & virtute rutilantes ad regnum coelorū perueniamus. Al things which Christ did are not writtē, but what the writers thought to be sufficient as well touching conuersation as doctrine, that shining with right faith and vertuous works, we may attaine to the kingdom of heauen. It is not then our collection only, but thus these ancient Fathers conceiued, that of the miracles & doctrine of Christ so much was written as is sufficient to instruct vs to faith, to the attainment of euerlasting life. And this is plainly deliuered in the words of S. Iohn, who could not say, These things are written that ye may beleeue, and beleeuing may haue eternall life, if there be not that written by the beleefe whereof we may obtaine eternall life. Therefore as touching Saint Iohns Gospell containing all things needfull to saluation, we answer him first, that indeed we affirme that there is no article of faith necessarie to saluation, which is not to be taught and learned out of the Gospell of S. Iohn. Secondly, there is no cause so to restraine the words, as if Saint Iohn would meane onely in his Gospell to comprehend all that should be needfull for the instruction of the Church. Nay he [Page 858] hath a plaine reference to those things which were before written by Moses and the Prophets, who all prophecied of the Messias, the Christ and annointed of the Lord, in whom God should be God with vs, who should procure our peace with God, the remission of our sins, and euerlasting blisse.Rom. 1.2. In their writings the Gospell was promised, Cap. 3.21. they testified the righteousnes of God by the faith of Iesus Christ, to all, and vpon all that do beleeue: Act. 10.43. they gaue witnesse that through his name euery one that beleeueth in him should haue forgiuenesse of sinnes: by them the doctrine of saluation was from time to time published to the Church. The perfection and accomplishment of this hope depended vpon the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Iesus Christ. These things in theGal. 4.4. fulnesse of time God made good; he sent his Son made of a woman, and made vnder the law, to redeeme them that were vnder the law: who to that end1. Cor. 15.3. died for our sinnes according to the Scriptures, and was buried, and arose the third day according to the Scriptures. It remained now that it should be knowne, that this was he whom the Father had sealed and sent for the working of our redemption. Therefore S. Iohn to that effect saith, These things are writtē, that ye may beleeue that this Iesus is that Messias, that ChristIoh. 1.41.45. of whom Moses in the law and of whom the Prophets did write, the hope of the Fathers, the light of the Gentiles, the glory of Israel, that so beleeuing ye may according to the promise of God haue life through his name. Albeit therefore he hath in his Gospell cō prehended the summe of all that we beleeue, yet we may conceiue that he vseth those words not so much to set forth the fulnes of that that he himselfe hath written, as to signifie that he hath sufficiently set foorth the accomplishment of those things which were written by Moses & the Prophets, in the beleefe wherof consisteth the obtaining of euerlasting life. And yet thirdly without impeachment of any thing already said, it is very likely that S. Iohn writing his Gospell last of al, & cōpiling together the 4. Gospels, spake these words not only as touching that which he himself had written, but also of all written by the rest of the Euangelists, to signifie the vse therof in such sort as I haue said, to which Cyrils words before mentioned seem to haue respect. But howsoeuer we wil conceiue thereof, we cannot doubt but that S. Iohn would giue to vnderstand, that by the written Gospel and word of God, we are sufficiently instructed to that faith in Christ whereby we attaine to liue with him. [Page 859] As for M. Bishops question, if S. Iohns gospell alone be sufficient, what need the other three gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, &c? it is but his cuckoes song, which he hath sung before. And he may euen as well say, what needed any Euangelist to write any story which another had before written? whē S. Mathew had written the passiō of Christ, what needed the rest to mentiō again any thing that he had written? When S. Paul in the Epistle to the Galathians had first handled the question of iustification, what need was there that he should handle it again in his Epistle to the Romanes? When Dauids thanksgiuing for deliuerance from his enemies was set downe in the 18. Psalme, what needed the same to be mentioned againe in the2. Sam. 22.1. second book of Samuel? A number of such idle questions he might make of diuers things set downe in diuers places in the very self same words, and of an infinite number of sayings which haue other to answer thē to the very same effect. But the wisedom of God hath thus thought good to prouide for our saluation, not onely sufficiently but abundantly, by the consent of diuers persons writing diuersly in diuers places & and at diuers times, to confirme vs so much the more in the beleef of those things that are written, to giue vs oftē occasion to remember and consider the same things, to exercise our meditation and studie in comparing those things that are diuersly set downe, to sharpen our diligence in searching out the accord of those things that seem to differ, to set forth in the variety of his words the riches of his wisdome, that there may be therin both to edify the simple and weake, and yet to busie the heads and vnderstanding of the learned, that it may neither be abhorred by the one nor contemned by the other. For these and other causes it hath pleased God that what is written sufficiently by one, should yet be writtē by other also. But M. Bishop in the end howsoeuer the matter go, prouideth sufficiently for himself. For he telleth vs finally, that although S. Iohns gospel were al-sufficient, yet should not traditions be excluded. And why so? for Christ saith in it in plaine termes (saith he) that he had much more to say vnto his Apostles, but they as then being not able to beare it, he reserued that to be deliuered vnto them afterwards. And how then must we think that he deliuered those things? Marry of those high mysteries S. Iohn recordeth not much in his gospel after Christs resurrectiō, and so many of them must be deliuered by tradition vnwritten. Here thou seest (gentle Reader) a budget large inough to receiue all the Popes traditions: we shal not [Page 860] need to doubt now but that he wil proue what he list: if it be for his turne without question it was one of those things that the disciples could not beare til after Christ was risen from the dead, and then he left it to them by tradition. But I wold haue thee to obserue what a note S. Austin gaue long ago concerning that speech of Christ:August. in Ioā. tract. 97. Omnes insipientissimi haeretici qui se Christianos vocari volunt au dacias figmentorum suorū quas maximè exhorret sensus humanut hac occasione Euangelicae sententiae colorare conatur, vbi Dominus au, Adhuc multa, &c. quasi haec ipsa sint quae tunc discipul [...] portare non poterant. t All foolish heretiks who yet desire to be called Christians, do seek to colour the presumptions of their deuices, euē such as humane sense abhorreth, by the pretence of that sentence of the Gospell where Christ saith, I haue many things yet to say vnto you, but ye are not yet able to beare them; as if these were the things which the disciples then were not able to beare. M. Bishop then by alledging this place for the making good of their traditions, hath gained thus much, that we must now account him, as also his fellows, in the like case amongst foolish heretiks, who affirming wicked & abhominable deuices which they cannot proue, wil make vs beleeue that they are things which Christ had to say to his disciples, and they were not able to beare them. But if Christ had left any such matters to be deliuered by traditiō, then it should vndoubtedly be knowne which and what they were. We desire then by M. Bishop to be aduertised particularly therof, and to know what those high mysteries were which the disciples could not beare. What, shal we think that Christ spake of that trash which they deliuer vnto vs vnder the name of traditions? But S. Austin again cutteth him off frō all answer in that behalf:Ibid. tract. 96. Quae cùm ipse tacuerit, quis nostrum dicat, ista vel illa sunt? aut si dicere audeat vnde probat? Quis enim est tam vanus aut temerarius qui cum dixerit etiā vera quibus voluerit, quae voluerit, fine vllo testimonio diuino affirmet ea esse quae tūc dominus dicere noluit? Quis hoc nostrū faciat & non m [...]ximā culpam remeritat [...] incurrat in quo nec Prophetica nec Apostolica excellit authoritas. Seeing Christ himself hath bin silent of those things, who of vs can say, they are these & these? or if he dare to say it, how doth he proue it? For who is there so vaine or so rash, who though he say things that are true, will affirme without any testimony frō God that those are the things which Christ wold not say? Which of vs should so do, and not incurre a note of great presumption, not hauing any authority either of a prophet or an Apostle? Now if it cannot be known what those things were of which Christ spake, then M. Bishop can haue no proofe for their traditiōs hereby, because wheras his words import that S. Iohn in his gospel recordeth somewhat hereof, though not much after the resurrectiō of Christ, we see nothing in that which he recordeth, but that the matter of all the rest may be contained in the rest of his and the other Apostles writings. But for the more full clearing of this matter, it is to be noted, that our Sauior before hath said to his Apostles:Iohn 15.15. All things that I haue heard of my Father, haue I made knowne to you. And again in his prayer to the Father,Chap. 17.8. I haue giuen vnto them [Page 861] (saith he) the words which thou gauest me, and they haue receiued them. If Christ deliuered all the words of God to his disciples before his death, then it must needs follow that he deliuered no other words vnto them after his resurrection. Therfore those many things which he had to speake vnto them, are not to be vnderstood of any other things then he had taught them before, but of a more full & perfect reuelatiō, for the more ful & perfect apprehension & vnderstanding of the same things. To which purpose we are againe to note against M. Bishops fraudulent collection, that our Sauior here saith not, that he wold declare those things vnto them himself after his resurrectiō, but deferreth the same to the coming of the Spirit, saying,Chap. 16.13. Howbeit when he is come which is the spirit of truth, he wil leade you into al truth. Now how he shold lead them into all truth, he hath before shewed.Chap. 14.26. He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance which I haue told you. He shold teach them all things, not by teaching them other things, but by bringing all things to their remembrance which they had bin taught by Christ himself. Therfore here Christ saith further: for he shal not speak of himself, but whatsoeuer he shal heare that shal he speake. Wherby he importeth, that the holy Ghost shold speake according to his example, and he stil professeth thatchap. 7.16.17 he speaketh not of himselfe, thatChap. 8.28. he doth nothing of himself, but as the Father hath taught me (saith he) so I speake these things. Christ spakeChrysost. de sanct. & adoran. spiritu. Non discessit à lege, non discessit à Prophetis, &c. Non locutus est ex seipso sed ex Prophetis, &c. A seipso enim loqui, extra legē loqui est. not of himself, as Chrysostom noteth, because he spake out of the Law and the Prophets: for to speake of himself, is to speake without or beside the Law. So then the holy Ghost shall not speake of himselfe, but as Christ spake according to the words of the Father in the law and the Prophets, so the holy Ghost should speake according to the words of Christ, and therefore according to those things that are written in the Law and the Prophets. Therefore those many things which Christ had to speake vnto them, and into the truth and knowledge whereof the holy Ghost was to leade them, were no other things but what were contained in the written word of the Law and the Prophets, whereof as yet they were not capable, because as yet they did not so wellIohn 20.9. know the Scripture, nor could do, vntill he shouldLuk. 24.45. open their vnderstanding that they might vnderstand the same. Origen vnderstandeth the words spokē to the ApostlesOrigen. contra Cels. l. 2. Fortassis vt Judaeis & in litera legis Mosaicae educatis Apostolis habebat dicendū quae sit vera lex, &c. Vidēs perdifficile esse ex animo reuellere penè conata et vsque ad grandem aetatē coalita dogmata, adeò (que) pro diuinis habita vt amouere illa videretur imptum, &c. Jdeo dictum, Deducet vos in omnem veritatē, id est, in omnem veritatem earū rerum in quatū figuris versantes putabatis vos vero cultu Deū colere. as Iewes brought vp in the letter of Moses law, our Sauior seeing that it was very hard to pull out of their minds the opinions which had grown vp with thē to those yeers [Page 862] which were taken to be of God, so as that it should seeme impious to remoue them. Therefore where Christ saith, The spirit shall leade you into all truth, it is (saith he) as if he had said, Into all the truth of those things in the figures whereof ye haue bin conuersant, thinking thereby truly to worship God. Here is then no warrant at all for M. Bishops vnwritten mysteries: here is nothing as Origen conceiueth, but that the spirit shold afterwards instruct them of the abolishing of the ceremonies of Moses law, which they were not yet well able to conceiue. And therefore against all illusions of heretikes pretending for their vnwritten traditions and doctrines the holy Ghost, as the Church of Rome doth, Chrysostom taking it for granted, that what Christ spake is set foorth vnto vs in the writings of the Apostles and Euangelists, giueth this most notable rule:Chrysost vt supra. Si quis eorū qui dicuntur habere spiritum sanctū, ex seipso loquitur, non ex Euangelijs, non credite. Venit Manes, & dicit, Ego sum Paracletus, &c. Vbi audisti in Euangelio quòd Sol & Luna opifices sunt, &c. Vbi legisti haec [...] Ex quo non legit haec scripta, sed à seipso loquitur, manifestum est quòd non habet spiritum sanctū. If any of them who are said to haue the holy Ghost, do speake any thing of himselfe, and not out of the gospels, beleeue it not. Manes cometh and saith, I am the comforter which Christ promised to the Apostles. Yea but where doest thou heare in the Gospell that the Sun and the Moone are creators? &c. Where readest thou these things? Because he readeth not these things writtē, but speakes of himself, it is manifest that he hath not the holy Ghost. He then that speaketh that that is not written, speaketh of himself; & herby it is manifest vnto vs that it is not by the spirit of God, but by a false and lying spirit, that M. Bishop and the church of Rome do tell vs of high mysteries deliuered by Christ, which are not written in the Gospell of Christ.
8. W. BISHOP.
This place of S. Iohn, M. Perkins patcheth vp with another of S. Paul:Gal. 1.8. If we or an Angel frō heauē preach vnto you any thing besides that which we haue preached, let him be accursed: And to this effect he blames thē that taught but a diuers doctrine to that which he had taught. 1. Tim. 1.3.
Answ. Now we must look vnto this gentlemans fingers: there were three corruptions in the text of S. Iohn, here is one, but it is a foule one. In steed of preaching vnto thē another gospel, he puts preach vnto thē any other thing: when there is great difference betweene another Gospell, and any other thing. The Gospell comprehendeth the principal points of faith, and the whole work of Gods building in vs: which S. Paul like a wise Architect 1. Cor. 3.12. had layd in the Galathians: others his fellow-workmen might build vpon it, gold, siluer, & precious stones, with great merit to themselues and thankes from S. Paul. Marry if any should digge vp that blessed [Page 863] and onely foundation, and would lay a new one, him S. Paul holdeth for accursed. So that that falfication of the text is intollerable: and yet when all is done, nothing can be wringed out of it to proue the written word to comprehend all doctrine needfull for saluation: for S. Paul speaketh there onely of his Gospell, that is, of his preaching vnto the Galathians, and not one word of any written Gospell: no more doth he in that place to Timothie, and so it is nothing to purpose.
R. ABBOT.
M. Bishop hath a quicke nose to smell a fault in the citing of a text, where he can see none. The Greeke word [...], we translate to preach, because we haue no English word that doth more neerly expresse the signification of it; and by preaching we alwayes vnderstand the declaring of the Gospell and word of God. The Rhemists according to their foolish maner, translate it to euangelize, but make English thereof, and let it be, to preach for Gospell, and then the words as they translate them are thus:Gal. 1.8. Although we or an Angell from heauen preach for gospell to you beside that which we haue preached to you for gospell, accursed be he. As we haue said before, so now I say againe, if any preach to you for gospell beside that which you haue receiued, accursed be he. Now then M. Bishops correction, any other Gospell, is not found at all; but that which M. Perkins translateth, any other thing, is necessarily vnderstood: for what is it to say, If any preach to you for gospel beside that which you haue receiued, but if any preach to you for gospell any thing beside that? But here he will tell vs what the Gospell is, and that he doth according to that wise manner as he is wont to do. The Gospell (saith he) containeth the principall points of faith, and the whole work of Gods building in vs. Where we would aske of him why he only saith the principall points of faith, when presently he addeth, the whole worke of Gods building in vs? Surely if the Gospell containe the whole worke of Gods building in vs, then it containeth not onely the principall, but all the points of faith. Thus his penne still outrunnes his head, and giueth him not leaue well to aduise of that he saith. But the Apostle by these words giueth vs to vnderstand, that he had preached vnto thē the whole doctrine of the Gospel, & that this Gospel which he had preached vnto them, is incōpatible of any doctrine as any matter of the Gospel & doctrine of Christ beside it selfe. S. Austin wel noteth [Page 864] that the Apostle doth not sayAugust. in Joan. tract. 98. Non ait plusquā accepistis, sed praeter quod accepistis. more then ye haue receiued, but beside that which ye haue receiued, as leauing them to increase more and more in that doctrine which they had receiued, but not to admit of any other doctrine beside that. Therefore Ʋincentius Lyrinensis hereof saith,Vincen. Lyrin. Annuntiare aliquid Christianu Catholicu praeter id quod acceperunt nunquam licuit, nunquam licet, nunquam licebit; & anathemare eos qui ad [...]untient aliquid praeterquā quod semel acceptum est, nunquam non oportuit, nunquam non oportet, nun quam non opertebit. To preach to Catholike Christians any thing beside that which they haue receiued, it neuer was lawfull, it is neuer lawfull, it neuer shall be lawfull; and to accurse them who do preach any thing beside what was once receiued, it was alwayes behouefull, it is alwayes behouefull, and alwayes shall be behouefull. What, will M. Bishop here challenge Vincentius Lyrinensis for falsification, because he saith any thing beside that? If he will not, then let him acknowledge his owne folly in blaming M. Perkins where there was no cause of blame. Yet Chrysostome will offend him somewhat more:Chrysos. in Gal. cap. 1 Ne (que) dixit. fi contraria annuntiauerint aut totum Euangeliū subuerterint, verū si vel paulùm euāgelizauerint praeter Euangel ū quod accepistis, etiam si quiduis, labefactarint, anathema sint Paul doth not say, saith he, if they preach contrary things, or if they subuert the whole Gospell, but if they preach but euen a little beside the Gospell which ye haue receiued, if they weaken but any thing, accursed be they. But yet he excepteth that S. Paul speaketh onely of his Gospell, that is, of his preaching to the Galathians, and not one word of any written Gospell, and therefore that nothing can be wringed out from hence to proue that the written word comprehendeth all doctrine needfull to saluation. I answer him by the words of Irenaeus, Jren. a [...]is. haeres lib. 3. cap. 1. Non per alios dispositionem salutis nostrae cognouimus quàm per eos per quos Euangelium peruenit ad nos quod quidē tunc praeconiauerunt, postea verò per Dei voluntatem in Scripturis nobis tr [...]diderunt fundamentū & columnam fidei nostrae futurum. We haue not knowne the meanes of our saluation by any other but by them by whom the Gospell is come vnto vs, which they verily preached then (at first) but afterwards by the will of God deliuered it vnto vs in the Scriptures, to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. This was the auncient opinion and perswasion of the Church, that what the Apostles first preached, they afterwards committed to writing, esteeming that to be the safest andPhil. 3.1. surest way, that hereby the Church might be armed against the practises of all deceitfull and wicked heretikes that would go about to bring in their owne deuices, vnder colour & shew of the Apostles names. Because therefore whatsoeuer doctrine the Apostles preached is written, and by the ancient Church was holden so to be, they made no doubt to apply these words to the writtē Gospel, and to vnderstand them to be accursed that preach any thing for doctrine of the Gospell, which is not thereby warranted vnto vs. Therefore Chrysostome saith vpon these words, thatChrysost. in Gal. 1. Paulus etiam Angelis de coelo descendentibus praeponit Scripturas, idque valdè congruentèr: siquidem Angeli quamlibet magni, tamen seruisunt ac ministri: caeterum omnes Scriptura, non à seruis sed ab vniuersorum Domino Deo venerunt ad nos. Paul here preferreth the Scriptures [Page 865] before Angels comming from heauen, and that iustly, saith he, for Angels albeit they be great, yet are but seruants and ministers, but all the Scriptures came vnto vs not from seruants, but from God the Lord of all. But let S. Austine briefly conclude this point, and shew vs to what these words are to be referred.August. cont. lit. Petil. li. 3. ca. 6. Siue de. Christo siue de eius ecclesia, siue de quacunque re alia quae pertinet ad fidem vitam (que) nostram nō dicā nos nequaquam comparandi ei qui dicit, Licet [...] nos, sed omninò quod secutus adiecit, Si Angelus de coelo vobis annunciauerit praeterquam quod in Scripturis legalibus et Euangelicis accepistis anathema sit. Whether concerning Christ, or concerning the Church of Christ, or concerning any thing that pertaineth to our faith and life, we will not say, if we, but euen as he going forward addeth, If an Angell from heauen shall preach vnto you but what ye haue receiued in the Scriptures of the Law and the Gospell, accursed be he. The words of the Apostle to Timothie, of1. Tim. 1.3. commaunding [...]. not to teach any other doctrine, sounding to the same effect as the other do, do yeeld vs the like collection, as we haue seene in them.
9. W. BISHOP.
The fourth testimonie. 2. Tim. 3.16. The whole Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God, and is profitable to teach, to improue, to correct, and to instruct to righteousnesse, that the man of God may be absolute, being made perfect vnto euery good worke. In these words are contained (saith M. Perkins) two arguments to proue the sufficiencie of Scripture: The first, that which is profitable to these foure vses, to teach (all necessary truth is not in the text) to confute errors, to correct faults in manners, to instruct (all men in dutie, is M. Perkins his addition to the text) that is sufficient to saluation. But the Scriptures serue for all these vses, &c.
Answer. This text of holy Scripture is so farre from yeelding our aduersaries two arguments, that it affoordeth not so much as any probable colour of halfe one good argument. In searching out the true sence of holy Scripture, we must obserue diligently the nature and proper signification of the words, as M. Perkins also noteth out of S. Augustine, in his sixt obiection of this question; which if the Protestants did here performe, they would make no such account of this text: for S. Paul saith onely, that all Scripture is profitable, not sufficient, to teach, to reproue, &c. How are they then caried away with their owne partiall affections, that cannot discerne betweene profitable and sufficient. Good timber is profitable to the building of a house, but it is not sufficient without stones, morter, and a Carpenter. Seed serues well, yea is also necessary to bring forth corne; but will it suffice of it selfe, without manuring of the ground, [Page 866] and seasonable weather? And to fit our purpose more properly, good lawes are very profitable, yea most expedient for the good gouernement of the commonwealth: but are they sufficient without good customes, good gouerners and iudges, to see the same lawes and customs rightly vnderstood and duly executed? Euen so the holy Scriptures (S. Paul affirmeth) are very profitable, as containing very good and necessary matter, both to teach, reproue, and correct: but he saith not, they are sufficient, or that they do containe all doctrine needfull for these foure ends. And therefore to argue out of S. Paul, that they are sufficient to all those purposes, when he saith only, that they are profitable to them, is plainly not to know, or not to care what a man saith: and to presse such an impertinent cauil, so often and so vehemently as the Protestants do, is nothing else but to bewray vnto the indifferent Reader, either their extreme ignorance, or most audacious impudencie, that thinke they can face out any matter, be it neuer so impertinent. The same answer I make vnto M. Perkins his second argument out of the same place, that the holy Scriptures be profitable to make the man of God absolute, but not sufficient.
I say moreouer, that M. Perkins doth falsly English these words [...] into the whole Scriptures, when it signifieth all Scripture, that is, euery book of scripture, and is there put, to verifie that the old Testament only serues to instruct to saluation: for in the words next before, S. Paul sheweth, how that Timothie from his infancy had bin trained vp in the knowledge of the holy Scriptures, which (saith he) can instruct thee to saluation: and annexeth, as the confirmation thereof the text cited, All Scripture inspired of God, is profitable to teach, &c. Now in Timothies infancy no part of the new Testament was written, and therefore all Scripture which is here put to proue that Scripture which Timothy in his infancy knew, cannot but by vnreasonable wresting signifie more then all the bookes of the old Testament. So that there are three foule faults in this the Protestants Achilles: The first in falsification of the text, that it might seeme to be spoken of the whole, which is spoken of euery part. The second, in applying that which is spoken of the old Testament vnto both the old and new. The third, in making that to be all-sufficient which S. Paul affirmeth onely to be profitable. And this is all they can say out of the Scripture, to proue that the written word containes al doctrine needful to saluation: whereupon I make this inuincible argument against them, out of their owne position.
Nothing is necessary to be beleeued, but that which is written in holy [Page 867] Scripture. But in no place of Scripture is it written, that the written word containes all doctrine needfull to saluation, as hath bene proued.
Therefore it is not necessary to saluation to beleeue the written word to containe all doctrine needfull to saluation.
R. ABBOT.
Here is a long discourse and a little answer, and gladly M. Bishop would wind out of this sentence of the Apostle, and it will not be. The whole words of the Apostle entirely set downe, will make the Reader plainly to vnderstand that he hath taken a great deale of paines, and sayd iust nothing. Speaking to Timothie he sayth,2. Tim. 3.15. Thou hast knowne the holy Scriptures of a child, which are able to make thee wise vnto saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus. The whole Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God, and is profitable to teach, to improue, to correct, to instruct in righteousnesse, that the man of God may be perfect, being perfectly instructed to euery good worke. The first part of which words do sufficiently inferre that which we affirme; for if the Scriptures be able to make a man wise vnto saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus, then they are sufficient to instruct a man in all things necessary to saluatiō. If they be not sufficient to instruct a man in all things necessary to saluatiō, then can it not be said, that they are able to make a man wise vnto saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus. The force of these words cannot be deluded: euery eye can see that if the Scriptures be able to make a man wise vnto saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus, then all doctrine necessary to faith and saluation is contained in the Scriptures. Now for confirmation hereof the Apostle addeth, The whole Scripture is inspired of God, and is profitable to teach (the truth) to improue (false doctrine & error) to correct (vice and sinne) to instruct in righteousnes. From hence then we must infer that which before is said, that because the Scripture is able to direct a man in truth and righteousnesse, therefore it is able to make him wise vnto saluation by faith in Christ: for in the embracing and following of truth and righteousnesse, consisteth the attainment of euerlasting life. If any man will except and say, that though it teacheth the truth, yet it teacheth not all truth necessarie to saluation, he wholly ouerthroweth the Apostles confirmation. For if it doe not teach all truth necessarie to saluation, [Page 868] then it is notable to make a man wise to saluation. It may be said to helpe towards it, but it cannot be said to be able to do it, if it containe not all things belonging to that wisedome that concerneth vs for the obtaining of saluation. But the Apostle telleth vs that it so doth the things by him mentioned, as that the man of God may be absolute or perfect, [...]. being perfectly instructed, or being furnished and prepared to euery good worke. The man of God is well knowne by the phrase of Scripture to import the minister of God, in which sort the Apostle hath before said to Timothie, 1. Tim. 6.11. But thou O man of God flie these things, &c. Here therfore he giueth to vnderstand that the Scripture is so able to make wise vnto saluation, so able to instruct in truth and righteousnesse, as that therein the man of God, the minister of God findeth enough to make him perfect, and to prepare and furnish him to euery good worke. And if there be enough for the perfection of the minister of God, then surely it must needs follow that much more is it able to perfect euery other man to that faith and righteousnesse that should bring vs vnto God. But here M. Bishop putteth vs off with three wise answers, by which he wold faine perswade vs that we altogether erre in the citing of these words. First he chargeth vs with falsification of the text, because we reade, the whole Scripture, whereas we should say, all Scripture, the Greek words being [...], not importing as he saith the whole Scripture, but euery part. But why is this on our part a falsification, more then it is in the Rhemists, to translate according to their vulgar interpreter,Math. 8.32. [...], the whole heard; Ver 34. [...], the whole citie; Ephes. 4.16. [...], the whole body: and in their LatineHeb. 2.15. [...], per totum vitam, through their whole life, which they English, through all their life. If there be no falshood in these translations, why must there needs be a falsification in ours? Yea and when it is all one with them to say, their whole life, and all their life, why must it be a fault in vs to say, the whole Scripture, where they say, all Scripture. Surely but that malice blindeth it selfe, and wil not see that that it doth see, they would conceiue that all Scripture in this place can no otherwise be taken but to signifie the whole Scripture, euen as elsewhere byActs 20.72. [...]. all the counsell of God we vnderstand the whole counsell of God: in like sort as where it is said,Gen. 18.25. Qui iudicas omnem terram, Thou which iudgest all the earth, that is, the whole earth: Chap. 35, 2. Conuocata omni domo, calling together all his house, that [Page 869] is, his whole house: Exod. 12.41. Egressus est omnis exercitus Domini de terra Aegypti, All the army of the Lord departed out of the land of Aegypt, that is, the whole army: Chap. 17.1. Profecta est omnis multitudo filiorum Israel, All the multitude of the children of Israel went out of the desert of Sin, that is, the whole multitude: Leuit 8.3. Congregabis omnem coetum Israel, Thou shalt gather together all the congregation of Israel, that is, the whole congregation: with infinite other examples of the like sort. And seeing the Apostle, when in the propositiō, the Scriptures are able to make thee wise vnto saluation, must needs be vnderstood to meane collectiuè, the whole Scripture, because it cannot be said of euery part of the Scripture that it is able so to do, what is it but wilfull dotage to vnderstand all Scripture as meant otherwise in the proofe? Especially when it is so apparent, that that which the Apostle affirmeth in the proofe, fitteth to the whole Scripture, and so inferreth that which is propounded to be proued, but cannot agree to euery part of the Scripture, because euery part of the Scripture is not profitable to all those vses, to teach, to improue, to correct, to instruct in righteousnesse. He will say that those vses are not all ioyntly to be vnderstood, but by disiunction, euery part is profitable either to teach, or to improue, or to correct, or to instruct in righteousnesse, though it be not profitable to all these. But in thus saying he quite ouerthroweth the Apostles confirmation, for it doth not follow, that because euery part of the Scripture is profitable either to teach, or to improue, or to correct, or to instruct in righteousnesse, therefore the Scriptures are able to make a man wise to saluation, because that may be said of the first chapter of Genesis, or any other like, that it is profitable either to teach, or to improue, or to correct, or to instruct in righteousnesse, that is, to one or other of these vses, and yet it cannot be said, that it is able to make a man wise to saluation through the faith which is Christ Iesus. Therefore the words of the Apostle must be vnderstood of the whole scripture, which being able to teach, to improue, &c. is consequently able to make a man wise vnto saluation through faith in Christ. And hereby his other cauill is taken away, that we make that to be all-sufficient which S. Paul affirmeth onely to be profitable. For the Apostle nameth not profitable as to diminish any thing frō sufficiencie, but reckoning it to be profitable to all those vses that he expresseth, he leaueth it plainly to be vnderstood, that it is sufficient to that that he would conclude [Page 870] thereby. For vnlesse it be in such sort profitable, as that it be sufficient to teach, to improue, to correct, to instruct, it cannot be able to make a man wise to saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus. Therefore Athanasius alluding as it seemeth to this place, sayth,Athan. contra Gentes, siue cont. idola. Sufficiunt quidem per se sacra & diuinitùs inspiratae Scriptura ad veritatis instructionem. The Scriptures being holy and inspired of God, are by themselues sufficient to the instruction of truth. M. Bishops instances therefore are friuolous and vaine. Timber is profitable for the building of a house, but it is not profitable for all those vses that concerne the building of a house, and therfore is not sufficient. But the Apostle noteth the Scripture to be profitable for all those vses that concerne the building of the house of God; and because it is so, therefore it is sufficient for that building. The second is against himselfe, for although there must be one to sow the seede, yet the seed it selfe is sufficient wherewith to sow the ground: and euen so, although there must be one to teach, to improue, to correct, to instruct, yet the holy Scripture is sufficient wherewith to do all these. Thirdly, good lawes are profitable (saith he) for the good gouernement of the Common-wealth, but they are not sufficient without good gouerners and iudges. And be lawes neuer so sufficient for the common-wealth, yet they auaile nothing without gouerners and iudges seruing to put them in execution. Euen so we say, that albeit the holy scriptures do sufficiently instruct vs what doctrine is to be taught, yet all is vaine if there be none to teach it. But what a witles cauill is this, that when question is of the doctrine of the Scriptures, whether it be so sufficient as that they which teach are to teach no other, they obiect that the doctrine of the scripures is not sufficient without one to teach? We tell him therefore againe, that, as where lawes are sufficient to gouerne by, good gouerners and iudges being necessary for execution thereof, are to iudge and gouerne onely by lawes; so the doctrine of the holy Scriptures being sufficient to teach by, though teachers be necessary for the teaching thereof, yet they are to teach nothing but onely by the Scripture, and therein onely is it that we affirme the sufficiency of the Scripture. But in humane lawes that sufficiencie is neuer found, they neuer fit all occasions and vses of the common wealth, neuer meete with all inconueniences and mischiefes, neuer determine all controuersies and causes, neuer prouide so perfectly for the right, but that it prooueth to some mans wrong, and therefore though they be profitable, yet they are not [Page 871] profitable euery manner of way. In the holy Scripture the Apostle teacheth vs it is otherwise, it serueth vs for all occasions towards God; there is nothing that concerneth vs, but either by teaching or reprouing, or correcting or instructing, it applieth it selfe vnto vs:Cypriā. de dupl. martyr. Nullus est animorum morbus cui non praesens remediū diuina scripturae suppeditat. There is no sicknesse of the mind (saith Cyprian, referring himselfe to these words of the Apostle) to which the holy Scripture yeeldeth not a present remedy: Chrysost in 2. Thes. hom. 3. Omnia clara sūt & manifesta ex scripturis diuinis; quaecunque necessaria sunt, manifesta sunt. All things are euident and cleare (saith Chrysostome) by the holy Scriptures, whatsoeuer things aye necessary they are manifest. The scriptures therefore are in such sort profitable, as that they are sufficicient also fully to instruct vs as touching the meanes of obtaining eternall life. As for customes, they may haue their place and vse amongst the lawes of men, but amongst the lawes of God they haue no place.Cypr li. 2. ep. 3. Si solus Christus audiendus est, nō est attendendum quid aliquis ante nos faciendum putauerit, sed quid qui ante omnes est Christus prior fecerit. Ne (que) enim hominis consuetudinem sequi oportet, sed Dei veritatem. Because Christ onely is to be heard (saith Cyprian) we are not to regard what any before vs hath thought fit to be done, but what Christ first did, who is before all: for we are not to follow the custome of men, but the truth of God. Tertul. de verlā. virg. Christus veritatem se, non consuetudinem cognominauit. Christ (sath Tertullian) called not himselfe custome but truth. M. Bishop therefore dealeth but idlely to alledge the exorbitant and lawlesse customes of cōmonwealths, as a colour for traditions in the church of Christ. His last exception is, that the Scriptures here spoken of which Timothie knew from his infancie, could be no other but the scriptures of the old Testament, because no part of the new Testament was then written, and therefore that that is here said cannot but by vnreasonable wresting signifie more then the old Testament, charging vs hereupon with falsification in applying it to both the old and new. Where the vaine man doth not see that he exceedingly strengtheneth the argument against himself; for if S. Paul could say that the scriptures of the old Testament were able to make a man wise vnto saluation by the faith of Christ, how much more is it true of the scriptures now that they are able so to do, when as by the new Testament so much light is added for the cleering of the old? The doctrine which the Apostles preached in the new Testament, they confirmed by the old. They taught no other faith but what was contained therein, onely the faith was more plainely and cleerly deliuered by them, because as S. Austin saith,August. de catech. rud. In veteri testamēto est ocultatio noui: in nouo testamento est manifestatio veteris. in the old Testament the new is hidden, and in the new Testament is the manifesting of the old. Idem in Ioan. tra. 45. Tempora variata sunt nō fides, &c. Eadem fides vtros (que) contungit. The times (saith he) are diuers, but the faith is one. Seeing then the old Testament was sufficient to instruct men to the faith of Christ, and the [Page 872] instruction thereof notwithstanding is much more manifestly deliuered in the new, and no other faith is taught in the new Testament then is contained in the old, who doth not see that the conclusion standeth strong on our part, that much more the scripture now containeth all doctrine necessary to instruct vs to the faith of Christ? Albeit it is not true which M. Bishop saith, that S. Paul meaneth here only the scriptures of the old Testament. For although when Timothy was a child, there were no other scriptures but onely of the old Testament, yet when Paul wrote these words to Timothy, the greatest part of the books of the new Testament were extant. He wrote this epistle newly before his death, as appeareth by that he saith,2. Tim. 4.6. I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departing is at hand. He had then writtē all the rest of his epistles, as we may easily conceiue, neither is it likely but that the gospels of Mathew, Mark and Luke, with the Acts of the Apostles, were written before that time, the first by S. Mathew being testified to be written at the time of Pauls first imprisonment at Rome, &Jren. li. 3. ca. 1. Matth. Hebraeis in ipsorū lingua scripturā edidit Euangelij cum Petrus et Paulus Romae euangelizarent, et fundarent Ecclesiam. founding the Church there, where S. Luke makes an end of the history of the Acts of the Apostles, after which being not lōg after the beginning of the raigne of Nero, the Apostle liued for the space of 12. or 13. yeares, being put to death in theFunc. Chronol. 14. yeare of the same Nero. Of S. Marks Gospel it is also manifest, because he diedHierō. in Catal. Mortuus est 8. Neronis anno, & sepultus Alexandriae. in the 8. yeare of Nero, as Hierome testifieth, six yeares before S. Pauls death, and therfore before the writing of this epistle. The like also is plaine of the former epistle of S. Peter, as appeareth for that his second epistle was written about the same time that S. Paul wrote this secōd epistle to Timothy, S. Peter being put to death at the same time as S. Paul was, and saying as he doth in the same second epistle:2. Pet. 1.14. I know that the time is at hand that I must lay downe this my tabernacle. Now therefore so many of the books of the new Testament being extant at that time, who can doubt but that the Apostle naming all Scripture did speake of those bookes, vnlesse he will be so mad as to say, that at that time they were no Scriptures? And as when we say that a man hath known the laws frō a child, we do not meane to restraine his knowledge only to those laws which were when he was a child, but will signifie his knowledge also of such lawes as haue bin since made: euen so when the Apostle saith, that Timothy had known the Scriptures from a child, he would giue to vnderstād, that he was conuersant not only in the Scriptures that [Page 873] then were, but also in such other as frō time to time thenceforward were written for the same vse. Nay who would make question, but that the Apostle setting downe by the direction of the holy Ghost this commendation of all Scripture, would hereby giue vs to vnderstand what to conceiue of other scriptures also that were to be published afterwards? Therefore M. Bishop hath hitherto answered nothing, to take away the euidence of the argument taken out of the words of the Apostle, and the Protestants Achilles is stronger then that he may take vpon him the part of Hector to encounter therewith. But yet well fare a good stomacke, for though he haue said as good as nothing, yet he setteth a good face vpon the matter, and concludeth this point with an inuincible argument, like the inuincible nauie of Spaine: Nothing is necessary to be beleeued but that which is written in holy Scripture. Very true. But in no place of Scripture is it written, that the written word containes all doctrine needful to saluation, as hath bene proued. But that is not true: the proofes that it doth so, are pregnant and cleere; but his proofes to the contrary are childish and vaine, and therefore his conclusion cannot hold. In steed therefore of his presumed and inuisible argument, we wish him to consider of this, Whatsoeuer the written word teacheth vs of it selfe, that is necessary to be beleeued. But the written word teacheth vs concerning it selfe, that it is able to make vs wise to saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus. It is necessarie therefore for vs to beleeue that it can so, and therefore to reiect all doctrine that cannot be approoued and warranted thereby.
10. W. BISHOP.
And by the same principle I might reiect all testimonie of Antiquity as needlesse, if the Scriptures be so all-sufficient as they hold. Yet let vs heare what testimonie M. Perkins brings out of antiquitie in fauour of his cause.
TertullianDe resur. carni [...] saith, Take from heretikes the opinions which they defend with the Heathens, that they may defend their questions by Scripture alone, and they cannot stand.
Answ. Here Scripture alone is opposed (as euery one may see) vnto the writings of heathen authors, and not to the traditions of the Apostles: [Page 874] and therefore maketh nothing against them. Againe, saith M. Perkins out of the same author: We need no curiositie after Iesus Christ, nor inquisition after the Gospell, when we beleeue it, we desire to beleeue nothing besides it: for this we must beleeue, that there is nothing else which we may beleeue.
Answer. By the Gospell there is vnderstood all our Christian doctrine written and vnwritten, and not onely the written word of the foure Euangelists, else we should not beleeue the Acts of the Apostles, or their Epistles, no more then traditions: which Christian doctrine written and vnwritten, we onely beleeue by diuine faith; to all other authors we giue such credit as their writings do deserue. If any man desire to see Tertullians iudgement of traditions, let him reade his booke of prescriptions against heretikes, where he auerreth that traditions serue better then the Scriptures themselues to confute all heresies, heretikes alwayes either not allowing all the bookes of Scripture, or else peruerting the sense and meaning of the Scriptures. And in his book de Corona militis, he formally proposeth this question, whether traditions vnwritten are to be admitted or no? and answereth by many instances, that they must be receiued, concluding thus: For these and the like points if thou require law out of the Scriptures, thou shalt find none: but Tradition is alledged to be the author of them, Custome the confirmer, and Faith the obseruer. So that nothing is more certaine then that Tertullian thought vnwritten Traditions necessary to be beleeued.
R. ABBOT.
It followeth not that antiquitie is needlesse, though all doctrine needfull to saluation be contained in the scriptures, because antiquitie giueth vs many good and profitable helpes for attaining to the vnderstanding of many places and stories of the scripture, when yet it teacheth vs to admit of no doctrine but what is proued thereby. The first testimony alledged by M. Perkins is out of Tertullian, Tertul. de resurr. carn. Aufer haereticis quae cū Ethnicis sapiunt (siue vt aliàs legitur, quaecun (que) Ethnici saepiunt) vt de scripturis solis quaestiones suas sistant & stare nō poterūt. Take from heretikes what they conceiue like the heathen, or what the heathen conceiue, that they may determine their questions only by the Scriptures, and they cannot stand. M. Bishop telleth vs for answer, that Tertullian opposeth Scripture alone to the writings of heathen authors, not to the trrditions of the Apostles, and therfore maketh nothing against them. But Tertullian speaketh not any thing there of heathen authors, [Page 875] but of heathenish reasons & fancies wherby heretikes plead against the mysteries of faith, as there he giueth example by the resurrection of the dead. He requireth them to forgo these, and to bring their questions onely to the Scriptures, or to the Scriptures alone. Now to say that he opposeth not Scripture alone to the traditions of the Apostles, is a ridiculous euasion, when as by calling them thus to onely Scripture, he giueth to vnderstand that he knew no such traditions belonging to matters of doctrine and faith, for determining of questions that might arise thereof. For whether he oppose the same to heathen authors or to heathenish reasons, we may well take it to be absurd, that he should require heretikes to be brought onely to Scripture, if it be as M. Bishop telleth vs, that questions cannot be determined onely by the Scriptures, or if he thought any other meanes to be as necessarie as the Scriptures for the determining of thē. But this sentence hath not so much strength by it selfe, as it hath by that that is cited together with it:Idem de Praescript. Nobis non est opus curiositate post Christū Iesum, nec inquisitione post Euā gelium. Cùm hoc credimus, nihil desideramus vltra credere. Hoc enim priùs credimus non esse quod vltra credere debemus. We need no curiositie after Christ Iesus, nor inquiry further after the Gospell: when we beleeue that, we desire to beleeue no more: for this we beleeue, that there is nothing further for vs to beleeue. Where when M. Bishop saith, that by the Gospell is to be vnderstood all our Christian doctrine, so farre he saith truly, but when he addeth, written or vnwritten, he beggeth the question, and his Commentarie goeth without the compasse of Tertullians text. He should by plaine example or reason haue giuen vs to vnderstand, that Tertullian by the Gospel importeth any doctrine vnwritten: otherwise he may well thinke that we scorne his interpretation, hauing no warrant of it but his owne word. Tertullian spake of the Gospell as the Apostle doth, who saith,Rom. 1.2. that God before promised it by his Prophets in the holy Scriptures, and that it wasCap. 16.26. opened and published amongst all nations by the Scriptures of the Prophets. We haue heard before out of Irenaeus, thatSect. 8. the Gospell which the Apostles first preached, they afterwards committed to writing, to be the foundation and pillar of our faith, and out of Chrysostome, thatSect. 7. to speake any thing that is not written, is to speake of himselfe, and not out of the Gospell. So doth Basil of the word of God and Scripture, make one and the same thing, and denieth that there is any word of God beside the Scripture, saying:Basil Ethic. reg. 80. Si quicquid ex fide non est, peccatum est, sicut dicit Apostolus, fides veró ex auditu, auditus autem per verbum Dei, ergo quicquid extra diuinam Scripturam est, cum ex fide non sit, peccatum est. If what soeuer is not of faith be sinne, and faith come by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, then whatsoeuer is beside the holy Scripture, [Page 876] because it is not of faith is sinne. If there be no Gospell but written, no word of God but Scripture, then surely Tertullian when he saith that we need no inquirie further after the Gospell, taketh away Traditions, and leaueth no place for doctrine vnwritten. Whereas he saith, that by the Gospell is not vnderstood onely the written word of the foure Euangelists, he talketh idlely, because no man vnderstood it so. The doctrine deliuered in the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles, is no lesse the doctrine of the Gospell, then that that is recorded by the foure Euangelists. But here to see Tertullians iudgement of traditions, he referreth his Reader to the same Tertullians booke of Prescriptions against heretikes. Now this sentence alledged by M. Perkins was taken out of that booke, although he quoted not the place, which M. Bishop knew not, because indeed he had neuer read the booke. Therefore this that he here faith, he saith it onely by hearesay, and for ought he knoweth Tertullian may as wel speak against Traditions, as any thing for them. And the truth is, that Tertullian speaketh no otherwise for Traditions, then doth Irenaeus whome he cited before in his Epistle to the King, whome I haue shewed to make nothing at all for M. Bishops purpose. The occasion of both their speeches was the same, hauing to do with wicked and blasphemous heretikes, who admittedTertullian. de Praescript. Ista haeresis non recipit quasdam Scripturas, & si quas recipit adiectionibus & detractionibus ad dispositionem instituti sui interuertit, & si recipit nō recipit integras, & si aliquatenus integras praestat, nihil [...]minùs d [...] uersas expositiones commentatae conuer [...]it. of the scriptures no otherwise then they lift themselues, reiecting the bookes that specially made against them, and by additions & detractions framing the bookes which they did receiue to serue their owne turne, and by their wicked glosses wresting the words of scripture to the maintenance of their damnable errors. They tooke vpon them to know more then the Apostles, saying, that the holy Ghost which Christ promised to send, was not giuen to the Apostles, but to thē, so that the Montanists affirmed, thatDicunt Paracletum plura in Montano dixisse, quàm Christum in Euangelium protulisse. the holy Ghost spake more things in Montanus, then Christ did commit to the Gospell, and not onely more, but greater and better things. When they were vrged by the teachers of the Church with these corruptions and falsifications,Haec & ipsi habent in nos retorquere, &. à nobis potius adulteria Scripturarum & expositionum earū mendacia inferri &c. they were ready to answer, that the corrupting of the Scriptures and false expositions thereof were rather found with them: by meanes whereof there was no end of reasoning with them, because they could hold them to no certaine grounds wherupon to proceed against them. Hereupon Tertullian referred men as Irenaeus did, to consider the Churches planted by the Apostles, and which had had [Page 877] continuance of Pastors and teachers from them, by them to learne what faith and doctrine was deliuered by the Apostles, as not doubting but what they deliuered was the truth, asSupra sect. 4. who deuised nothing of their owne, but faithfully assigned to the nations the doctrine which they had receiued of Christ. He setteth it downe as a principle, that vndoubtedlyHoc propono, vnū & certum aliquid institutū esse a Christo quod credere omni modo debeant nationes. there was some one and certaine thing appointed by Christ for the nations to beleeue: that whatsoeuer that was, Christ vndoubtedly deliuered it to his Apostles,Duodecim praecipuos lateri suo adtegerat destinatos nationibus magistros, &c. Si Christus Apostolos misit ad praedicandum, (praescribimus) non alios esse recipiendos Praedicatores, quàm quos Christus instituit. whom he chose to be teachers of all nations, and therefore that no other Preachers are to be receiued but whom Christ appointed: that to say that either the Apostles knew not all things, or did not make knowne all things to all men, is In vtro (que) Christum reprehēsions subijcientes, qui aut minus instructos, aut parum simplices Apostolos miserit. to reproue Christ as sending Apostles either vnsufficient, or not dealing simply and plainely. Taking it then for graunted, that the Apostles deliuered al truth to the Church, he moueth another doubt that haply the Churches had erred, and forsaken that which at first was deliuered by the Apostles. To this therefore he answereth, thatQuid verisimile est, vt tot ac tantae in vnam fidē errauerinit Nullus inter multos euentus vnus est exitus: variassedebuerat error doctrinae Ecclesiarum. Caeterum quod apud multos vn [...] inuenitur, non est erratum, sed traditum. it is not likely, if the Churches had erred, that being so many and so great, they should in error light all vpon one faith; that they would surely haue varied in their error one from another, because where there are many going but by hap, they cannot all happen vpon the same end. Therefore what with many is found one (saith he) it is no matter of error, but that that was first deliuered vnto them. He goeth on further to shew, that it is the marke of truthAb excessis reuertor ad principalitatem veritati & posteritatem mendacitati deputandā, exillius quoque Parabolae patrocinio, &c. Ita ex ipso ordine manifestatur id esse dominicum & verum quod sit prius traditum id autem extraneum & falsum quod sit posterius immissum. to be first, and that what cometh in after is to be reputed a lye, as appeareth by the Parable wherein the good seed or wheate was first sowed, and then afterwards the tares. Thus by the order it is so manifest (saith he) that that is of the Lord, and true, which was first deliuered, but that strange and false, which is afterwards come in. Now if any of them would dare to challenge to themselues the antiquity of the Apostles, he willeth themSiquae audent se interserere aetati Apostolicae, vt ideò videantur ab Apostolis traditae, quia sub Apostolis fuerunt, possumus dicere. Acdant ergo originos Ecclesiarum suarum, euoluant ordinem Episcoporum suorū, &c. to shew the originall of their Churches, and the succession of their Bishops from the Apostles, which if there had bene any such, they might easily haue done, this being very litle more then a hundred yeres after the time of the Apostles. But withal he declareth, that such opinions of theirs as were mētioned in the time of the Apostles,Quae tunc sub Apostolis fuerunt, ab ijsdem Apostolis & demonstratae & deierata. were by the Apostles shewed & [Page 878] renounced, wherof he giueth sundry examples, of denying the resurrection, of obseruing circumcision, of forbidding mariage, of denying the Godhead or manhood of Christ, of worshipping Angels, and such like condemned in the writings of the Apostles.N [...]m & sic facilitis traducē tur dum aut iam tunc fuisse deprehenduntur aut ex illis quae tunc fuerunt semina sumpsisse, &c. Siue ergo taedem nunc sunt aliquanto expolitiores, quae sub Apostolis rudes habēt suam exinde damnationem: siue aliae quidē illae fuerunt aliae autem posteà o [...]o [...]tae sunt, & quasdam ex illu op [...]niones vsurpauerunt habendo cum eu consoretum praedicationis, habeant etiam necesse est consortium damnationis, &c Et si nihil de damnaticijs participarētur, de aetate sola praeiudicatentur, tantò magis aduiterae, quantò nec Apostolis nomin [...]iae. Vnde fi [...]m [...] constat has esse quae adhuc tunc nunt rebantur futurae. Thus (saith he) they shall the more easily be traduced, whilest they are found either to haue bene then, or to haue taken any seedes from those that were then. For whether they be now the same somewhat more polished and fined, which in the Apostles times were yet rude and vnfashioned, they haue their condemnation from thence; or whether they were one then, and other haue since sprung vp, which yet haue borrowed some opinions from them, surely in being partakers with them in their preaching, they must needes also be partakers of their condemnation. And albeit they did not participate with those that were so condemned, yet (saith he) there should preiudice be taken against them onely for their latter age, being so much the rather corruptions of the truth, for that they are not so much as named by the Apostles; whence it is so much the more certaine, that they are those which then it was foretold should be in time to come. Hereupon he referreth his Reader to sundry particular churches,Percurie Ecclesias Apostolica [...] apud quas ipsae ad [...]uc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesidētur, apud quas ipsae authenticae literae eorum recitantur, &c. Proxima est tibi Achaia? habes Corinthum. Si non longe es à Macedonia, habes Philippos, &c. si Italiae adiace [...], h [...]bes Romanam, &c. Cum Aphricanis quoque Ecclesijs contestatur: vnum Deum nouit, Creatorem vniu [...]sita [...]: & Iesum Christum ex Virgine Maria, filium Creatoris, & carnis resurrectionem: legem & Prophet [...]s cum Euangelicis & Apostolicis literis miscet & inde fidem portat eam, &c. where were still Bishops in the seates of the Apostles, and their authenticall Epistles were still read, as of the Corinthians, the Philippians, the Thessalonians, the Ephesians, the Romanes, which together with the Aphricane Churches acknowledged one God, the Creatour of the whole world, and Iesus Christ of the Ʋirgin Mary, the Sonne of the Creator, and the resurrection of the flesh; ioyning the lawe and the Prophets with the writings of the Euangelists and Apostles, and thence deriuing that faith. Thus had he before set downe the doctrine and faith, which in all this treatise he thus laboureth to vphold and maintaine:Regula est autem fidei illa scilicet qua creditur v [...]um omninò Deum esse, nec alium quàm mundi Creatorem, qui vniuersa produxerit de nihilo per verbum suum primò omnium omissum, &c. Superest vt demonstremus an haec nostra doctrina, cuius regulam supra edidimus de Apostolerum traditione censcatur. The rule of faith is this, to beleeue that there is one onely God, and the same no other but the Creator of the world, who by his word first of all sent foorth, made all things of nothing. The same word called his Son, was vnder the name of God diuersly seen of the Patriarkes, euermore heard in the Prophets, last of all by the spirit [Page 879] and power of the Father was brought into the Virgin Mary, made flesh in her wombe, and being borne of her, did the part of Iesus Christ: preached thencefoorth the new law and the new promise of the kingdome of heauen, wrought miracles, and being nailed to a crosse, rose againe the third day, and so forth according to the articles of Christian beleefe. Vpō the assertion of this rule he inferreth, thatSi haec ita se habent, vt veritas nobis adiudicetur quicunque in ea regula incedimus quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis, Apostoli à Christo, Christus à Deo tradidit, constat ratio pro positi nostri definientis non esse admittendos haereticos ad ean [...]è de Scripturis prouocationem quos sine Scripturis probamus ad Scripturas non perti [...]ere. sith the truth must be adiudged to them who walke in that rule which the Church had deliuered from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, it was hereby assured which he had before propounded, that the heretikes were not to be admitted to disputation by the Scriptures, who without the Scriptures were proued to haue no title to the Scriptures. Therefore for conclusion of all this he saith, thatIllic igitur & Scripturarū & expositionum adulteratio deputanda est, vbi diuersitas muenitur doctrinae. Quibus fuit propositum aliter docēdi, necessitas institit aliter disponendi instrumenta doctrinae. Alias enim non potuissent alitèr docere, nisi alitèr haberent per quae decerent Sicut illis non potuisset succedere corrup tela doctrinae sine corruptela instrumentorum eius, ita & nobis integritas doctrinae non compentisset sine integritate eorum per quae doctrina tractatur. Etenim quid contrarium nobis in nostris? quid de proprio i [...]tulimus, vt aliquid contrarium ei & in Scripturis deprehensum detractione vel adiectione, vel transmutatione remediaremus? Quod sumus, hoc suntinde Scripturae ab initio suo Ex illis sumus antequam nihil aliter fuit quàm sumus. the corrupting of the Scriptures and of the meaning thereof, must be reckoned to be there where there was found diuersitie of doctrine from the Scriptures. For they (saith he) who intended to teach otherwise, had need otherwise to dispose of the instruments of doctrine and teaching. For they could not teach otherwise, except they had somewhat otherwise whereby to teach. But on the contrarie side he saith: As their corrupting of doctrine could not haue successe without corrupting of the instruments thereof; so neither could integritie or soundnesse of doctrine haue stood with vs, without the integritie of those instrumēts by which doctrine is handled. For in our Scriptures what is there contrarie to vs? What haue we brought in of our owne, that somewhat being found in the Scriptures thereto contrarie, we should remedie by adding or taking away, or changing any thing? What we are, the same are the Scriptures euen from their beginning. From thē we are euer since there was nothing otherwise then we are. This is the briefe summe of all that Tertullian in that booke saith, pertinent to the matter here in hand, wherein as there is nothing in fauour of the cause which M. Bishop maintaineth, so there is much to be obserued for the oppugning and conuincing thereof. First, it is apparent that Tertullian here saith not a word for the auouching of any doctrine beside the Scripture, but onely for iustifying the doctrine that is contained in the Scripture. The heretikes oppugned the maine and fundamentall grounds of Christian faith, concerning the vnitie of the Godhead, the creation of the world, the Godhead and incarnation of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, the coming [Page 880] of the holy Ghost, and sundry other such like. They reiected such whole bookes, and razed such testimonies of Scripture as euidently made against them, affirming the same not to haue bene written by the Apostles, or by any diuine inspiration,Contra Marc. lib. 4 Contraria quae (que) sententiae suae erasit conspirantia cum Creatore quaesi ab assertoribus eius intexta. but foisted in, yea sometimes that they were to correct and reforme those things which the Apostles had written. Therefore albeit the points in question were manifestly decided by cleare testimony of Scripture, yet the authoritie of Scripture being reiected and refused, it was necessarie for many mens satisfaction to take some other course for the conuicting of them.Ibid Haeresis sic semper emendat Euangelia dum vitiat. Iren. lib. 3 cap. 1. Emē datores Apostolorum. Hereupon he referred men to the consideration of the Apostolicke Churches where the doctrine of the faith of Christ was most renowmedly planted, and had successiuely continued from the time of the Apostles, that by the testimonie of those Churches it might appeare, both that the Scriptures were authenticall and true, and that the doctrine auouched against the Heretickes, was no other but what the Apostles themselues by the institution of Christ had in those Scriptures deliuered to the Church. In which case they did nothing else but what we also haue done, when vpon exception taken against vs, as vsing the Scriptures partially for the maintenance of our religion, which yet euery eye may see to be clearely iustified thereby, we haue further alledged the tradition of the Church, and shewed by pregnant and expresse testimonie and witnesse of the auncient Fathers and Councels, both that we acknowledge all those Scriptures which were with them vndoubtedly approued for Canonicall, and do gather no other assertions or doctrines, but what by them were gathered from thence. And if M. Bishop will not hereupon conclude vs to be patrons of their traditions, as we suppose he will not, then let him know that he abuseth Tertullian, in seeking to make him a supporter thereof, who did nothing in effect but what we do: let him take knowledge of his owne singular falshood and trecherie, in alledging a speech of tradition, which importeth no more but the written doctrine of the Scripture, thereby to colour their traditions, which are both beside and contrarie to the Scripture. Yea and his trecherie is so much the greater, in this generall naming of Tertullians booke of Prescriptions as making for their traditions, for that Tertullian, which is secondly here to be noted, doth plainely affirme, that what they are, the Scriptures are, [Page 881] that is, that they taught nothing but what the Scripture had taught them, yea and that integrity of faith could not haue stood with them, but by the integritie of the Scriptures, by which the doctrine of faith is managed and taught, thereby signifying that albeit by the importunitie of heretickes they were forced to appeale to the tradition of the Churches, yet that neither their safetie, nor the safetie of the Churches to which they appealed stood in tradition, but in hauing the Scriptures entire as they were first deliuered vnto them, that out of them they might teach what was first deliuered. Yea and that so, as they needed no adding to the Scriptures, nor taking from them, nor changing of any thing, for the saluing of any thing which they taught, whereby it appeareth, that he meant not to leaue any place for vnwritten doctrines, or any such traditions as the Church of Rome defendeth against the plaine letter and expresse word of holy Scripture, onely by taking vpon her to make such meaning therof as may not touch her deuices, howsoeuer they containe impious idolatrie & blasphemy against God, and the apparent dishonour of the name of Christ. Againe, we are to note, that he teacheth it to haue bene some one certaine matter of doctrine, which Christ at the first deliuered to his Apostles, and the Apostles to the Church: that that onely is true which was thus deliuered at first, but whatsoeuer since hath come in, is erronious and false. To which purpose elsewhere also he giueth this prescription, thatContr. Marc. lib. 3 Illic pro [...]ū cianda est regulae interuersio vbi posteritas inuenitur. we are there to affirme the peruerting of the rule, where there is found laternesse of time: and againe, thatIbid. lib. 4. Ei praescribens outhoritatem quod antiquius reperietur, & ei prescribens vitiationem quod posterius reuincetur. authoritie is to be yeelded to that that is the more auncient, but that to be preiudicated of corruption, which shall be proued to be the later. Therefore in the wordes formerly alledged, we see he maketh it a certaine marke of corruption and falshood, not to haue bene named or mentioned by the Apostles. Now if by this prescription we examine the doctrine of Poperie, we shall easily perceiue and find, that in it is the peruerting of the rule, as wherein there are so many deuices neuer mentioned by the Apostles, yea which had neither name nor place for many hundreds, yea some not for a thousand yeares or more after the time of the Apostles, as hath bene declared before in answer of the Epistle to the King. This is a true and certaine rule, and necessary to be obserued, and we learne [Page 882] thereby to condemne for nouelties and humane presumptions, whatsoeuer hath not warrant from the beginning, and to admit of no faith or doctrine, but what the Church receiued immediatly frō the Apostles, and the Apostles from Christ, and Christ from God. And because what Christ receiued from God hath witnesse of the law and Prophets, as we haue seene before out of Chrysostome: therefore we are to know, that there is no doctrine truly affirmed as belonging to the new Testament, which hath not confirmation and testimonie from the old. Fourthly, we see that albeit Tertullian did referre his Reader to Tradition, yet he tooke not this witnesse of tradition onely from the Church of Rome, but also from other Churches which were founded by the Apostles as well as it. So doth he also in another place, saying:Contra Marc. lib. 4. Ʋ [...]deamus quod lac à Paulo Corinthij hauserintiad quam regulam Galatae sint recorrecti, quidlegāt Philip penses, Thessalonicenses, Ephesij, quid etiam Romani de proxime sonent, quibus Euangelium & Petrus & Paulus sanguine suo signatum relique runt Haebemus & Ioannis alum [...]as Ecclesias, &c Let vs see what milke the Corinthians did draw from Paul, by what rule the Galathians were reformed; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, Ephesians do reade; what the Romanes also neare vnto vs do teach, to whom Peter and Paul left the Gospell sealed with their bloud. We haue also the Churches which were taught by S. Iohn, &c. And although in his prescriptions he name it as the honor of the Church of Rome, that the Apostles Peter and Paul did with their bloud vtterDe praescript. Foelix Ecclesia cui totam doctrinam Apostolicum sanguine su [...] profuderunt. all their doctrine to that Church, yet doth he not name it as a thing proper and peculiar to it, in asmuch as S. Paule plainely affirmeth, that to the Church of Ephesus also he had preachedAct. 20.27. all the counsell of God, and thereby leaueth vs to vnderstand, that he did the like to all the Churches. Herby then we descry the notable fraud of M. Bishop and his fellowes, who now hang the authority of all tradition only vpon the Church of Rome, and will haue nothing authenticall from other Churches but onely from that Church. For although Tertullian might safely argue from tradition in the consent of many Churches, and might conclude it vndoubtedly to haue bin deliuered from the Apostles, which was vniformely receiued by them all, when as none of them had power to obtrude or thrust vpō other Churches any doctrines deuised by themselues, and especially being so soone after the time of the Apostles as before was said, yet can no such assurance be builded vpon any one Church, and that so many hundreds of yeares after, and especially such a Church as by tyrannie and vsurpation hath compelled other Churches to be subiect vnto it, thereby enforcing vpon them whatsoeuer it pleaseth to deuise for the seruing [Page 883] of it owne turne, and wherein there haue bene so many innouations and alterations, as that their varieties & vncertainties from age to age, do shew that they are departed from that one certaine rule, which Christ and his Apostles first deliuered to the Church. To cō clude, Tertullian teacheth vs to take knowledge of such heresies or falshoods as are noted to haue bene in the Apostles times, and by them condemned, and thereby to know them for deceiuers, not only who teach the same, but any that haue taken seedes from thence, or being then but rude and vnfashioned are since polished and fined with more probable deuice and shew. Such were then the teachingAct. 15.1. of iustification by the workes of the law,Col. 2.18. the worshipping of Angels,Ibid. ver. 23. the not sparing of the body, nor hauing of it in honour to satisfie the flesh; to which we may adde the1. Tim. 4 3. forbidding of mariage, and commanding of abstinence from meates noted for time to come. All which we see in the Papacie now maintained and practised; and though they be glosed and coloured with trickes and shifts, that they may not seeme to be the same that the Apostles spake of, yet by Tertullians rule are to be taken to haue bene then condemmned, inasmuch as the Apostles speaking of them as they were then, vsed no restraint for warrant of them as they are defended now. Thus then M. Bishop hath little cause to boast of Tertullians booke of prescriptions, and better might he haue forborne the naming of him, but that he hath learned of his maister Bellarmine, to name authors sometimes in generall, when in particular they make nothing for that he saith; as in that whole booke Tertullian hath not one word for warrant of any tradition or doctrine that is not contained in the Scripture. But he will make the matter sure, I trow, out of another place, where Tertullian formally proposeth the question whether traditions vnwritten be to be admitted or not, and answereth that they must so. Now it is true indeede that Tertullian so resolueth and concludeth the matter in those words which Maister Bishop hath alledged, but he should withall haue told vs when it was that he so resolued, and then little cause should we haue to wonder at that he saith. He wrote his booke of prescriptions, when he yet continued in the societie of the Church, but the booke which Maister Bishop citeth de Corona militis, he wrote afterwards, when he was fallen away, and besotted with the prophecie of Montanus, and purposely girdeth according to his vsuall manner, at the Catholike [Page 884] and godly Pastors and professours of the Church, and specially indeede of the Church of Rome, at which it was that he was specially offended. He vpbraideth them asTertull. de Coron. militis. Noui pastores corum in pace leones, in praelio ceru [...]s, &c. Non dubito quoslam sarcinas expedire fugae accingi de ciuitate in ciuitatem nullā aliam Euangelij memoriā urant. fearfull and faint-hearted, and minding nothing more if persecution should arise, then to runne away. And because they had condemned Montanus with his new prophecie, therefore he saith of them:Planè superest vt martyria recusare meditētur qui prophetias musaē sp. sancti respuerunt. It remaineth indeede that they thinke of shunning martyrdome, who haue reiected the prophecies of the holy Ghost. The matter whereupon he tooke the occasion of this writing, was briefly thus. A Souldiour who was a Christian, comming amongst the rest to receiue the Emperours donatiue, refused to weare his garland vpon his head as the manner was, but came with it in his hand. Being demaunded why he so did, he answered that he might not do as the rest did, because he was a Christian. Hereupon he was taken and cast in prison, and feare there was least further danger should hereby grow to the whole Church. Many hereupon condemned the vndiscreete zeale of this man, who without cause in a matter meerely indifferent, would thus prouoke the Emperours fury, both against himselfe, and the whole profession of Christian faith. Tertullian ready to entertaine euery such occasion, taketh the matter in hand, and writeth this booke as in commendation and defence of the constancie and resolution which he had shewed in this matter. Now it is to be considered, what it was that was said on the Churches behalfe, which Tertullian taketh vpon him to oppugne.Maximè illud opp [...]nunt; Ʋbi autē prohibemur ne coronemur, &c. Vbi scriptū est, ne coronemur, &c. This they specially vrge, saith he, Where are we forbidden to weare a garland? where is it written that we should not weare a garland? To this he answereth, thatHanc si nulla scriptura determinauit, certè consuetudo cerroborauit, quae sine dubio de traditione manauit. though no Scripture had so determined, yet custome had so confirmed, which no doubt, saith he, came by tradition. He then bringeth in the Churches reply,Etiā in traditionis obtentu exigenda est, inquis, authoritas scripta. But saiest thou, in pretence of tradition, authority of Scripture is to be required. Whereby it is manifest, that the Church then reiected vnwritten traditions, and where tradition was alledged, required authoritie of Scripture for the warrant of it; and hereupon was it that Tertullian being now become an heretike, defended vnwritten traditions against the Church. Therefore the latter Church of Rome in defending traditions beside the Scripture, followeth the steps of Montanus the heretike, and we in oppugning the same, do no other but take part with the auncient Church of Rome. Albeit the absurdity of Tertullians defence of traditions here doth sufficiently bewray [Page 885] it selfe, in that he maketh itAnnon putat omni fideli licere concipcie & constituere dunta aeat quod Deo cō gnat, quod disciplinae cōducat, quod saluti proficiat? &c Salus traditionis respectu quocun (que) traditore censeatur. lawfull for euery faithfull man to conceiue and set downe what may be fitting to God, what helpfull to discipline, what profitable to saluation, and will haue tradition to be regarded, whosoeuer be the author of it. He makethConfirmata cō suetume idonea teste probatae traditionis. custome a sufficient witnesse for the approuing of tradition, who notwithstanding else-where though stil possessed with the same humor, yet much more discreetly, saith, thatDe virgin velan. Consuetudo f [...]rè initium ex ignorantia vel simplicitate sortita in vsum per successionem corroboratur & na aduersus veritatem vindicatur. Custome cōmonly hauing his beginning of ignorance or simplicity, is by succession strengthened to common vse, and so is maintained against the truth, well obseruing withall, thatIbid. Dominus noster Christus veritatem se, non consuetudinem cognominatuit, &c. Quodcun (que) aduersus veritatem sapit, hoc erit haeresis, etiam vetus cōsuetudo. Christ did not call himselfe custome, but truth, & that whatsoeuer sauoureth against the truth, is heresie though it be an auncient custome. As for the instances which M. Bishop saith he bringeth for the iustifying of Traditions vnwritten, they are partly impertinent, and partly heathenish and hereticall deuises; and surely if the Church had bene then fraught with traditions, as the Church of Rome is now, he would not haue bene so slenderly furnished for the approuing of them. His first instance is, that in baptismeAquā adituri contistamur nos renunetare diabolo & pompae et Angelis eius. they did professe to renounce the diuell and his pompes and his Angels. But this is no other but written doctrine, and the Scripture teacheth it, when it namethHeb. 6.1. repentance from dead workes as one of the foundations of Christian profession, and of the doctrines of the beginning of Christ, and we vse the same renunciation in baptisme, who yet disclaime traditions vnwritten. Forme of words maketh no difference of doctrine, & though in other termes, yet we do no other thing therein, but what the Scripture teacheth vs to do. His second instance ofDe hinc ter mergitamur. thrice dipping, is a matter onely of ceremony, not of doctrine, and it is meerely indifferent whether it be done once as in the name of one God, or thrice as to import the Trinity of the persons. As forJnde suscepti lactu & mellis con [...]ordiam praegustamus. the tasting of milke and hony which is his third instance, it was also a voluntary obseruation, which may seeme first to haue bene brought in by heretikes, howsoeuer after it got place in the Church, because Dionysius who for his time most exactly describethDionys. Ecclesiast hierarch. cap 4. the ceremonies of the Church, maketh no mention of it.Lauacro quotid [...]o [...] die pe [...] tot [...] m [...]l [...] abstinemus: Die dominico reiunium nefas ducimus vel de geniculis adorare. Eadem immunitate [...] in Pentecosten vs (que) gaudemus. Not to wash for a weeke after baptisme, not to fast or pray kneeling vpon the Sunday, or betwixt Easter and Whitsontide, vvere also but positiue ceremonies, subiect to the discretion of the Church, vsed in some places and times, and [Page 886] not in other, insomuch that in part they are growne out of vse euen in the Curch of Rome, and therfore come not within the compasse of traditions, as we here dispute of them.Eucharistae Sacramentū & in tēpore victas, &c. etiam aniel [...]canis caetibus nec de aliorum quam praesidentium manu suntimus. To receiue the Sacrament at the hands of the Bishop or Ministers, is the institutiō of Christ, and we are taught it by the written word, but either to do it in the morning before day, or at the time of other feeding, was a meere arbitrarie and indifferent thing, and the Church of Rome now vseth it at neither time.Oblationes pro defunctis, pro natalitijs annua die facimu [...]. Offerings yeerely made for the dead and for birthdaies, were first brought in by the heretike Montanus, to whom now Tertullian had addicted himselfe, and of whom the ecclesiasticall historie testifieth, thatEuseb. hist. eccl. lib. 5. cap. 16. Sub praetextu & nomine oblationum munerum captationē artificiose cōmentus est. vnder the pretence and name of offerings, he cunningly deuised the taking of rewards and gifts. And although the one of them by the plausible colour of it tooke such fast hold, as that the streame thereof hath runne into the lakes and puddles of the Church of Rome, yet the other was soone reiected, or not at all admitted, but onely amongst his fellowes, Origen testifying that ChristiansOrigen. in Iob. lib 3. Nos nō natiuitatis diē celebram [...]s sed mortis, &c & in Le [...]i [...]t hom. 8 Nemo ex omnibus sanctis inuenitur dum festū, &c. egisse in die natalis su [...]. did not celebrate their birth-day, and that it was not found that any of the Saints had made a festiuall day of his birth-day. Calicis aut panis etiam nostri aliquid in terrā decuti anxit pa timur. Not to endure to haue any part of the Sacrament fall to the ground, is a part of that1. Cor 14.40. decencie and reuerence which the Scripture requireth to be vsed in sacred and holy things; or if he speake it of ordinary bread and drinke, the Scripture also teacheth, that of those good blessings of God,Iohn. 6.12. nothing should be lost. The vse ofAd omnē progressum at (que) promotum ad omnē aditura et exitū, ad vestitum & calceatum, ad lauacra, ad men sai, ad lumina, ad cubilia, ad sedilia, quaecun (que) nos conuersatio exercet, frontem crucis signaculo cer [...]nus. the signe of the crosse was ceremoniall also, no matter of doctrine and faith, but onely an occasion of remembrance, and a token of the profession therof, which in discretion for temporary consideration was begun, and by like discretion cause so requiring, might be left againe. Our Church in some part, where it is most free from Popish abuse, vseth the signe of the crosse, and yet well knoweth, that vnwritten traditions, as the name is vnderstood in this disputation, are not iustified thereby. We doubt not as touching outward vsages and ceremonies, as touching positiue constitutions and ordinances of the Church, but that vnder the name of traditions, according to the circumstances before expressed, they may be commanded, and are to be obeied, though they be not contained in the Scripture, but for matter of faith and of the worship of God, we deny that any thing may be admitted beside the written word, and Tertullians instances are too weake to serue Maister Bishops turne to prooue the contrary. To be [Page 887] short, it appeareth plainly by Tertullian, that the Catholike Church defended then against heretikes the same that we now defend against the Papists, that pretence of Tradition without authority of Scripture auaileth not; and therefore that the Papists vnder the name of Catholikes are indeede heretikes, wrastling and fighting against the Church.
11 W. BISHOP.
Come we now vnto his second testimonie out of S. Ierome,In cap. 23. Math. who writing (as he saith) of an opinion, that S. Iohn Baptist was killed, because he foretold the comming of Christ (the good-man would say, Zacharie S. Iohns Father, for the Scripture sheweth plainly why S. Iohn lost his head Math. 14.) But S. Ierome there saith, this Because it hath not authoritie from Scriptures, may as easily be contemned as approued. Out of which particular, M. Perkins (shewing himselfe a doughtie Logitian) would inforce an vniuersall, that forsooth all may be contemned that is not proued by Scripture. As if you would proue no Protestant to be skilfull in the art of true reasoning, because M. Perkins behaues himselfe in it so vnskilfully. But S. Ierome in the same place declareth why that might be as easily reproued as allowed, not hauing any ground in the Scripture, because (saith he) It is taken out of the dreames of some Apocryphall vvritings, opposing Scripture to other improoued writings, and not to approoued Traditions; to which (he saith in his Dialogues against the Luciferians, before the middle,) That the Church of God doth attribute the like authoritie, as it doth vnto the written Law.
R. ABBOT.
M. Perkins indeede mistooke in naming Iohn Baptist in steed of Zacharie the father of Iohn Baptist, but it is no matter of consequence for his aduantage, and therefore might easily be pardoned by Maister Bishop, who for aduantage hath made many greater and fouler faults.Hieron. in Math. 23. Some, saith Hierome, will haue Zacharie (who is said to haue bene slaine betwixt the temple and the altar) to be meant of the father of Iohn Baptist, auouching out of the dreames of Apocryphall bookes, that he was slaine because he foretold the comming of our [Page 888] Sauiour. Hec quia ex Scriptures non habet authoritatem, eadem facilitate contēnitur quae probatur. This, saith he, because it hath not authority out of the Scriptures, is as easily contemned as approued. Where M. Perkins doth not out of a particular inforce an vniuersall, as M. Bishop pretendeth, but rightly alledgeth, that Hieromes words containing a minor proposition and a conclusion, must by rules of Logicke imply a maior proposition for the inferring thereof. This hath no authority out of the Scriptures; therefore it may be as easily contemned as approoued. Why so, but onely because whatsoeuer hath not authority of Scripture, is as easily contemned as approued? The argument contained in Hieromes words, cannot stand good but by this supply, and so it is not the inferring of an vniuersall from a particular, but the prouing of the particular by the vniuersall, according to due course. But M. Bishop telleth vs, that the cause why that story might as well be reproued as allowed, was because it was taken out of the dreames of some Apocryphall writings. Which what is it but to vse a shift in steed of an answer, the sentence being in it selfe entier, and absolutely giuing the cause of the reiecting of that story, because it had no authority out of Scripture? Yea, if it be true which M. Bishop saith of traditions, Hieromes argument proueth to be nothing worth. For though this were written in Apocryphall bookes, and had no proofe of Scripture, yet it might be confirmed by tradition, and therfore it followeth not, that because it was written in Apocryphall bookes, and had no proofe of Scripture, it should hereupon be reiected.Aug. de ciu. Dei lib. 15. cap. 23. In Apocryphis etsi inuenitur aliqua veritas, tamen propter nonnulla falsa nulla est Canonica authoritas. In the Apocryphall writings, saith Austine, some truth is found, albeit because there are manie things also false, they haue no canonicall authority. If this therfore notwithstanding it were written in Apocryphall bookes might be true, then it might be confirmed by tradition, and therefore not to be contemned, and thereof it followeth, that Hieromes reason of reiecting it for wanting authority of Scripture, is worth nothing. Which if M. Bishop will not say, then let him acknowledge that Hieromes meaning simply is this, that there is no necessity for vs to beleeue, what authority of Scripture doth not confirme, saying no other thing therein, but what else-where he maketh good, reasoning both waies,Hieron. aduer. Heluid. Naetum Deū esse de virgine credimus, quia legimus: Mariam nupsisse post partum non credimus quia non legimus. We beleeue it, because we reade it; we beleeue it not, because we do not reade it. And surely if Hierome had had here any conceipt of tradition without Scripture, he would not haue left this matter thus indifferently, as easily to be contemned as approued, but would simply haue contemned it, because tradition had [Page 889] giuen another cause of the death of Zacharie, namely for that he affirmed Mary the mother of Iesus, to be still a virgin, and accordingly placed her in the temple in a place which was appointed onely for virgines and maidens. Whereof Origen saith:Origē in Mat. tract. 26. Ʋenit ad nos traditio talis, &c. Such a tradition hath come to vs, and Basil:Basil. de humana Christi gener. Zachariae historia quadā qua ex traditione adnos vs (que) peruenit. A storie of Zacharie by tradition hath come to vs, and in like manner Theophylact: Theophyl. in Math. cap. 23. Habet [...]ta narratio nobis tradita. Thus hath a narration deliuered by tradition to vs. If this then being deliuered by tradition, yet auailed so little in the Church, because it wanted the authoritie of Scripture, we may well conceiue that Hieromes meaning was plaine, that tridition howsoeuer colourable it seeme to be, yet is of no moment or credit without the Scripture. As for the other words alledged by Maister Bishop thatHieron. adu. Lucifer. Luciferianus dixit, &c. Nam & multa alta quae per traditionē in ecclesijs obseruantur, authoritatē sibi scriptae legis vsurpauerunt. to traditions the Church of God doth attribute the like authoritie as it doth vnto the written law, they are set downe for the words of a Luciferian schismatike, and the example thereof taken from a Montanist heretike, euen from Tertullian, of whom was spoken in the former section, insomuch that some ofVelutin lauacro ter caput mergitare, deinde egressos lactis & mellis praegustare concordiā, &c. die dominico & per omnem Pentecosten, nec de geniculis adorare et ieiunium soluere. the instances of traditions vsed by Tertullian, are there set downe in Tertullians owne words. And yet by those instances it appeareth, that the words come not within the compasse of our question, because he speaketh onely of ceremoniall customes and obseruations which are temporall and occasionall, not of matters of doctrine and faith, which are necessary and perpetuall, which though they had in time growne to be alike in practise and vse, as if they had beene written, yet in iudgement and doctrine were not holden to be alike, and therefore for the most part haue ceased since to be obserued euen in the Church of Rome.
12 W. BISHOP.
Maister Perkins. His third Author is Saint Augustine.Lib. 2. de doct. Chri. cap. 9. In those things which are plainely set downe in Scriptures, are found all those points which containe faith and manners of liuing well.
Answer. All things necessary to be beleeued of euery simple Christian, vnder paine of damnation, that is, the Articles of our Beliefe, are contained in the Scriptures, but not the resolution of harder matters, much lesse of all difficulties, which the more learned must expresly beleeue, [Page 890] if they will be saued, which distinction S. Augustine else-where doth signifie: De peccatorū meritis cap. vlt. and is gathered out of many other places of his workes, as in that matter of rebaptizing them, who became Catholikes, after they had bene baptized by heretikes. He saith, Lib. 5. de bapt. contra Donat. cap. 23. The Apostles truly haue commaunded nothing hereof (in their writings) but that custome which was laid against S. Cyprian, is to be beleeued to haue flowed frō an Apostolicall tradition, as there be many things which the vniuersall Church holdeth, and therefore are to be beleeued. The same saith he of the custome of the Church in baptizing infants. De genes. ad letra. lib. 10. cap. 23. And in his Epist. 174. of the word [...] that is not in the holy Scripture, & yet neuerthelesse is defended to be vsed in the assertion of faith. As also (saith he) we neuer reade in those bookes that the Father is vnbegotten, and yet we hold that he is so to be called.Lib. 3. cap. 3. cont. max. Arianum. And Saint Augustine holds that the holy Ghost is to be adored, though it be not written in the word. The like of the perpetuall Ʋirginitie of our blessed Ladie, Heresi. 4. out of which and many more such like, we gather most manifestly that Saint Augustine thought many matters of faith not to be contained in the written word, but to be taken out of the Churches treasurie of Traditions.
R. ABBOT.
It is strange to see here what stutting and stammering the man vseth, loth to confesse the truth, and yet forced by the very euidence thereof, in a manner fully to subscribe vnto it. I pray thee gentle Reader to marke well the words of Austine, that are here alledged.Aug. de doct. Christ. lib. 2. cap. 9. In ijs quae a pertè posita sunt in Scripturis inueniuntur illa omnia quae con [...]nent fidem mo [...]es (que) vivendi. In those things, saith he, which are plainely set downe in the Scriptures, are found all those things which containe faith and behauiour of life. He saith not barely, in the Scriptures, but in those things which are plainly set downe in the Scriptures; nor that some speciall matters of faith are found, but all those things are found, which containe faith and conuersation of life. Now how nicely doth M. Bishop mince the matter. All things, saith he, necessary to be beleeued of euery simple Christian vnder paine of damnation, are contained in the Scriptures, as if S. Austin spake here only of simple Christians, and not of those that are of learning & knowledge, when as his drift is in this booke, to teach the Preacher how to conceiue of the Scriptures for his owne vse. Then he restraineth all those necessarie things, to the articles of [Page 891] our beleefe, whereas S. Austine expoundeth himselfe as touchingSpem scilicet & charitatem de quibus superiore libro traectauimus. hope and charitie, of which he had intreated in the former booke. Then he excepteth the resolution of harder matters and many difficulties which the learned must expresly beleeue, when as S Austine saith, that in the Scriptures are found all those things which containe faith and conuersation of life, insomuch that we haue heard himSuprae. sect. 8. before pronounce a curse to an Angell from heauen, who either concerning Christ, or the Church of Christ, or any thing belonging to our faith and life, shall preach any thing but what we haue receiued in the scriptures of the Law and the Gospell. But yet if they wil haue S. Austins words to be vnderstood of all things necessary to be beleeued of euery simple Christian, we would gladly know why they require euery simple man, vnder paine of damnation, to beleeue the Popes supremacie, his succession from Peter, the power of his pardons, the validitie of his dispensations, to beleeue their doctrine of the Masse, of Purgatorie, of inuocation of Saints, of prayer for the dead, of worshipping idols and images, and a thousand such other deuices, when as these are not found in any plaine places of Scripture, nay when as the plaine text of Scripture is cleerly and manifestly against them. Thou must vnderstand, gentle Reader, that M. Bishop giueth not this answer in earnest, but the euidence of S. Austines words being so pregnant against him, somewhat he must say for the present, to colour the matter, howsoeuer it be otherwise contrary to his owne defence. It is not for their thrift to graunt that what concerneth euery simple Christian vpon paine of damnation is plainely set downe in Scripture; to beleeue so, is the marring of a great part of their haruest. But alas in this case what should he do? if Saint Austine say it, it is not for him to speake against it; onely what he looseth here, he must do his best to recouer other where. But for this lame answer, whereby he in part confesseth the truth against himselfe, and yet laboureth in part to conceale it and keepe it backe, he seeketh patronage from another place of Austine, saying that Saint Austine elsewhere doth signifie that distinction. He noteth in the margent de peccatorum meritis cap. vltimo, but which booke it is of the three, he noteth not, nor what the words are. Now in the last chapters of the first and third booke, there is nothing incident to this purpose, but that which S. Austine saith in the last chapter [Page 892] of the second booke, is such as that we neede not wonder that M. Bishop did forbeare to set downe his words. For hauing there in question whether the soule be ex traduce, that is, whether it be deriued and propagated by generation, with other points thereupon depending, he saith that the matter isAugust. de peccat. mer. & remiss lib. 2. cap. 36. Disputationē desiderat eo moderamine tempe ratam vt magis inquisitio cauta lau litur, quàm praecipitata reprehendatur assertio. Vbi enim de re obscurissima disputatur, non adinuantibu [...] diuinarum Scripturarum certu clarisquè documentis cohibere se debet humana praesūptio nihil faciens in alteram partem declinando. with such moderation to be handled, as that a man may be rather commended for inquiring warily, then reprooued for affirming rashly. For (sayth he) where question is of a very obscure matter, without the helpe of sure and euident testimonies or instructions of holy Scriptures, the presumption of man is to withhold it selfe, doing nothing by inclining either way. But hee goeth on yet further:Ibid. Etsi enim quod libet horum quem admodum demonstrari & explicari possit ignorem, illud tamen credoquòd etiam hinc diuinorum eloquiorū clarssimae esset authoritat, si homo illud sine dispendio promissa salutis ignorare non posset. For albeit I know not how any of these points (mentioned before) may be declared and made plaine, yet I beleeue that the authoritie of the words of God should be most cleare concerning them, if man without damage of saluation promised might not be ignorant thereof. In which words wee see Saint Austine mentioning difficult and hard questions, but we see withall that he denieth the determining of any such without assured and cleare testimonies of holy Scripture, affirming that he beleeueth that there should be cleare authoritie of Gods word for the deciding of them, if man (and not onely simple men) without losse of saluation might not be without knowledge of them. Hereby then he most euidently testifieth, that whatsoeuer is necessarie for the saluation of mankind, hath cleere and euident testimonie of holy Scripture, and that what hath not so, we are to surcease from defining any thing of it. How lewdly then doth M. Bishop deale, to make his Reader beleeue that Saint Austine sayth for him, that the resolution of harder points and difficulties, which yet the learned must expresly beleeue, are not contained in the Scriptures? But yet he telleth vs, that that is also gathered out of many other places of his workes, and yet out of all those places alledgeth not any part or point of doctrine which Austine himselfe doth not vndertake to iustifie by the Scriptures. It hath beene before declared, that when wee say that all matters of doctrine and faith are contained in the Scripture, wee vnderstand as the auncient Fathers did, not that all things are literally and verbally contained in the Scripture, but that all are either expressed therein, or by necessary illation and consequence to be deriued from thence. S. Hierome doubteth not [Page 893] to say as we do,Hieron. contra Heluid. Sicut haec quae scripta sunt, non negamus, ita ea quae non sunt scripta renuimus. What things are written, we do not denie; but what are not written, we reiect: and yet in the same booke he saith also, that it is Jbid. Sanctae Scripturae idioma, &c. ea de quibus posset ambigi si nō fuissent scripta, signari; caetera verò nostrae intelligentiae derelinqui. the propertie of the holy Scripture, that those things whereof there might be doubt if they were not written, are set downe, but other things are left to our vnderstanding to collect and gather them thereby. And in this sence Saint Austine saith,August. cont. Maxim Arian. lib. 3. cap 3. Ex ijs quae legimus aliquae etiam quae legimus intelligimus. By those things which we reade, we vnderstand some things also which we do not reade. Thus doth the same Saint Austine sometimes say, that the Church receiueth some things that are not written, not that those things are not to be proued and defended by the Scriptures, but onely that they are not literally expressed in the Scriptures. And so it appeareth in the first instance produced by M. Bishop as touching the rebaptizing of them who became Catholikes after they had bene baptized by heretikes. For although Saint Austine say, thatJdem de Bapt. contra Donatist. l. 5. cap. 23. Apostoli nihil exinde praeceperunt, sed consuetudo illa quae opponebatur Cypriano ab eorū traditione exordium sumpsisse credenda est. the Apostles commaunded nothing thereof, but that the custome which was opposed to Cyprian was to be beleeued to haue flowed from an Apostolicall tradition, yet he himselfe disputeth that point against the Donatists continually by the Scripture, refuseth to haue the matter decided but onely by the Scripture, and in the first propounding thereof sayth very plainly to them,Ibid. lib. 2. cap. 7. Ne humanis argumentis id agere videar, &c. ex Euangelio profero ceriae documenta quibus demonstro quàm rectè placuerit & verè secundum Deū, vt hoc in quoquaē schismatico vel heretico ecclesiastica medicina curaret in quo vulnere separabatur, illud autē quod sanū maneret agnitū potiùs approbaretur, quàm improbatū vulneraretur. That I seeme not to deale by humane arguments (namely for that a generall Councell hath so confirmed) I bring assured proofes out of the Gospell, whereby I shew how rightly and truly according to God it thus seemed good to them, that ecclesiasticall medicine should cure that in an hereticke or schismaticke wherein he is wounded and separated from the Church, [...]ut that which remaineth sound should rather be acknowledged and approued, then by being disallowed should be wounded. To omit many other places that might be alledged to the same purpose, soone after the words alledged by M. Bishop, he saith thus,Ibid. lib 5. cap 23. Contrae maendatū Dei est quòd venientes ab haereticis si illic baptismū Christi acceperunt, baptizantur, quia sanctarū scripturarū testimonijs pianè ostenditur, &c. It is against the commaundement of God, that men comming from heretickes should be baptized, if there they haue receiued the Baptisme of Christ, because by testimonies of holy Scripture it is plainly shewed thus and thus. Literally therefore and as touching matter of fact and example, Saint Austine speaketh of it as not written in the Scripture, but by Tradition so accustomed, because there is nothing expresly mentioned thereof, but yet sheweth that therefore this Tradition was accepted and approoued, because by testimonies of Scripture [Page 894] it was confirmed to be right,Ibidem. lib. 4. cap. 7 Quia benè perspectis ex vtroque litere disputationis rationibus & Scripturarum testimonijs, potest etiam dici, Quod veritas declarauit, hoc sequimur. because the reasons and testimonies of Scripture being well considered on both sides of that controuersie, it might be said, What the truth hath declared, that we follow. And thus it is true which S. Austine addeth in the place cited,Lib. 5. cap. 23. Sicut sunt multa quae vniuersa tenet Ecclesia, & ob hoc ab Apostolis praecepta benè creduntur, quanquam scripta non repertiantur. that there are many things which the whole Church holdeth, and for that cause are beleeued to haue come frō the Apostles, albeit they be not found set downe in Scripture, because they be not namely & word for word set down in Scripture, albeit they be to be iustified by those things that are there set downe. Of this kind is that which M. Bishop nameth in the next place, of the custome of the church in baptizing infants, which Austin saithDe Genes. ad. liter. lib. 10. cap. 23. Nec omnino credenda nisi Apostolica esse traditio. is to be beleeued to be no other but an Apostolike tradition, and we also acknowledge no lesse. But what? did Austin hold it a traditiō that could not be proued and warranted by the scripture? Nothing lesse. For he himselfe against the Pelagian heretikes proueth the necessitie thereof by the Scriptures,August. epist. 89. Dicunt infantem morte praeuentum non baptizatum perire non posse, quo [...]am sine peccato nascitur, &c. Dicit Apostolus, Per vnum hominem, &c. Jdeo non est superfluus baptismus paruulorum, vt qui per generationem illi condemnationi obligati sunt, per regenerationem liberentur. They say (saith he) that an infant not being baptized cannot perish, because he is borne without sinne: but the Apostle saith, By one man sinne entred into the world, and by sinne came death, and so death went ouer all, forasmuch as all haue sinned, &c. Therefore the baptisme of infants is not superfluous, that they who by generation are bound to condemnation, by regeneration may be deliuered from it. And in another place against the Donatists,De Baptis. lib. 4. cap. 24. Si quisquam hac in re authoritatem diuinam quaerat, &c. Veracitèr conijcere possumus quid valeat in par [...]s Baptimi sacramentum ex circumcisione carnis quam prior populus accepit. If any man (saith he) desire diuine authority in this behalf, we may truly coniecture what the sacrament of Baptisme auaileth in infants, by the circumcision of the flesh which the former people receiued. So by the rest of the Fathers sundry arguments are taken from the Scriptures for the iustifying of that custome, andBellarm de sa [...]ram Baptism. lib 1. cap 8 Bellarmine himselfe by the Scriptures proueth that infants are to be baptized, and therefore full weakly doth M. Bishop deale to bring this for proofe of their Traditions, that is, of doctrines beside the Scripture. In his other obiections he is as idle as in any of these, or rather more idle. The Arian hereticke presseth Austine to shew where the word [...] is read in the Scriptures. Saint Austine answereth him, thatAugust. Epist. 174. Respondebatur à nobis quia nos Latinè loqueremur & illud Graecum esset, prius quaren [...] on esset quid sit Homousion, & tunc exigendum vt in libris sanctis ostenderetur, &c. quia et si fortasse nomen ipsum non inueniretur, restamen ipsa inueniretur. Quid est enim contentiosius quàm vbi de reconstat, certare de nomen [...] was a Greeke word, and they spake Latin, and therefore it was first to be set down what is meant by [...], and then to be required in the scriptures, [Page 895] because albeit the word perhaps be not found there, yet the thing it selfe is found. For what greater wrangling is there, then to contend about the word, when there is a certaintie of the thing? Where we see M. Bishop in the place which he himselfe citeth, condemned for a contentious wrangler, that thus vrgeth the word consubstantiall as a tradition beside the Scripture, when as the thing it self and matter imported by it, is contained in the Scripture, yea and S. Austin himself in the same place proueth it by the Scripture, and elsewhere asketh of the Arian heretike,Idem. contrae Maximin. lib. 3. cap 14. Quid est Homousion, nisi, Ego & Pater vnum sumus. What is Homousion, consubstantiall, but, I and my father are one? By the other word vnbegotten he taketh aduātage against the Arian, who had set downe that terme in the confession of his faith concerning God the Father. He demaundeth of him whether the Scripture had vsed that word, which not being found, and yet approoued, he concludeth:Jdem. epi. 174. Vides posse fieri vt etiā de verbo quod in scriptura Dei non est, reddatur tamen ratio vnde rectè dici ostendatur: sic ergo & homousion quod in authoritate diuinorum librorum cogebamur ostendere, etiamsi vocabulū ipsum ibi non inuentamus, fieri posse vt illud inueniamus cut hec vocabulū rectè adhibitum iudicetur. Thou seest that it may be, that of a word which is not set downe in Scripture, yet reason may be giuen to shew that it is rightly spoken: so therefore consubstantiall also, which we were required to shew by authoritie of Scripture, albeit we find not the very word there, yet it may be that we find that to which the word may be iudged to be rightly applied. In these words therefore there is nothing imported but what we are instructed by the Scriptures; the meaning is there, though the letters and syllables be not there. In like sort the case standeth with his other instance of the holy Ghost to be adored, which we may wonder that he should be so impudent, or rather so impious, as to make an example of traditions beside the Scripture, as if the Scriptures did not prooue that the holy Ghost is to be worshipped, when as S. Austine prooueth it there against the Arian no otherwise but by the Scriptures. But as touching all these points concerning the Godhead, let that suffice which Thomas Aquinas hath giuen for a rule, thatThom. Aquin. sum. p. 1. qu. 36. art. 2. ad 1. De Deo dicere non debemus quod in sacra Scriptura non inuenitur vel per verba vel per sensum. Licet per verba non inueniatur in sacra scriptura quod spiritus sanctus procedit à Filio, inuenitur tamen quantum ad sensum. concerning God we ought to say nothing which is not found in Scripture either in words or in meaning. Whereof he saith for example, Though in very words it be not found in holy Scripture that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Sonne, yet in sense and meaning it is there found. To this our assertion accordeth, that no matter of faith or doctrine is to be admitted but what either in words or in sence is contained in the Scriptures. Let M. Bishop shew vs the sence of their Traditions in the Scriptures, and we will receiue them, though we find not the words; but if he alledge for Traditions beside the Scripture, those things [Page 896] the sence and meaning whereof is in the Scriptures, though the words be not, he abuseth his Reader, and saith nothing against vs. For this matter I referre thee further (gentle Reader) to that which hath bene saidSect. 11. before in answer of his Epistle to the King. As touching the perpetuall virginitie of the blessed virgin, what we are to conceiue, hath bene before declared. S. Austin August. haeres. 56 & 84. affirmeth it, but not vnder the name of a tradition: and Hierome when he would maintaine it againstHieron. aduer. Heluid. Ipsa Scripturarum verba ponenda sunt, &c. Non credimus quia non legimus. Heluidius, tooke vpon him no otherwise to maintaine it but onely by the Scripture, thereby shewing that he tooke tradition to be a very weake and vncertaine ground. Now therefore it plainly appeareth that S. Austin hath pulled downe the churches treasury of traditions, because M. Bishop can bring nothing to the contrary, but that he plainely and truly meant that which he said, that in those things which are plainly set downe in Scripture, are found all things belonging to our faith and conuersation of life, and thereby leaueth no place to M. Bishops matters of faith that are not contained in the written word.
13. W. BISHOP.
M. Perkins his last testimonie is taken out of Vincentius Lyrinensis, who saith (as he reporteth) that the canon of the Scripture is perfect and fully sufficient for all things.
Answ. I think that there is no such sentence to be found in him the says by way of obiection, What need we make recourse vnto the authoritie of the Ecclesiasticall vnderstanding, if the Canon of the Scripture be perfect? He affirmeth not that they be fully sufficient to determine all controuersies in religion, but through all his booke he proues out the cleane contrary, that no heresie can be certainly confuted and suppressed by onely Scriptures, without we take with it the sence and interpretation of the Catholike Church.
R. ABBOT.
The words of Vincentius are vttered first by way of obiection thus:Vincen. Lyrin. Hic forsitan requirat aliquis, cum sit perfectus Scripturarum canon, sibi (que) ad omnia satis supèrque sufficiat, quid opus est vt et Ecclesiasticae intelligentiae [...]ungatur authoritas Some man happely may ask, seeing the Canon of Scriptures is perfect, and in it selfe abundantly sufficient for all matters, what needeth it that the authority of Ecclesiastical vnderstanding shold be ioyned vnto it? [Page 897] He hath taught a man in the words before to ground and settle his faith, Duplici modo fidem munire: primo diuinae legis authoritate tum deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae traditione. first by the authoritie of the law of God, and then by the tradition of the Catholike Church, meaning by tradition, as appeareth, the interpretation or exposition of Scripture deliuered by the Church, not any matters of doctrine to be receiued beside the Scripture. Hereupon he asketh the question, seeing the Scripture is abundantly sufficient, what need is there to adde the tradition of the Church? taking it for a thing receiued, and by all men approued, that the Scripture in it selfe is abundantly sufficient to instruct vs euery way and in all things belonging to faith and godlinesse, and therefore making it a doubt why the other should be needfull. And that we may vnderstand that he meant it not only by way of obiection, but positiuely, in the repeating of the same points afterwards, he setteth downe this exception and reason,Jbid. Non quia canon solas non sibi ad vniuersa sufficiat sed quia verba diuina plerique pro suo arbitratis interpretantes, varias opiniones erroresque concipiant. Not but that the Canon alone is in it selfe sufficient for all things, but because many interpreting the words of God as they list, do conceiue diuers opinions and errors there from. M. Bishops answer then is false, that Ʋincentius affirmeth not that the Scriptures be fully sufficient to determine all controuersies in religion, for Vincentius affirmeth it peremptorily, and therefore teacheth vs to shun them who after the Scriptures and interpretation thereof teach vs that there are yet other matters of Christian doctrine and faith that are not contained in the Scriptures. M. Bishop telleth vs that through all his booke he proues the contrary. But what is that contrary? Marry that no heresie can be certainly confuted and suppressed by onely Scriptures without we take with it the sense and interpretation of the Catholike Church. Whereby we see that either he hath not read that booke of Ʋincentius, or doth impudently falsifie that which he hath read. True it is that Ʋincentius in respect that heretikes do often very guilefully alledge the Scriptures, and wrest them to the maintenance and defence of their new deuices, doth referre a man for his safetie to the iudgement and resolution of the Catholicke church, not as they loudly beare vs in hand, of the church of Rome, as if by it the Catholike Church were to be vnderstood, but so asVt id teneamus quod vbi (que), quod semper, quod a omnibus creditū est; hoc est etenim verè propriè (que) Catholicū quod ipsa vis nominis ra [...]ie (que) declarat, quae omnia verè vniuersaliter comprebendit. that we hold that which hath bene beleeued euery where, and alwaies, and of all: for this (saith he) is truly and properly Catholike, as the nature and signification of the word declareth, which indeed comprehendeth vniuersally all. Hereto he frameth those rules of antiquitie, vniuersalitie and consent, idlely bragged of many times by the Papists, [Page 898] when as according to the declarations of Ʋincentius they are not able to make good any one point of their doctrine oppugned by vs, but in diuers and sundry points are conuicted thereby. But the matter that toucheth M. Bishop very neerly, is the restraint and limitation of this rule, which he saith isQuae tamen antiquae sanctorum Patrum consensio non in omnibus diuinae legis quaestiunculis sed solùm certè praecipuè in fidei regula mag no nobis studio & inuestigandae & sequenda est. not to be followed in all questions of the word of God, but onely or chiefly in the rule of faith, whereby he meaneth those things that concerne the articles of the Creed:In ijs duntaxat praecipuè quaestionibus quibus tetius Catholici dogmatis fundamenta nituntur. in those questions, as he repeateth afterwards, vpon which the foundations of the whole Catholike faith do rest. It is vntrue then which M. Bishop saith, that Vincentius holdeth no heresie to be suppressed or confuted but by the tradition of the Catholike Church, when as he applieth his rule only or at least chiefly to those heresies which touch the maine pillars & foundations of Christian faith. And it is yet further vntrue, because Vincentius further addeth, thatSed neque semper neque omnes haereses hoc modo impugnandae sunt, sed nouitiae recentesquè tantummodo, cùm primum scilitet exoriuntur, antequam infalsarint vetustae fidei regulas; ipsius temporis vetentur augustijs; ac priusquam mananie latùs veneno, maiorum volumina vitiare conentur. Caeterùm si dilatatae & inueteratae hareses nequaquam hac via aggrediendae sunt, eò quòd prolixo ten porum tractu longa ijs furandae veritatis patuerit occasio. Atque ideo quascunque illas antiquiores vel schismatum vel haereseōn prophanitatet nullo mod [...] nos oportet nisi aut sola, si opus est. Scripturarum authoritate conuincere, aut certè iam antiquitùs vniuersalibus sacerdotum Catholicorum Concilijs conuictas damnatásque vitare. neither alwayes nor yet all heresies are to be impugned in that sort, but onely those that are new and fresh, namely when as they first spring vp, before they haue falsified the rules of auncient faith, and are therein hindered by the straitnesse of the time, and before (the poison spreading further abroad) they labor to corrupt the bookes of the auncient Fathers. But heresies that are far spred, and are growne old, are not to be set vpon in this sort, because by long tract and continuance of time they haue had great oportunitie to steale the truth. And therefore as touching all prophane heresies and schismes that are growne old, we are in no sort to do otherwise, but either to conuince them, if need be, by onely authoritie of Scripture, or else to auoyde them, being aunciently conuicted and condemned by generall Councell of Catholike Bishops. Where we see that Ʋincentius affirmeth directly contrary to that that M. Bishop reporteth of him, that heresies are not alwayes to be dealt with by those rules that he hath before set downe, yea that heresies that haue continued long, and haue bene farre spread, are no otherwise to be conuicted but by onely authoritie of Scripture. And thereof he giueth reason, for that they haue had time and oportunitie to falsifie the rules of faith, and to corrupt the bookes and writings of the auncient Fathers, which heretikes alwaies labour to do, so that the doctrine of faith cannot safely be ieoparded vpon their consent. Now whatsoeuer [Page 899] M. Bishop and his fellowes dreame of this booke, this rule doth so fit vs, as if Vincentius had purposely studied to instruct vs in what sort we ought to deale against them, and to iustifie the course that we haue vsed in that behalfe. Antichrist hath set vp his kingdome aloft in the Church, and the whoore of Babylon hath sitten like a Queene for many ages past. She hath fulfilled that that was prophesied of her, thatApoc. 14.8. she should make all nations to drinke of the wine of the wrath of her fornications. Chap. 17.2. The Kings of the earth haue committed fornication with her, and the inhabitants of the earth haue bene drunke with the wine of her fornications. She hath hadGregor. lib. 4. epist. 38 Rex superbiae propè est & quod dici nefas est, sacordotum est praeparatus exercitus, &c. an armie of Priests, according to the saying of Gregorie, an armie of Monkes and Friers, of Schoolemen and Canonists, who haue bin her agents and factors for the vttering of her merchandize and the vpholding of her state. They haue vsed their endeuour to the vttermost for the corruptingErasm. Epist. ad Warram. Archiepis Caniuar. apud Hieron. of the auncient monuments of the Church. They haue made away many of the writings of the Fathers, they haue falsified those that remaine, they haue foisted in bastards and counterfeits vnder their names. Most lewdly and shamefullyLudou. Viues de caus. corrupt. art. Adscripta sunt Origeni, Cypriavo, Hieronymo, Augustino quae ipsis nunquam ne per qui [...]tem quidem in mentem venerant, indigna non solùm tantia ingenijs at (que) illa eruditione, sed etiam seruis cor [...] siquos Scythas habuerunt aut Seres. they haue fathered vpon Origen, Hierom, Cyprian, Austin (& the rest) such things as they neuer dreamed of, vnworthy not only of their conceit and learning, but euen of their slaues, if they had any, that were Scythians and Barbarians. By the names of such renowmed authors, they haue sought to gaine credite to deuices of their owne, such as the auncient Church was neuer acquainted with. Now therefore Ʋincentius his rule standeth good on our part, that inasmch as they haue had so long time and oportunitie to steale away the truth, and to falsifie the Fathers writings, therefore we are to conuict them by authoritie of Scripture onely, knowing it to be true which Chrysostome saith, thatChrysost. oper. imperf. in Math. hom. 49. Ex qu [...] heresis obtinuit Ecclesias nulla probatio potest esse verae Christianitatis, neque refugium potest esse Christianorum aliud volentium cognoscere fidei veritatem nisi Scripturae diuine, &c Nullo modo cognoscitur volentibus cognoscere quae sit vera Ecclesia Christi, nisi tantummodo per Scripturas, &c. Sciens Dominus tantam confusionem rerum in nouissimis diebus esse futuram, ideo mandat vt Christiani volentes firmitatem accipere fidei verae ad nullam rem fugiant, nisi ad Scripturas. Alioqui si ad alia respexerint, scandalizabuntur & peribunt, non intelligentes qua sit vera Ecclesia, & per hoc incident in abhominationem desolationis qua stabit in sanctis Ecclesiae locis. since heresies haue gotten foote in the Church, there is no proofe of true Christianitie, nor other refuge for Christians desirous to know the truth of faith, but onely the Scriptures of God: no way for them that are desirous to know which is the true Church of Christ, but onely by the Scriptures. Our Lord (saith he) knowing that there should be so great confusion of things in the last dayes, doth [Page 900] therefore wil that Christians desirous to receiue assurance of true faith, should flie to nothing but onely to the Scriptures. Otherwise if they looke to any thing else, they shall stumble and perish, not vnderstanding which is the true Church, and thereby shall light vpon the abhomination of desolation which shall stand in the holy places of the Church. Now therfore we haue done nothing but that that in the course of Christianitie is iust and right, to call the triall of the controuersies and questions of religion to the authoritie of the Scriptures onely, and to teach men therein onely to repose the certaintie and assurance of their faith. Albeit by the singular prouidence of almightie God it hath come to passe, that in antiquitie, as we haue the same remaining vnto vs, there is yet light sufficient to discouer the apostasies & abhominations of the Church of Rome, to iustifie the truth of God against their falshood and lies, and to make it appeare that we do rightly and truly apply the Scriptures to the reproouing and conuincing thereof, as through this whole worke is most plainly and cleerly to be seene. And this is so much the more manifest for that they themselues haue bene forced to complaine that they are faineIndex Expur. in castig. Bertrā. Cū in Catholicis veteribus alijs plurimos feramus errores & extenuemus, ex cusemus, excogitato commento persaepe negemus et commodumijs sensū affingamus dum opponuntur in disputationibus aut in conflictionibus cum aduersarijs, &c. to beare with very many errors (as they call them) in the old Catholike writers, and to extenuate them, to excuse them, by some deuised shift to denie them, and to set some conuenient meaning on them, when they are opposed in disputations or in conflicts with their aduersaries. In many questions we shew the antiquitie, the vniuersalitie, the vniforme consent and agreement of the auncient church for vs and against them, and it is strange to see what poore and miserable shifts, yea what impudent and shamelesse deuices they are driuen to, and yet cannot auaile to suppresse the light thereof. In a word, it is plainly found that they haue no cause to bragge of Ʋincentius Lyrinensis, either as doing damage to vs, or yeelding any gaine or aduantage to themselues.
14. W. BISHOP.
Thus M Perkins hauing ended with the Law and Testimony, addeth in a postscript two other slender reasons to his former: the first, that Christ and his Apostles vsed alwayes to confirme their doctrine with the testimonies of Scriptures, and not with Tradition.
Answ. First for our Sauior Iesus Christ, be out of his diuine wisdome [Page 901] deliuered his doctrine most commonly in his owne name, But I say vnto you: and very seldome confirmeth it with any testimony out of the Law. The Euangelists do often note how Christ fulfilled the old prophecies; but neuer or very seldome seeke to confirme his doctrine by testimonies: their owne they do sometimes; but to say they neuer wrote any thing out of Tradition, proceeds of most grosse ignorance. Where had S. Mathew the adoring of the Sages? S Iohn Baptists preaching? briefly, that was done before his owne conuersion, but by tradition. S. Marke wrote the most part of his Gospell out of Tradition receiued from Peter, as witnesseth EusebiusLib. 2. hist. cap. 14.. S. Luke testifieth of himselfe, that he wrote his whole Gospell Cap. 1. as he had receiued it by Tradition from them who were eye-witnesses. What desperate carelesnesse was it then to affirme that the Apostles neuer vsed Tradition to confirme any doctrine? when some of them built, not onely parcels, but their whole Gospels vpon Traditions?
R. ABBOT.
The reasons seeme slender to M. Bishop, but yet the Reader must needs take them to be very strong, in that they are put off with so slender and weake an answer. If the doctrine of faith and of the seruice of God had stood in the old Testament in any part vpō tradition, vndoubtedly our Sauiour Christ would haue made some mention therof; and as he often referreth himself to the Scriptures, so would sometimes haue appealed to tradition also. But that doth he neuer: he reproueth traditions and condemneth them, but neuer vseth one word to approue any. M. Bishop answereth, that Christ most commonly deliuereth his doctrine in his owne name (I say vnto you) and very seldome confirmeth it out of the Law. But that is a very weak and silly shift, yea there is in it apparent and manifest vntruth. For we find our Sauiour in the Gospel more often citing and alledging the Scriptures, then we heare him saying, I say vnto you, as euery Reader may obserue. Againe, where he doth say, I say vnto you, he teacheth vs to vnderstand thatIohn 14, 10. he speaketh not of himselfe, but what he saith, he speaketh as Chrysostome before hath taught vs to construe itChrysost. supra sect. 7. out of the Law and the Prophets, according to the written word of the law and the Prophets, deliuering no point of doctrine but what hath witnesse and confirmation from thence. Thirdly, it is much to be obserued against M. Bishop, that where our Sauiour [Page 902] doth most often vse those words,Mat. 5.18.20. I say vnto you, he vseth them to challenge the written Law frō the corruption of Tradition, and to affirme the original truth thereof. For Tradition had taught men to vnderstād the law literally only & of outward actions, but he shewes in the commandementsVer 22.28. of murther and adultery, that the intention of the Law is extended to the affections of the heart. Tradition had diminished the integritie of the Law, and taken from it,Ver. 34. teaching onely not to forsweare; but he teacheth that the truth of the Law extendeth to vaine and idle swearing. Tradition had added to the Law of it owne deuice, and where God had said, Thou shalt loue thy neighbour, by a corrupt glose put to it, Thou shalt hate thine enemie: but he teacheth that the name ofVer. 44. a neighbour reacheth to them also that are our enemies. Thus he rectifieth that which Tradition had made crooked, but for Tradition he saith nothing. Surely they that thus peruerted the written Law, would haue peruerted Traditions also, if there had bene any; and Christ would haue restored the integritie thereof, but there is no surmise giuen vs of any such matter. We heare him often saying,Mat. 19.4. Haue ye not read? andChap. 21.13. It is written, andLuke 10.26. What is written in the law, how readest thou? but we neuer heare him saying, Haue ye not thus receiued by Tradition? He telleth the Saduces,Mat. 22.29. Ye erre, because ye know not the Scriptures: and the cause of the Disciples error was noted,Iohn 20.9. As yet they knew not the Scripture: but no where doth he note the not knowing of Tradition for any cause of error. He saith,Iohn 5.39. Search the Scriptures, they testifie of me, but he neuer saith, search after Traditions, they are they that testifie of me.Mat. 26 54. How then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, saith he, but neuer mentioneth the fulfilling of any thing that was deliuered by tradition.Luke 24.27. He interpreted to his Disciples in all Scriptures the things which were written of him, but out of Tradition he interpreted nothing vnto them.Ver. 45. He opened their vnderstanding that they might vnderstand the Scriptures, but we reade not of giuing them vnderstanding of Traditions. Thus the Euangelists from place to place, vpon diuers occasions do set downeMat. 1.22. & 2.17. &c. the fulfilling of those things which were spoken by the Prophets, mentioning the things which are wri [...]en, but neuer once speake of the fulfilling of Tradition. And what? will M. Bishop haue vs to dreame as idlely as he doth, that there were Traditions from God beside the Scriptures, when we find these infinit references to the Scriptures, and to Traditions [Page 903] none at all? He telleth vs a childish tale, that the Euangelists very seldome confirme Christs doctrine by testimonies, but their owne they do sometimes, as if the doctrine of the Euangelists were not the doctrine of Christ; and shewing that he is little acquainted with the reading of the Euangelists, who maketh that very seldome which is so often done. And when it is done, it is done by Scripture only, neuer by Tradition; which is the point whereto he should haue answered, and he saith nothing to it. Onely he lewdly abuseth the ignorant Reader, by seeming to say somwhat, when that which he saith is but an impertinent vagary, and concerneth not that that is obiected to him. To say that they neuer wrote any thing out of tradition (saith he) proceedeth of most grosse ignorance. Where had Mathew the adoring of the Sages? &c. Pelting brabler, what is this to that that M. Perkins saith? Christ and his Apostles in infinite places confirme that which they preach by the doctrine of former times; they signifie, the fulfilling of those things which were of old taught vnto the people of God. They neuer confirme any thing but by Scripture; they mention nothing fulfilled that was taught by Tradition, but only by Scripture. Tell vs M. Bishop how could this be, if there were Tradition beside the Scripture? We aske you not whence the Euangelists had the history of those times whereof they wrote, but how it commeth to passe that they neuer mention anything deliuered by tradition in former times? But these are the iuggling tricks of shifting companions, deluding the eyes of the simple with shadows and empty colours, maliciously oppugning the truth when as they haue nothing to say against it. In that that we say, is nothing but what S. Hierom said long ago,Hieron. in Mat. 13. Quicquid in Euangelio praedicabant, legis & prophetarū vocibus comprobarūt. Whatsoeuer the Apostles preached in the Gospell, they preached it by the words of the law and the Prophets: wherof it followeth against M. Bishop, that they taught no doctrine by tradition, but only by the scriptures As for his questions, wheras he demandeth where S. Mathew had the adoring of the Sages and Iohn Baptists peaching, &c. I answer him first with the like question; where had Moses the story of the creation of the world, and the knowledge of those things which God inGen. 11.6. & 18.17.20. sundry places is brought in speaking as with himselfe? I suppose he wil answer, that he receiued the same from him that made the world, from him that was the author of those speeches. So say we that Mathew learned the worshipping of Christ by the Sages of Christ himself whom they worshipped: [Page 904] he learned Iohn Baptists preaching of him whō Iohn Baptist preached. He learned his Gospell as Paul did, who saith of himself,Gal. 1.12. Neither receiued I it of man, neither was I taught it but by the reuelation of Iesus Christ. As touching the Gospel of S. Mark, Eusebius reporteth, that the faithfullEuseb. hist lib. 2. cap. 15. Non suffecran [...] illis semel audita, nec contenti fuerunt non scripta diuinae praedicationis doctrina, sed Marcum omnigena obsecratione obtestati sunt vt commentarios ipsis doctrinae eius quam verbo traditā accepissent literis comprehensos relinquerent, nec destiterunt donec viro persuaserint, &c. Aiunt autem Petrum cùm ex instinctu spiritus sancti factum hoc cognonisset, delectatū esse virorum istorū voluntate & scriptum hoc Euangelium Ecclesius ad legendū authoritate suae confirmasse. who had heard the preaching of S. Peter, not thinking that sufficient, nor contented with the doctrine of that diuine preaching vnwritten, most earnestly intreated Marke that he would leaue them in writing the commentaries or records of the doctrine which they had deliuered vnto them by word, and ceased not till they had perswaded him thereto. Now they say (saith he) that the Apostle when he vnderstood this to haue bene done by the instinct of the holy Ghost, ioyed much in the desire of those men, and by his authoritie warranted this Gospell in writing to the reading of the Church. Now this story is well worthy to be obserued. The faithfull had heard the preaching of Peter: they thought Tradition to be a very vncertaine keeper of the doctrine which they had heard: they desire to haue the same left vnto them in writing, to that purpose they intreate Mark the scholer and follower of Peter; the thing is done by the instinct of the holy Ghost; Peter acknowledgeth so much, and by his testimonie approueth the Gospell thus written to the reading of the Church. Who would not here wonder that M. Bishop should alledge this story for patronage of his traditions, which shewes that the church from the beginning was so iealous and fearfull of resting vpon tradition? S. Luke wrote his storieLuke 1.2. as they deliuered who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word, they2. Cor. 13.3. in whom Christ spake, and whose word was 1. Thess. 2 13. the word of God, the word of the preaching of God. Yea and what he wrote, he wrote also as S. Marke did by the instinct of the holy Ghost, because as S. Paul telleth vs,2. Tim. 3.16. all Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God: and as of prophecie, so of the Gospell also we must vnderstand that2. Pet. 1.21. it came not by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moued by the holy Ghost. August de consens. Euangel. lib. 1. cap. 35. Cum ille scripserunt quae ille ostendit & dixit nequaquam dicendum est quôd ipse no scripserit, quandoquidem membra eius id operata sunt quod dictante capite cognonerunt. Quicquid enira ille de suis factis & dictis nos legere volun, hoc scribendum illis tanquam suis manibus imperauit. When the disciples wrote (saith S. Austin) what Christ shewed & said vnto thē, it is not to be said that he did not write, because the members wrought that which they learned by the inditing of the head. For whatsoeuer he would haue vs to reade of the things which he did and said, he gaue in charge to them as his hands to write the same. Now therefore the [Page 905] Euangelists grounded not their Gospels vpon Traditions, that is, vpon report from man to man, but vpon the immediate oracle and instinct of God himselfe. But the absurd Sophister dallieth by an equiuocation of the word tradition, and whereas it is questioned betwixt vs in one meaning, he bringeth proofe for it in another meaning. The word originally may import any thing that is deliuered howsoeuer either by word or writing. Whatsoeuer God saith vnto vs, it may in this sort be called Gods tradition, because he hath so deliuered vnto vs. Thus doth Cyprian call that which we reade in the written gospell,Cyprian. lib. 2. epist. 3. Adradicem atque originem traditionis Dominicae reuertatur. In calice dominico offerendo custodire tradiotionis dominicae veritatem. the originall of the Lords tradition, and willeth in the Lords cup to keepe the truth of the Lords tradition. Thus whatsoeuer we haue receiued in the Scriptures was first Tradition as deliuered by word, and still is Tradition because it is deliuered in writing, tradition signifying whatsoeuer is deliuered, as before was said. But though the word in it selfe haue this generall and indifferent signification of any thing that is deliuered, yet in our disputation it is restrained to one onely maner of deliuering, by word and relation onely, and not by Scripture: and therefore where Irenaeus saith,Jren. lib. 3. cap. 1. Euangeliū nobis in Scripturis tradiderunt, he that should translate as M. Bishop doth, they deliuered the Gospell by tradition in the Scriptures, should shew himselfe as absurd a man as M. Bishop is, because he setteth downe two opposite members of a distinction, and confoundeth them both in one. Now then the question is not in the generall signification, whether the Gospell were a tradition, that is, a thing deliuered frō God, or whether it were a tradition by word, that is, a thing deliuered by word, but whether of that traditiō, that is, of that doctrine deliuered from God by word, any part were left vnwritten to go thenceforth vnder the name of vnwritten tradition. We denie not but that the whole Law and Gospell is the Lords tradition: we denie not but that the Euangelists in the historie of Christ had things first deliuered vnto them by word, which they should afterwards commit to writing, although in the writing thereof inspired of God,Iohn 14.26. the holy Ghost bringing all things to their remembrance, and guiding them in what sort they should set them downe; but we denie that either in the Law or in the Gospell there was any thing left vnwritten that concerneth vs to know for attaining of true faith and righteousnes towards God. To come now to the point, howsoeuer the Euangelists [Page 906] built their Gospels vpon Tradition, that is, vpon that that was then deliuered vnto them, whether by Christ or by his Apostles, yet what is this to prooue that they confirmed any doctrine, that is, any part of this tradition now deliuered vnto them, by tradition of former times, that is, by any doctrine left vnwritten by Moses and the Prophets? This was the matter in hand, why then doth M. Bishop seeke thus in a cloud to steale away? He telleth vs of desperate carelesnesse, thinking to carry the matter with desperate words, but we must tell him, that it is desperate trechery in him thus to mocke his Reader with boisterous babling, when he saith nothing to prooue that that he should, that either the Apostles prooued any doctrine by vnwritten tradition of the old Testament, or left any thing to be prooued by vnwritten tradition in the new.
15. W. BISHOP.
His other reason is, that if we beleeue vnwritten traditions were necessary to saluation, then we must as well beleeue the writings of the ancient Fathers, as the writings of the Apostles: because Apostolicall traditions are not elsewhere to be found but in their bookes: but that were absurd, for they might erre.
Answer. That doth not follow for three causes: First, Apostolical traditions are as wel kept in the mind of the learned, as in the ancient fathers writings, and therefore haue more credit then the Fathers writings. Secondly, they are commonly recorded of more then one of the Fathers, and so haue firmer testimony then any one of their writings. Thirdly, if there should be any Apostolicall tradition related but of one auncient father, yet it should be of more credit than any other thing of his owne inuention, because that was registred by him as a thing of more estimation. And aagaine, some of the rest of those blessed and godly personages would haue reproued it as they did all other falshoods, if it had not bin such indeed as it was termed: which when they did not, they gaue a secret approbation of it for such, and so that hath the interpretatiue consent at least of the learned of that age, and the following for Apostolicall tradition.
But Master Perkins proues the contrary by Saint Paul, who saith, Act. 26.22. That I continue to this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying no other thing then that which the Prophets and Moses did say should come. Why make you here a full point: let Saint Paul [Page 907] make an end of his speech, and tell vs for what points of doctrine he alledgeth Moses and the Prophets: Marrie to proue that Christ should suffer death, and rise againe, and that he should giue light to the Gentiles. For these and such like, which were euidently fore-told in holy writ, he needed not to alledge any other proofe: but when he was to perswade them to abandon Moses Law, he then deliuered to them the decrees of the Apostles, and taught them to keepe them: Act. 16. As also when he instructed the Corinthians in the Sacrament of the Altar, he beginneth with Tradition, saying: 1. Cor. 11. I deliuer vnto you as I haue receiued from our Lord, not in writing, but by word of mouth. And in the same Chapter putteth downe the contentious Scripturist, with the custome of the Church, saying, If any man lust to striue, we haue no such custome: so that out of S. Paul, we learne to alledge Scriptures, when they be plaine for vs, and when they beare not so cleare with vs, to pleade Tradition, and the custome of the Church.
R. ABBOT.
It is strange to see how M. Bishop hath slubbered ouer this matter, being of so great moment and importance for the authoritie and credit of their traditions. They tell vs that traditions vnwritten, are a part of the word of God. The councell of Trent professethCōcil. Trident. ses. 4 cap. 1. Pari pietatis affectu ac reuerentia suscipit, &c. to receiue them with the like affection of pietie and reuerence, as they do the holy Scripture. Now we desire to know by what testimonie or warrant we may be secured particularly what these traditions are; for if they be alike to be esteemed with those things that are contained in the Scriptures, there is reason that they be approued vnto vs by testimoniall & witnesse equiualent to the Scriptures. If then the writings of the auncient fathers be made the witnesses of these traditions, we must beleeue the writings of the auncient fathers, as well as we beleeue the Scriptures. M. Bishop telleth vs that traditions are as well kept in the mindes of the learned, as in the auncient fathers writings, and therefore haue more credit then the fathers writings. So then belike the mindes of the learned, together with the writings of the auncient fathers, are of equall credit and authoritie with the Scriptures, and if Maister Perkins had put in both these, then Maister Bishop had not had a word to say. But [Page 908] we must yet aske further, whence or vpon what ground do the mindes of the learned accept of these traditions. If he will say, that they receiue them of the fathers, then the argument still standeth good. If he say that they receiue them of other learned that were before them, then it must be said that they also receiued them from other learned that were before them, and so vpward till we come to the fathers, and so in fine it must fall out, that the fathers must be alike beleeued as the holy Scriptures. If M. Bishop be ashamed to say so, let him tell vs otherwise what it is that we shall certainly rest vpō. But alas good man, we see he cannot tell what to say; only Bellarmine telleth vs, thatBellarm. de sacram. lib. 2 ca. 25. Omnium cō ciliorū veterum & omnium dogmatum firmitas ab authoritate praesentis ecclesiae dependet. the assured certainty of all councels and of all doctrines of faith, dependeth vpō the authority of the present Church. Now then the testimony of the present Church, is made of equall & like authority with the holy Scriptures, and Bellarmine is in as pitifull a case as M. Bishop is. For the testimonie of the present Church, what is it but the testimony of the learned of the present Church, & therfore now the mindes of the learned are as good an oracle of truth as the Scriptures are. If this be not so, let vs heare from M. Bishop what else is to be said hereof; for if traditions be to be receiued with like deuotion & reuerence, as those things that we are taught in Scripture, then there must be somewhat or other to commend the same vnto vs with the like authority as the Scripture doth the rest, and what that is we are desirous to vnderstand. Now M. Bishop addeth two further exceptions against M. Perkins argument, and they are such wise ones, as that we may very well think them to be his own. Secondly, saith he, they are commonly recorded of more then one of the fathers, and so haue firmer testimonie then any one of their writings. But what is this to M. Perkins his speech, which is not restrained to any one of the fathers writings, but taketh them iointly, and inferreth it as an absurdity, that the writings of the fathers being taken all together, should be made equall in credit to the holy Scriptures. Thirdly, saith he, a tradition being related but by one auncient father, yet should be of more credit then any other of his owne inuention, because that was registred by him as a matter of more estimation. But what idle babling is this? what maketh this to the clearing of the point in question? He will haue vs to receiue traditions with the like pietie and reuerence, as we doe those things that we are instructed by the Scripture. He putteth a case of a tradition, reported [Page 909] by one onely of the fathers. He should hereupon haue answered how we can in that sort admit of such a tradition as Apostolicall, but by yeelding the like credit to that one father as we do to the holy Scriptures. But he like a man in a wood, that knoweth not which way he is to go, telleth vs that this tradition is of more credit then any other of his owne inuention, because it was registred by him as a matter of more estimation. O the sharpe wits of these Romish Doctours, that can diue so deepe into matters, and talke so profoundly, that they themselues vnderstand not what they say. To as little purpose is that which he addeth, that if that tradition were not as it was termed, some of the rest of the fathers would haue reproued it, which when they did not, they gaue it their interpretative consent to be Apostolicall tradition. But let the consent be either interpretatiue or expresse; what is this against the consequence of the argument which he taketh vpon him to answer, that if we must receiue traditions in that sort as they require vs, and haue no where to ground them but vpon the testimonie of the fathers, then we must giue as much credit to the testimonie of the fathers, as we do to the holy Scriptures. I am forced thus odiously to inculcate the matter in question, to make the ridiculous folly of this wrangler the more plainely to appeare, who hauing nothing to say, yet hath not so much wit as to hold his peace. In this simplicity he goeth forward to answere the place of the Acts, where Saint Paule is brought in saying,Acts. 26.22. I continue to this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying no other things then those which the Prophets and Moses did say should come. In which words it is plaine, that the Apostle professed in the preaching of the Gospell, [...]. &c. to say nothing without the compasse of those things which had beene before spoken by Moses and the Prophets. M Bishop answereth, that he meaneth onely of those things which he addeth, That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, &c. For these things, saith he, euidently foretold in holy writ, he needed not to alledge any other proofe. Yea but what other proofe doth he vse for any other doctrine? Forsooth when he was to perswade them to abandon Moses law, he then deliuered to them the decrees of the Apostles, & taught them to keepe them. Yea, but Paul preached a long while before those decrees of the Apostles were made, as appeareth frō his conuersion in the ninth Chapter, to the fifteenth Chapter, where [Page 910] those decrees are made; and all this while what other proofe did he vse, but onely the Scriptures of Moses and the Prophets? Do we not thinke that this man hath wonderfully hardened both his heart to God, and his face to men, that can apply himselfe to write in this sort? He well knoweth that the question is not here of new decrees, but of old traditions, what proofe the Apostle had, or what ground of doctrine from the old testament, but onely the Scriptures of the law and the Prophets? The Apostle himselfe saith, he had no other, he taught nothing, but according to the written bookes of the old testament, according to that which elsewhere he saith, thatRom. 16.26 the Gospell was published amongst all nations, by the Scriptures of the Prophets. For a summarie briefe thereof, he nameth the suffering and resurrection of Christ, &c. but he that saith that herewith he preached any thing but what was warranted by Moses and the Prophets, maketh him to dally and to speake a manifest vntruth, in that he saith that he spake nothing without the compasse of those things which Moses and the Prophets prophecied before. Now the wise man for instance against this telleth vs, that he deliuered the decrees of the Apostles, and taught them to keepe them. Which beside that it is nothing to the purpose, as hath bene said, doth also set forth his notable sillinesse and folly, in that for proofe of traditions and doctrines vnwritten, he bringeth the example of the Apostles decrees, which are expresly mentioned to haue bene sent to the Churches in writing,Acts. 15.23. They wrote letters by them after this manner, &c. But in the height of his wisedome, he goeth forward to proue the same by another speech, When he instructed the Corinthians in the Sacrament of the Altar, he beginneth with tradition, saying, I deliuer vnto you as I haue receiued from our Lord, not in writing but by word of mouth. Surely the mans head was wonderfull quaifie in the writing hereof, or else we must thinke that he was in some traunce. I deliuer vnto you not in writing but by word of mouth, when notwithstanding in his Epistle, he sendeth it to them in writing. Or what, doth he meane that the Apostle receiued it of our Lord, not in writing, but by word of mouth? But what is that to the purpose, when he deliuered the same here by writing, and not by word of mouth? He had heard there was some text or other there for his purpose, but neither did he well know it, nor had leisure to seeke it out. The words of the Apostle are these, I haue [Page 911] receiued of the Lord that which I haue also deliuered vnto you. Now we conceiue M. Bishops meaning, though his vnderstanding being very muddie, failed him so exceedingly in the expressing of it. The Apostle forsooth giueth to vnderstand, that he first deliuered vnto them the institution of the Lords supper not in writing, but by word of mouth. And what of that? Doth it therefore follow, that by tradition of the old testament the Apostle proued any doctrine of the new? If this do not follow, his allegation is bruite and bootlesse, and he shooteth wholy beside the marke. The Apostle professeth to haue deliuered what he receiued of the Lord; but what he receiued of the Lord, was according to the Scriptures of Moses and the Prophets. For the outward signes of the Sacrament were prefigured in Melchisedeck, bringing forthGenes. 14.18. bread and wine for the corporall refection of Abrahams armie, as the heauenly Melchisedeck should bring forth bread and wine for the spirituall refection and comfort of the sonnes of Abraham. As for the doctrine and faith imported by these signes, it is no other but what M. Bishop himself confesseth to haue bene euidently foretold in holy writ, namely that Christ should die for our sinnes, and should rise againe from the dead, to become a light and saluation vnto vs, the Apostle himselfe instructing vs the end thereof to be,1. Cor. 11.26. to shew the Lords death till he come. Here was then no neede to flie to vnwritten tradition, but of this institution the Apostles words stand good, that he said nothing but what the Prophets and Moses did say should come. And thus the fathers, and namelyTertull. adu. Marcion. per tot. Tertullian, to shew against the Marcionites, that there is but one God of the old and new testament, and not two Gods aduerse one to the other, as those heretikes blasphemously affirmed, do set downe the accord of the Scriptures of the new testament with the old, and the fulfilling of the one in the other, but of traditions in the new testament according with traditions in the old, they neuer spake a word, which yet in that cause had bene very needfull, if there had bene any such. But M. Bishop being like the Lynx turning about and forgetting what he was feeding vpon, will tell vs perhaps, that whatsoeuer he had in hand, his meaning in the alledging of this place, was simply to proue the Apostles approuing of traditions. And if he tell vs so, surely we will not denie, but that it is indeede full simply done. The Apostle saith that he first deliuered the institution of the Sacrament by word of [Page 912] mouth. What, must we therefore thinke that it was not afterwards cōmitted to writing? The contrary appeareth, in that we see it here written by himselfe. What is there here then to hinder, but that as the Sacrament first deliuered by word, was afterwards committed to writing, so all other points of Christian doctrine & faith, though deliuered at first by word and preaching, yet were afterwards set downe in writing, and deliuered vnto vs in the Scriptures? And if nothing hinder, as indeede there doth not, then let him vnderstand that this place is very simply and impertinently brought for traditions vnwritten. To fill vp the measure of his folly, he telleth vs yet further, that the Apostle in the same Chapter putteth downe the contentious Scripturist, with the custome of the Church, saying, If any man lust to striue, we haue no such custome. Where a man might oppose him very hard, if he should aske him why those words of the Apostle do not belong to the Traditionist, as well as to the Scripturist. We know his dreames are very strong, but otherwise why he should apply these words to the Scripturist, he himselfe cannot well tell. Againe, it would be knowne of him what custome the Apostle affirmeth here. We heare him saying, We haue no such custome, but we do not heare him saying, We haue a custome. And therefore M. Bishops alledging of these words in behalfe of customes of the Church, may well make vs thinke, that in the doing of it he had the very same head on that he is accustomed to haue, to say nothing that he was much distressed for traditions and customes, when he tooke not to be contentious, to be an vnwritten tradition and custome of the Church. So that his conclusion is like a body without either head or feete, wanting strength to carie him so farre as he is desirous to go, and because the Apostles doctrine was neither according to vnwritten traditions nor customes, but according to the Scriptures onely, we learne that neither tradition nor custome, but Scripture onely must beare sway for directing and prescribing true faith and doctrine in the Church.
16 W. BISHOP.
Hitherto I haue confuted what M. Perkins brought against Traditions. Now to that which he saith for them in our behalfe.
First, saith he, the Catholikes alledge, 2. Thes. 2.15. Where, the Apostle bids [Page 913] the Church to keepe the ordinances which he taught them, either by word of mouth, or by Epistle: Hence they gather that besides the written word, there be vnwritten traditions that are necessary to be kept and obeyed.
M. Perkins Answer. It is likely that this Epistle to the Thessalonians was the first that euer Paul wrote to any Church: and then some things needefull to saluation might be deliuered by word of mouth: but that was afterwards written in some others of his Epistles.
Reply. Obserue first, that insteede of Traditions (according to the Greeke and Latine word,) they translate [...]. Ordinances; euer flying the word Tradition, where any thing is spoken in cōmendation of them. But if any thing sound against them, then thrust they in the word Tradition, although the Greeke word beare it not. See for this their corruption, and many other, a learned Treatise, named, The Discouerie of false translations penned by Maister Gregory Martin, a man most singularly cō uersant in the Greeke and Hebrew tongues.
Secondly, is it not plaine dotage, to auouch that this second Epistle to the Thessalonians, was the first that euer he wrote? Surely, if none of his other were written before it, yet his first to the same Church must needes haue bene written before it. But let vs giue the man leaue to dreame some-times. To the point of the answer, that all was written after in some other of his Epistles, which before had bene deliuered by word of mouth. How proueth M. Perkins that? the man hath such confidence in his owne word, that he goeth not once about to proue it. Good Sir, hold you not here; that nothing is needfull to be beleeued, which is not written in the word? Shew vs then where it is written in the word, that S. Paul wrote in his latter Epistles, that which he taught by word of mouth before, or else by your owne rule it is not needfull to beleeue it. But yet for a more full satisfaction of the indifferent Reader, I will set downe the opinions of some of the auncientest and best Interpreters of this place of the Apostle, that we may see whether they thought that S. Paul committed all to writing, and left nothing by tradition.
Saint Chrysostome in his most learned and eloquent Commentaries vpon this text, concludeth thus: Hereupon it is manifest that the Apostles deliuered not all in their Epistles, but many things also vnwritten; and those things are as well to be beleeued, as the written. Oecumenius and Theophylactus vpon that place teach the same.
S. BasilDe spu. ca. 27. speaketh thus, I hold it Apostolicall to perseuer in Traditions not written: for the Apostle saith, I commend you that ye are mindfull of my precepts: and, do hold the Traditions, euen as I deliuered them vnto you: and then alledgeth this text: Hold the Traditions which you haue receiued of me either by Word or Epistle.
S. Iohn Damascen accordeth with the former saying, Lib. 4. De fide cap. 17. That the Apostles deliuered many things without writing. S. Paul doth testifie, when he writeth, Therefore brethren stand and hold the Traditions which haue bene taught you either by word of mouth or by Epistle. These holy and iudicious expositors of S. Paul, free from all partiality, gather out of this text of his, that many things necessary to be beleeued, euen vntill their daies remained vnwritten, and were religiously obserued by Tradition; which throweth flat to the ground M. Perkins his false supposition (fenced with neither reason nor authority) that Saint Paul put in writing afterward all that he had first taught by word of mouth.
Moreouer Saint Paul immediatly before his death in one of the last of his Epistles, commaundeth his deare disciple Timothy,2. Tim. 2. To commend vnto the faithfull, that which he heard of him by many witnesses; and not that onely which he should finde written in some of his Epistles, or in the written Gospell.
R. ABBOT.
Heere M. Bishop beginneth with the taxing of our translations, for that we do not say, stand fast and keepe the traditions, but stand fast and keepe the ordinances, or the instructions which ye haue bene taught, blaming vs for that we vse the word traditions, where any thing soundeth against them, but vtterly reiect it where any thing is spoken in commendation of them. But the reason of our translating in that sort is iust and godly, because our translation maketh nothing against that tradition which the Apostle intendeth in the Greek, & excludeth the stumbling block that might lye in the way of the more simple Readers, by meanes that Popish abuse hath caused the word to sound to a meaning altogether contrary to the intent of the Apostle. Where the word traditiō carieth the same sence wherin it is now vsed, we set it down; but where [...] in Greek [Page 915] importeth not that which custome hath made the word tradition to sound in English, good reason is there that we leaue the word tradition, and take rather some other word that may come most nearely to the expressing of the Greek. Tyrant of old time did signifie a King, till by the abuse of Kings the name grew opprobrious and hatefull, and is now vsed to signifie a cruell and vsurping king. He therefore that should now translate tyrannus, a king, should be thought scarcely well to enioy his wits. Translations are alwaies to be framed according to the proprietie and vse of words then vsually receiued when they are done, and to do otherwise cannot but breed mis-understanding of many things. And we would gladly know, why we may not aswell translate [...], ordinances, or instructions, as their Latine interpreter translateth it1. Cor. 11.2. praecepta, and they precepts in their English. Albeit for the auoyding of their cauill I would rather translate it,2. Thess. 2.15. Stand fast and keepe the things deliuered, which ye haue bene taught either by word or by our Epistle. But here M. Bishop referreth his Reader to a learned treatise as he calleth it, named, The discouerie of false translations, penned by Gregory Martin, there to see somewhat for this corruption and many other. I would not wish the Reader to forbeare to looke vpon that booke, onely I wish him withall to take knowledge of Doctor Fulkes answer to it, and he shall see a discouerie of a number of futilous and vaine cauillations heaped together in that discouerie. Gregorie Martin wrote his pretended discouerie to be a bellowes to blow vp treason and insurrection against his Prince, but when he failed of his hope, and his calumniations were laid open, his heart neuer serued him to defend what he had written, because howsoeuer some things there were that with some probabilitie he might cauill at, yet in the most he was made so naked, that he knew not how to couer his owne shame. But he is long since gone to his iudge, & hath learned what it is to fight against Gods truth. But to come to the matter in hand, M. Perkins cannot be excused of too much negligence in his answer to this place. He taketh the second Epistle to the Thessalonians to be the first, and by that meanes nameth that for very likely which is very vntrue, and so with mention of a bare likelihood passeth ouer the argument without giuing any good satisfaction to him that would require it. Thus it is true which the Poet saith, Aliquando bonus dormitat Homerus, and because M. [Page 916] Bishop dreameth so often, he must needes giue him leaue to dreame somtimes. To supply that wherin M. Perkins failed, we answer him, that the traditions which the Apostle recommendeth to the Thessalonians,1. Cor. 15.3.4. were no other but such as he mentioneth to the Corinthians, according to the Scriptures. S. Ambrose maketh the effect of his exhortation to be this:Ambros in 2. Thess. cap 2. In traditione Euangelij standum ac perseuerandum monet. to warne them to stand fast, and to perseuere in the tradition of the Gospell. Rom. 1.2. The Gospell (as before hath bene noted out of the Apostles wordes) was promised before of God by his Prophets in the holy Scriptures, and therefore was accordinglyCap. 16.26. preached by the Scriptures of the Prophets. The storie saith, that Paule at his being at Thessalonica,Act. 17.2.3. opened and declared by the Scriptures, that it behooued Christ to suffer, and to rise againe from the dead, and that this was Iesus Christ, whom (saith he) I preach vnto you. Being driuen from thence to Berea by the outrage of the Iewes, he preached there also, andVer. 11. they who receiued the word, searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things (which they taught) were so: whereby it appeareth that the word which he preached in both places, was no other but according to the Scriptures. Thus we haue heard him before, saying, thatCap. 26.22. he spake nothing beside those things which Moses and the Prophets did say should be. Now all the doctrine of the Gospell that is set downe in the Scriptures of Moses and the Prophets, is fully contained in the Scriptures of the new Testament. Seeing therefore the traditions, that is, those things which the Apostle deliuered to the Thessalonians, were wholy according to the Scriptures of Moses and the Prophets, it must necessarily follow, that in the Scriptures of the new Testament the same are fully and perfectly contained, and so on both sides now can be no other but according to the Scriptures. We are out of doubt, that the Apostle preached to the Thessalonians the whole doctrine of the Gospell, which we find set downe in writing by the Euangelists, and by himselfe & other the Apostles in their Epistles to other Churches. In his former Epistle to the Thessalonians he did not set downe that whole doctrine which is written by them. Now we cannot make question but that his meaning was to exhort them to perseuere in the whole: as in those things which he expressed in his Epistle, so in the rest also which we find written by himselfe and others. Therefore the traditions or things deliuered by word, haue a necessarie and vndeniable construction [Page 917] of all the rest of the written doctrine of the Gospell that is not set downe in that first Epistle to the Thessalonians. Our exposition then is irrefragable and infallible, that the Apostle by those words hath reference to those things which are written otherwhere, but Master Bishop hath no argument to euict that he intended any thing that is written no where. Because therefore we haue a meaning of the wordes whereof we are certaine and sure, we rest there, and list not to admit a further meaning whereof we can haue no assurance. As for that which he cauilleth of, whether Paule in his Epistles wrote all that he preached by word, I answer him, that he wrote the effect and vse of all, but not all whereof that vse is to be made, because many things are written by the Euangelists necessarie for the vse of Christian faith, which are not written in the Epistles of Saint Paule, though by him they were deliuered to the Churches to which he preached. But though he wrote not all that was needfull to be written, yet we beleeue the testimony that he hath giuen in that Epistle which he wrote last, euen a little before his death, when almost al the bookes of the new Testament were now written, that2. Tim. 3.15. the Scriptures are able to make a man wise vnto saluation, through the faith which is in Christ Iesus: and therefore that, what by him and others, there is so much written as concerneth vs to know for our instruction in the religion and faith of Iesus Christ. Now whereas M. Bishop to proue the contrarie, alledgeth the expositions of some of the Fathers concerning those wordes of the Apostle to the Thessalonians, I may well answer him as Austine answered Hierome, pressing him in the like sort, with the names of sundry of the Fathers that were before thē:Aug. Epist. 19 Ad ipsum confugio: ad ipsum ab omnibus qui aliter sentiunt literarum eius tractatoribus prouoco. I flie to Paul himselfe, to him I appeale from all expositors of his writings that thinke otherwise. He hath told vs, that the Scriptures are able to make vs wise vnto saluation, & therfore we do not beleeue thē that tell vs, that his meaning is in the other place, that we haue need of traditions beside the Scripture for supply of that wisedom. Yea & their collection as M. Bishop conceiueth of it, cannot stand good. It appeareth by those words of the Apostle, that he deliuered more to the Thessalonians by word, then is contained in his former Epistle to thē, but it doth not therfore follow that he deliuered more vnto thē then is cōtained in the Scriptures. No reason can there be deuised to make good this cōnexiō. But to examine thē [Page 918] particularly, first we may not thinke Chrysostome so forgetfull, as that he should crosse that which in the very next Homily before he hath said:Chrysost. in 2. Thess. hom. 3. Omnia clara sunt & pla [...]a ex Scripturis diuinis: quaecunque necessaria sunt, manifesta sunt. All things are cleare and euident by the holy Scriptures: whatsoeuer things are necessarie, they are manifest. Surely if any thing be to be cleared by tradition beside the Scripture, then it cannot be said that all necessarie things are manifest by the Scriptures. And therefore whereas he saith, Hereby it appeareth that the Apostles deliuered not all in their Epistles, but many things also vnwritten, and both the one and the other are alike to be beleeued, we must vnderstand it of that tradition which the Church holdeth collected and gathered from the Scriptures, though it be not literally expressed therein. Thus the baptising of infants, and the not rebaptising of them that haue bene baptized by heretikes, and the administring of the Lords supper onely by the Minister, and such like, haue bene alwaies holden by the Church, and defended by the Scriptures, and yet they are no where literally contained in the Epistles of the Apostles. In such things Chrysostome requireth a man to submit himself in peace to that which the Church practiseth being grounded vpon the Scripture, and not contentiously to wrangle against it, because it is not in very words contained therein. But if any tradition be vrged vpon vs that hath no ground or warrant from the Scripture, good reason we aske, as Cyprian did of Stephanus, Cyprian. ad Pomp. supra Sect. 5. Whence is this tradition? Cometh it from the authoritie of Christ, or of the Gospell, or from the instructions and Epistles of the Apostles? For God testifieth, that we are to do those things which are written. Si ergo aut in Euangelio praecipitur, aut Apostolorum Epistolis, aut Actibus continetur, obseruetur certè haec sancta traditio. Therefore if this tradition be commanded in the Gospell, or in the Epistles or Acts of the Apostles, let it be obserued and kept for holy. Whereby he will haue it vnderstood, that if it be not there warranted, it is not to be obserued. The tradition which he there impugneth is taught indeed by the Gospell, though he conceiued not so, but hereby he teacheth vs, that it was to stand for a certaine rule, that no tradition could be iustly approued without warrant of the Gospell. And therefore Chrysostome himselfe also teacheth vs otherwhere, thatChrysost. in Psal. 95. Siquid dicitur absque Scripturis, auditorum cogitatio claudicat [...] vbi verò ex Scripturis diuinae vocit prodijt testimonium & loquentis sermonem & audientis animū confirmat. if any thing be spoken without Scripture, the mind of the hearers goeth lame; but when out of the Scriptures cometh the testimonie of the voyce of God, it confirmeth both the speech of him that speaketh, and the mind of him that heareth. Neither doth it sufficiently giue this confirmation to alledge generally, that the Scripture speaketh of traditions, because it is still a [Page 919] question whether those be the traditions which the Scripture speaketh of, vnlesse by the Scripture it selfe they be iustified so to be. To Chrysostome M. Bishop addeth Oecumonius and Theophilact, but as they take their exposition out of Chrysostome, so in him they haue their answer. Next he bringeth in a sentence vnder the name of Basil, which is not onely suspected by Erasmus and others, but may by the place it selfe be well presumed to be none of his. There is good cause to thinke, that the Cuckow hath plaid her part, and laid her egges in Basils nest: that some counterfeit to grace himselfe hath not sticked to disgrace him, by putting to him patcheries of his own deuice. To say nothing of the difference of style, and other arguments noted by Erasmus, we may obserue how he maketh Basil cō trarie to himselfe, not onely to those rules which he hath giuen otherwhere, but euen to the course which he hath before professed in this booke, yea and maketh a seuerall question of that whereof Basil in the beginning of his book seuerally propoundeth nothing. The matter as Basil declareth was this:Basil de spir. Sanct. cap. 1. Glorificationem absoluens Deo ac Patri interdum cum ficio ipsius ac Spiritu sancto interdum per filium in Spiritu sancto. that in his prayers in the Church for conclusion, he would sometimes pronounce glorie to God and the Father, with his Sonne and the holy Ghost, and sometimes by the Sonne in the holy Ghost. SomeCap. 2. affected as he conceiueth to the heresie of Aerius or Arius, blamed him for saying with the Sonne and the holy Ghost, affirming that seuerall termes should be vsed of the three Persons, of the Father, and by the Sonne, and in the holy Ghost, intending that in this diuersity of phrases, a diuersitie of natures should be vnderstood. He sheweth that the heretikes borrowed this fancieCap. 3. from the curiosities of vaine Philosophie, and propoundethCap. 4. that in the Scriptures no such difference of those syllables is obserued. This he prosecutethCap. 5. at large, and in the end propoundeth his aduersaries obiection:Cap. 6. in sine that this manner of speaking, with the Sonne, was strange and vnusuall, but by the Sonne, was familiar in the phrase of Scripture, and accustomed with the brethren. He answereth, thatCap. 7. the Church acknowledged the vse of both those speeches, and did not reiect either of them, as if the one did ouerthrow the other. He affirmeth, that so many as did keepe the tradition of their auncestors without alteration in all countries and cities, did vse this speech. Therefore euen the very countrey clownes (saith he) do so pronounce according to the maner of their forefathers. That then which hath bene said by our auncestors, we also say, that glorie is common to [Page 920] the Father with the Sonne, and therefore we sing hymnes of glorification to the Father together with the Sonne. But he addeth, which is the thing that we are specially to obserue,Quanquā hoc nobis non est satis sic à patribus esse traditum, nam & illi Scripturae secuti sunt authoritatem, &c. Albeit it is not enough for vs that we haue it so by tradition from the Fathers, for they also followed the authoritie of Scripture, taking their ground from those testimonies which a little before we haue alledged. Thus he calleth by the name of the tradition of the Fathers, that wherein they followed the authority of the Scriptures, and plainely instructeth vs, that without authority of the Scriptures, the tradition of the Fathers is no sufficient warrant for vs. And to this accordeth that which hath bene before cited from him, thatSupra Sect. 5. it is a declining from the faith to bring in any thing that is not written. Thus in another place he saith:Supra Sect. 10 If whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne, as the Apostle saith, and faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God: surely whatsoeuer is beside the holy Scripture, because it is not of faith is sinne. And againe,Idem reg. contract. q 95 Necessarium est & consonum vt ex sacrae quisque Scriptura quod necesse sit, discat cùm ad pretatis plero [...]horiam, tū ne assuescat humanis traditionibus. It is needfull and conuenient, that euery man do learne out of the Scripture that that is necessarie for him, both for the full assurance of godlinesse, and that he may not be accustomed to the traditions of men. Now how can we imagine, that Basil thus reducing all to the Scriptures, and though alledging as we do the tradition of the Fathers, yet with vs acknowledging, that that sufficeth not without authority of the Scriptures, should so soone after attribute so much to traditions that haue no confirmation from the Scripture? Albeit, this contrarietie had bene small, neither should we haue had any cause to take exception against those words of traditions, whether they be Basils or whose soeuer, if in exemplifying the same he had not strained them so far, as that M. Bishop himselfe must perforce confesse they cannot accord with truth. For if he had no more but required the obseruation of traditions vnwritten, we should haue conceiued that he meant vnwritten, as Basil elsewhere doth, who professethBasil. de fide. Vocibus agraphis quidem, verum nō alienis à p [...]a secundum Scripturam sententia. &c. to vse words that are not written, but yet such as varie not from the meaning of pietie according to the Scripture: wordes and termes which in letters and syllables are not framed to the Scripture, but yet do retain that meaning that is in the Scripture. Thus in the former part of the booke de Sp. sancto he mentionethCap. 9. De Sp. sancto. Sententiae quas traditione Patrum sine scripto accepimus. speeches concerning the holy Ghost, which without Scripture, saith he, we haue receiued by the tradition of the Fathers, which yet are such as haue all their foundation and ground in the Scriptures. So in the place here questioned he nameth diuers [Page 921] things for vnwritten traditions, which we religiously hold according to the doctrine of the Scriptures, though the words be not precisely set downe therein. Such is in baptismeCap. 27. Renuntiare Satanae & Angelis eius in baptismo ex qua Scriptura habemus? the renouncing of the diuell and his Angels: from what Scripture, saith he, haue we it? Againe he saith,Ibid Ipsam fidei professionē quae credimus in Patrem & filiū, & Spiritū sanctum è quibus habemus scriptis The very profession of faith whereby we beleeue in the Father, the Son, & the holy Ghost, out of what Scripture do we take it? The maine matter which he laboreth there to approue by vnwritten tradition, is the pronouncing of glorie to the Father and the Son, together with the holy Ghost, which yet he himselfe saith, thatCap. 25. Vim habet Scripturis congruentem. Nihil diuersum dexero quod ad sententiae vit [...] attinet. it hath a meaning agreeing with the Scriptures, and that in meaning it nothing differeth from that which Christ saith, the Father, and the Son, and the holy Ghost: and so we also hold & professe according to the Scriptures. In this sense therfore we also admit of vnwritten traditions, & blame, as he doth, them who strictly vrge what things are found in the Scriptures, that is, admit of nothing but what in precise termes is expressed therein, and therefore the words here in question thus far make nothing against vs. Yea and in the assertion of those other traditions which he mentioneth, he nothing crosseth vs, because we deny not traditions, as was said in the beginning, which are but rites and ceremonies of the Church, who our selues haue such traditions in vse, and deny not the liberty of other Churches for the like. Such traditions he there mentioneth to haue bene in those times, the signing of them which professe Christ with the signe of the Crosse, praying towards the East, to be thrice dipped in baptisme, to pray standing all the time from Easter to Whitsontide, & such like. Now such traditions we condemne not, but we cannot but dislike, that wheras these are no matters of faith & perpetuall necessity, but onely of arbitrarie and indifferent obseruation, he notwithstanding reckoneth thē,Cap. 27 Quorum vtra (que) parē vim habent ad pietatem. as hauing like force to pietie with those things that are written, and that the reiecting hereof shall be the Et ea damnahimus quae in Euangelio ad salutem necessaria habentur. condemning of those things which in the Gospell are accounted necessary to saluation. To which assertion M. Bishop for the credit of their Church of Rome wil refuse to subscribe, because they hold the most of these things to be indifferent, insomuch that there is no necessity with thē of thrice dipping him that is baptised & that custome of standing in prayer for the time aboue named is worne out of vse. Wherin it cānot be denied, but that the Church of Rome hath done greatly amisse, if it be true concerning such traditions which Basil there is made to say. [Page 921] In a word Basils traditions if they be his, concerne not our disputation, either being such as are contained in the sense, though not in the letter of the Scripture, or else being onely temporarie and arbitrarie obseruations of the Church, neither of which we impugne. We impugne those traditions which are made necessarie and perpetuall doctrines of faith, and of the worship of God, and yet neither in the letter, nor in the sence and consequence of the scriptures can be iustified so to be. Of this sort are the Popes supremacie and succession of Peter, his Pardons, inuocation of Saints, worshipping of images, prayer for the dead, the single life of Priests, the curtolling of the Communion, the sacrifice of the Masse, & a huge deale of such other baggage. Wherein we may take knowledge of the notable fraud of these Romish Traditioners, who tell vs out of the Fathers of traditions, traditions, when as in none of the auncient Catalogues of traditions those traditions are found, which they especially require to be beleeued vnder that name. The Fathers mention Apostolicke traditions as they call them, whereof the Church of Rome obserueth nothing: the Church of Rome telleth vs of Apostolicke traditions whereof there is no mention with the Fathers. They agree not in their beadroll of traditions, and yet we forsooth must beleeue that the traditions of Poperie are the same that they speake of, and haue bene continued from the time of the Apostles. But what the manner of the auncients was, Hierome teacheth vs to vnderstand, when he saith:Hieron. ad Lucin. Vnaequae que Prouincia abunde [...] in sensu suo, & praecepta mai [...]rum leges Apostolicas arbitretur. Let euery Prouince abound in it owne iudgement or opinion, and thinke the precepts of their auncestours to be Apostolicke lawes. This was indeed their custome, whatsoeuer obseruations they had, to terme them for the credit of them, Apostolicke traditions, howsoeuer they were but humane presumptions, and sometimes contrarie to that which the Apostles practised, as Hierome there sheweth of the tradition ofJn Actibus Apostolorum dictus Pentecostes & dit Dominico Apostolum Paulum & cum to credentes teiunasse legimus. not fasting vpon the Lords day, and the daies betwixt Easter and Whitsontide, which he saith that Paule and with him the faithfull did. But as touching all such traditions we are to consider what the same Hierome elswhere saith, thatIdem in Agg. cap. 1 Quae abs (que) authoritate & testimonijs Scripturarum quasi traditione Apostolica sponte r [...]periunt & contingunt, percutit gl [...]dius Dei. What things men of their owne accord deuise and faine, as of Apostolike tradition without testimonie and authoritie of the Scriptures, the sword of God striketh downe. As for Damascene whom M. Bishop alledgeth last, we hold him not woorth the answering. We doubt not but he defended vnwritten traditions without any qualification [Page 923] being a notable idol-monger, and hauing no meanes for defence of his idolatrie but the pretence of vnwritten tradition. M. Bishop committed much ouersight to reckon him for a man free from all partialitie, who in that respect could not but be partiall in behalfe of the cause which he had vndertaken against the written truth of God. But M. Bishop hath yet one string more to play vpon: S. Paul commandeth Timothie (saith he) to commend vnto the faithfull that which he had heard of him by many witnesses, and not that onely which he should find in some of his Epistles, or in the written Gospell. S. Paules words are these:2. Tim. 3.2. What things thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same deliuer to faithfull men which shall be able to teach other also. He willeth Timothie in speciall manner to instruct some in those things which he had heard and receiued of him, that they might be for the worke of the ministerie, and serue for the instructing and teaching of others. The question now is, what those things were of which he speaketh. M. Bishop when he saith: not only that which he should find written, cōfesseth that the Apostle meant it of those things that are written, though he will not haue it thought to be meant of those only. We take it then for granted, as indeed it cannot be denied, that the Apostle here intended those things that are written, but we wold heare an argument to proue, that the Apostle meant any thing further that is not written. If he might vse those words of those things that are written, what hindreth but that he might vse them of those onely? M. Bishop cannot proue that he did not so, but we proue that he did so, because in the next Chapter he telleth the same Timothy: 2. Tim. 3.15. The Scriptures are able to make thee wise vnto saluation, through the faith which is in Christ Iesus. Therefore M. Bishops proofes come much too short, to giue vs any assurance that S. Paule by traditions vnderstood any thing, but what is to be learned by the Scriptures.
17. W. BISHOP.
The second argument for Traditions, is this, to beleeue that there be so many bookes of holy Scripture, and no more: and that those be they which are commonly taken so to be, is very necessary to saluation; now this is not to be found written in any place of holy Scripture, but is receiued only by Tradition, wherefore it is necessarie to saluation to beleeue [Page 924] some Tradition. M. Perkins answereth, that the bookes of the Old and New Testament, be Scripture, is not beleeued on bare Tradition, but by the bookes themselues on this maner. Let the man who is endued with the spirit of discerning, reade the bookes, and consider first the author of them, who is God; then the matter contained, which is diuine; the maner of speech, which is full of maiestie in simple words: lastly, the end aymed at, which is Gods honor: and by this meanes he shall discerne any part of Scripture from the writings of men whatsoeuer.
Reply. A wise and deepe obseruation I warrant you, and well worthy a graue Author: Let vs examine it briefly, first, he will haue his man endued with the spirit of discerning: who shall indue him with that spirit? M. P. seemeth to say, that euery sheepe of Christ hath his spirit. But S. Paule1. Cor. 12. teacheth plainely the contrarie, that some certaine onely haue the iudgement to discerne. And touching this matter of discerning which bookes are Canonicall, which are not: not the learnedst in the primitiue Church would take vpon him to discerne which they were; three hundred yeares after Christ, was left vndefined by the best learned, whether the Catholike Epistles of S. Iames and Iude: the second of S. Peter: the second and third of Iohn, and his Apocalypse, were Canonicall or no, as is confessed on all parts: hath then euery Christian this spirit of discerning, when the best Christians wanted it? Who more profound, more skilfull to discerne, than that subtill and sharpe Doctor S. Augustine, and yet the Protestants will not allow him the true spirit of discerning which bookes be Canonicall. For he in diuers places of his workes, De doct. Christ. cap. 8. 18. de ciuit. Dei 36. lib. 2. cont. Epist. Gaudent. 23 holdeth the bookes of the Machabees to be Canonicall Scriptures: and expresly proueth the booke of Wisedome so to be: De Praedest. Sanct. 14. and yet our Protestants will not admit them. See therefore how foolish and vaine his first rule is. Come to the second.
His second is, that he who goeth about to discerne whether the booke be Canonicall or no, must consider the Author, who is God. If he must at the first take God to be the Author of the booke, what needes any further labour? it must needes be Canonicall that hath God for the Author. This mans wits were surely from home, when he discoursed thus: and therefore it should be but folly to stand vpon his particularities, let this one reason in generall serue to confute him: all this manner put together, serueth onely to helpe particular men to discerne which bookes are Canonicall, who may easily after their diligent inquirie erre and be deceiued in this point, because euery man is a lyar. Rom. 3. And if there [Page 925] be no more certaine meanes to assure them of this, which is the ground of all their Religion, then euery particular mans discretion and iudgement, then out of doubt their whole Religion is most vnwisely builded vpon meane mens inuentions and discretion: who also for the most part do neither vnderstand the language in which they were first penned, nor the vsuall phrases of Scriptures translated: that I say nothing of the figures, parables, prophecies, and controuersies which seeme to be, and many other difficulties, and yet these men need not doubt, hauing learned some halfe dozen lines of Master Perkins, but that reading any booke, they shall be able presently to discerne whether it be Canonicall or no. A goodly mockerie: Men were not so taught in the Primitiue Church, but the most skilfull and wisest in discerning Canonicall books, trusted not vnto their owne iudgement, but leaned alwaies vpon Apostolicall Traditions. So did Cerapion an auncieni holy Writer (as Eusebius reporteth) reiect certaine bookes set out in the Apostles names, because they had not receiued from their Predecessors any such. The like doth Clement of Alexandria, Cap. 11. and that famous OrigenCap. 19. of the same booke, who obserue the Ecclesiasticall Canon, as he had learned and receiued by Tradition. So doth he deliuer his opinion of the foure Euangelists, and other bookes of Canonicall Scripture, and not relying on his owne wit, which was excellent, or learning which was singular in all manner of languages and matters. That S. Augustine was of the same mind, may be gathered out of these words of his, Lib. 35. cap. 6. Contra Faustum. Of what booke can there be any assurance, if the letters, which the Church propagated by the Apostles, and by such excellencie declared throughout all Nations, doth teach and hold to be the Apostles, should be vncertaine whether they be Apostles or no? So that he maketh the declaration of the Church descended of the Apostles, to be a sure pillar to rest vpon, for the certaine knowledge of Canonicall Scripture, and other spirits whatsoeuer, if they follow not that rule to be reiected: so farre is he off from encouraging euery sheepe of Christs fold, to take that waightie matter vpon himselfe, as M. P. doth. And what can be more against the most prudent prouidence of the diuine wisedome, then to permit euery one to be a iudge of the books of Canonicall Scripture? For if al those books, & no other shold passe currāt for Canonical (which any Christian taking vpon him the spirit of discerning, would censure to be such) then away with all the old Testament, because diuers esteemed it to proceed of some euil spirits, as witnesses FreueusLib 1. cap. 20. 21. 22. and Epiphanius:Haeres. 6. 6. Yea, not onely all the old must be abrogated, but all the new also, because it [Page 926] hath many falshoods mixed with the truth, as some presuming greatly of their spirit and skill in discerning, did teach: so testifieth S. Augustine,Lib. 32. cap. 2. Contra Faust. Some would haue had but one of the foure Gospels, some fiue, some sixe, some seauen; some reiected all S. Paules Epistles: many, and those of the faithfull, did not admit for Canonicall some of the other Apostles Epistles, nor the Reuelations. If then the diuine foresight of our Sauiour had not preuented this most foule inconueniencie, by instituting a more certaine meanes of discerning and declaring which bookes were penned by inspiration of the holy Ghost, which not: then by leauing it vnto euery mans discretion, he might be thought to haue had but slender care of our saluation, which euery true Christian heart doth abhorre to thinke: and therefore we must needs admit of this most holy and prouident Tradition of them from hand to hand: as among the Protestants Brentius doth in his Prolegomenis, and also Kemnitius, handling the second kind of Traditions, in his examination of the Councell of Trent: albeit they reiect all other Traditions, besides this one.
R. ABBOT.
That which M. Perkins here saith, hath his proper vse in the ordinarie receiuing of the scriptures in a Christian Church, where being from our infancie baptized into Christ, and bred vp in the continuall noise and sound of the word of God, and hauing by this meanes some seedes of the spirit of God sowed in our hearts, we simply and without controuersie or question take the scriptures, presuming vpon the record of the Church, and beleeuing them to be that which they are said to be, that is, the booke of God, and in this perswasion applying our selues to the reading of them, and finding therein a spirit so different from the spirit of man, so great a maiestie in so great simplicitie, and all things so correspondent to those shadowes of truth and righteousnesse, whichRom. 2.14.15. the worke of the law written naturally in our hearts, and confirmed by light of education do represent vnto vs, we resolue, and fully do beleeue them to be that that at the first we presumed of them, the oracles of God, the words of saluation and eternall life, hauing an inward testimonie and conuiction to draw from vs the assent, & vnmoueably to ground vs in the assurance thereof. This seemeth to Master Bishop to be no wise obseruation, but the reason is because he [Page 927] himselfe is scarcely wise. When he hath said all that he can say, yet this must stand for good, that there is nothing that can cause the heart of man sufficiently to apprehend that the Scriptures are the word of God, till the Scripture it selfe in the conscience by the spirit do euict it selfe so to be. And herein it is true which Origen saith, thatOrigen. de princip. lib. 4. c. 1. Siquis cum omni studio & reuerē tia, qua dignum est Prophetica dicta consideret, in eo ipso dum legit & diligentius intuetur, cerium est, quod aliquo diuiniore spiramine mentem sensum (que) pulsatus, agnoscet non humanitùs esse prolatos eos quos legit, sed Dei esse sermones, & ex semetipso sentiet non humana arte nec mortals eloquio, sed diuino (vt ita dixerim) cothurno esse conscriptos. he who with all diligence and reuerence, as is meete, shal consider the words of the Prophets, it is certaine that in the reading and diligent viewing thereof, hauing his mind and vnderstanding knocked at by a diuine inspiration, he shall know that the words which he readeth were not vttered by man but are the words of God, and of himselfe shall perceiue that those bookes were written, not by humane art, not by the word of mortall man, but by a maiestie diuine. In a word, as the Sunne when a man is brought into the light of it, not by telling, but by sight and by it owne light is discerned to be that that giueth light vnto the world, so the Scripture which is as it were the chariot ofAug. in Psal. 80. Est in Scripturis nostris sol iustitiae & sanitas in pēnis eius. the Sunne of righteousnesse, when a man is brought into the sight thereof, euen by it owne light is discerned to be that that ministreth vnto vs the light of euerlasting life. Now the spirit of discerning, of which M. Perkins speaketh, is not to be vnderstood of that speciall gift of1. Cor 12.10. discerning spirits mētioned by S. Paul, which importeth a singular and eminent dexterity in spying and finding out the secret fraudes and deceipts of counterfeit teachers and false Apostles, but the cō mon spirit of the faithfull,1. Cor. 2.12. which we receiue, as the Apostle saith, that we may know the things that are giuen vnto vs of God: whereby it is true which our Sauiour saith:Iohn 10.27. My sheepe heare my voyce and they follow me: Ver. 4.5. they know the shepheards voice, and they will not follow a stranger, but they flie from him, for they know not the voice of straungers. Ver. 14. I know mine, and am knowne of mine. Againe he saith:Cap. 7.17. If any man will do his wil, he shal know of the doctrine whether it be of God, or whether I speake of my selfe. Whereby he teacheth vs, that in applying our selues to learne and practise the will of God, we attaine to discerne the doctrine to be of God. And herein consisteth thatCol. 1.9. spirituall vnderstanding which the Apostle recommendeth generally to the faithfull in his prayer for the Colossians, the vse whereof isPhil. 1.10. [...]. to discerne things that differ (namely, from the truth) and1. Iohn 4.1. to try the spirits whether they be of God or not. Now the spirit as it vseth the ministery of the Church for the deliuering of the books of scripture, so it vseth the ministery of the Church to giue aduertisement [Page 928] of those bookes which haue not the like authoritie as the Scripture hath. And this aduertisement it sealeth and confirmeth, whilest hauing testified otherwhere the vndoubted doctrine of God, we discerne thereby some doctrines in those bookes, that are of another stampe, and not correspondent to the rest. For when they are in any part found to be of another spirit, we conceiue of the whole, that they were written with another pen, and therefore albeit for the most part they cary the sauour and tast of those things which we reade in the other bookes, yet in their defects we fully apprehend that which we haue bene told, that they are not of like maiestie and authoritie with the rest, and though we may profitably reade them for those things wherin they are deriued from the other, yet that we cannot securely ground any doctrine immediatly vpon them. In this simplicitie without further question many thousands receiue the Scriptures, they read them, and by the power of the holy Ghost they grow thereby to faith and spiritual strength, and attaine vnto euerlasting life. So certaine are they of the truth, which they learne in them, as that they are readie to forsake all, and to lay downe their liues for the testifying of that which they beleeue thereby. Against this M. Bishop telleth vs, that not the learnedst in the primitiue Church would take vpon him to discerne which bookes were canonicall, and which not. But in so saying he very greatly abuseth his reader, for the scriptures of Moses & the Prophets, and all the bookes of the new Testament saue only those few which he mentioneth, haue bene discerned and acknowledged for Canonicall without contradiction from the time that first they were deliuered to the Church. Yea but for three hundred yeares after Christ, saith he, it was left vndefined by the best learned as touching those few, the Epistles of Iames and Iude, the second of S. Peter, the two latter of S. Iohn, and the Apocalypse, whether they were Canonicall or not. Be it so, but is this a sufficient ground for him to affirme, that they discerned not which were vndoubtedly canonical Scriptures, because they doubted whether these were so or not? What, did so many hū dred thousand Martyrs suffer in the space of those 300 yeares, and did they know no certaine and vndoubted grounds whereupon to build the assurance of that for which they suffered? Did the Bishops and Pastors of the Church teach the people of God out of the Scriptures, and yet did they not discerne whether they were [Page 929] Scriptures or not? As for the doubt that was made of these bookes by him mentioned, it was onely by some, and in some places, and vpon weake and vncertaine grounds, as the second Epistle of S. Peter vpon difference of style, the Epistle to the Hebrewes, for that it seemed to some for want of vnderstanding to fauour the heresie of the Nouatians, the Reuelation of Saint Iohn, for that to some such like it seemed to make for the millenarie fancie of Corinthus, but this was not sufficient so to ouerweigh the authoritie of them, but that the former testimonie that was giuen of them preuailed still in the Church, so that they were not since confirmed or first receiued into authoritie by the Church, but onely acknowledged and continued still in the authoritie which they had before. Therfore of the Epistle to the Hebrewes, and the Reuelation, Hierome testifieth thus:Hieron. ad Darda. de terra repromiss. Illud nostris dicendum est hanc Epistolà quae inscribitur ad Hebraeos non solùm ab Ecclesus Orientis, sed abomnibus retrò Ecclesus & Graeci sermonis scriptoribus quasi Pauli Apostoli suscipi licet pleri (que) eam vel Barnabae vel Clementis arbitrentur, & nihil interesse cuius sit, cùm Ecclesiastici viri sit, & quotidiè Ecclesiarum lectione celebretur. Quòd sicam Latinorū consuetudo non recipit inter Scripturas Canonicas, nec Graecorum quidem Ecclesiae Apocalypsim Ioannis eadem libertate suscipiunt, & tamen nos vtra (que) suscipimus, nequaquam huius temporis consuetudinem, sed veterum scriptorū authoritatem sequentes, qui plerunque vtriusque vtuntur testimonijs, non vt interdum de Apocryphis facere solent, &c. sed quasi canonicis & ecclesiasticis. This must we say to our men, that this Epistle to the Hebrewes, not onely of the Easterne Churches, but of all the former Churches and writers of the Greeke tongue, hath bene receiued as the Epistie of Paule the Apostle, albeit many thinke it either to haue bene written by Barnabas or Clement, and that it skilleth not whose it is, seeing it came from a speciall man of the Church, and is daily frequented in the reading of the Churches. And if the custome of the Latines receiue it not amongst Canonicall Scriptures, the Churches of the Greekes by the like libertie receiue not the Reuelation of S. Iohn, and yet we (saith he) receiue them both, not following the custome of this time, but the authoritie of the auncient writers, who commonly vse the testimonies of them both, not as they are wont sometimes to do out of the Apocryphall bookes, but as being bookes Canonicall, and of authoritie in the Church. Herby then M. Bishop may see, that it was but in his ignorance, and vpon some other mans word, that he saith, that for three hundred yeares it was not defined whether these bookes were Canonicall or not, whereas they had vndoubted authoritie in the first Church, and began in latter time to be questioned without cause. Of those other therefore which he mentioneth, we conceiue in the like sort, of which they that in their simplicitie doubted, yet in the other Scriptures by the holy Ghost discerned2. Cor. 4.6. the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Iesus Christ, and thereby became partakers of life in him. Whereas he saith, that we allow not S. Augustine [Page 930] the true spirit of discerning which bookes be canonicall, because he maketh the bookes of Machabees and the booke of Wisedome to be Canonicall Scriptures, and yet we will not so admit them: we answer him, that he hath not the spirit to vnderstand and discerne the meaning of Saint Austin. Ruffinus mentioneth the bookes whereof the question was as touching the reading of them in the Church to haue bene of three sorts: Some wereRuffinan expos [...]symb apud Cyprian. Haec sunt quae Patres intra Canonem concluserunt, ex quibus fide [...] nostrae assertiones constare voluerant. Canonicall, which he reckoneth the same that we do, vpon which (saith he) they would haue the assertions of our faith to stand. Other some he callethAlij libri sunt qui non canonies, sed ecclesiastici à maioribus appella [...] sunt, &c. Ecclesiasticall bookes, not Canonicall, naming all those which we tearme the Apocryphall Scriptures, all which (saith he) the Fathers would haue to be read in the Churches, but not to be alledged to proue the authority of faith. A third sort there were which were termed by themCateras Scripturas Apocryphas nominarūt, quas in Ecclesiis legi noluerunt. Apocryphall writings, which they would not haue to be read in the Churches at all, which were all those that are wholy reiected as bastards and counterfeits, such as wereSect. 13. before spoken of in answer to the Epistle. Now of those three sorts some made but onely two, and that diuersly. Some reckoned vnder the name of Apocryphall Scriptures all that were not of the first sort, and properly termed Canonicall, as Hierome did, who hauing reckoned the same bookes for Canonicall that Ruffinus doth, and accounting them in number two and twenty, as the Hebrewes do, addeth thatHieron in Prolog Galeata. Fu [...] pariter veteris legis libri viginis duo, &c. we are to know that whatsoeuer is beside these, is to be put amongst Apocryphall writings. Therefore (saith he) the booke called the Wisedome of Solomon, the booke of Iesus the Sonne of Syrach, of Tobie, of Iudith, are not in the Canon, Thus he reckoneth the Ecclesiasticall and Apocryphall bookes vnder one name of Apocryphall. Some on the other side vnder the name of Canonicall bookes contained all that were not of the last sort, that is, of those bastards and counterfeits which were wholy exploded and reiected out of the Church. Thus S. Austin doth, extending the name of Canonicall to all that was admitted publikely to be read, and therefore comprehending the bookes called Ecclesiastical ioyntly vnder that name. But here the name of Canonicall is not properly vsed, because the Scriptures are called canonicall, of being the Canon, that is to say, the rule of our faith, which those Ecclesiasticall bookes are not, as before we haue heard. And what? doth Austine make them all of equall and like authoritie? Nothing lesse: for in the first place cited by Master Bishop, where he setteth [Page 931] all those bookes downe vnder one name of canonical, he giueth this rule,Aug. de doct. Christ lib. 2 ca. 8. In Scripturis canonicis ecclesiarū Catholicarum quamplurium authoritatem sequotur, &c. Tenebit igitur hunc modum in Scripturis Canonicis, vt cas quae ab omnibus accipiuntur ecclesus, praeponat eis quas quaedam non accipiunt: in eis verò quae non accipiuntur ab omnibus, praeponat ca [...] quas plures grauiores (que) accipiunt eis quas pauciores minoris (que) authoritat [...] ecclesiae tonent. In the Canonicall Scriptures let a man follow the authority of the greater number of catholike Churches, and this course he shal hold, to preferre those which are receiued of all catholike Churches, before those which some do not receiue, and in those which are not receiued of all, let him preferre those which the more Churches and of greater authority do receiue, before those which are holden of the fewer and of lesser authority or account. He would not haue vsed any such exception, if he had taken all those bookes to be alike inspired of God, and therfore doth manifestly teach vs to make some difference betwixt them, and cō sequently not to account the bookes of Machabees properly canonicall, inasmuch as few or no Churches esteemed them so to be. And this may somewhat further appeare in the second place which M. Bishop citeth, where speaking of the Princes of the Iewes after the reedifying of the temple, he saith,Aug. de ciu. Dei. lib 18. cap. 36. Quorum supputatio temporum non in Scripturis sanctis quae canonicae appellantur sed in alijs inuenitur in quibus sunt & Machabaeorū libriquos non Iudaei, sed ecclesia pro Canonicis habet propter quorundam martyrum passiones vehementes at (que) mirabile [...], &c. The account of their termes is not found in the holy Scriptures which are called canonicall, but in other bookes amongst which are the bookes of the Machabees, which not the Iewes but the Church reckoneth for canonicall, because of the great and wonderfull sufferings of some martyrs, who before the incarnation of Christ striued euen to death for the law of God. Where we see him first plainly secluding those bookes from the canonicall Scriptures, according as they were secluded by the Iewes, albeit withall he saith that the Church in a particular respect admitted of them as canonicall, that is, publikely to be read, to giue knowledge of the constant suffering of some therein mentioned, for the testimony of the law of God. But in what sort it was that the Church admitted of them, and the rest of that kind, Hierome giueth vs to vnderstand:Hieron. praefat. in lib Solom. Sicut Judith & Tobiae & Machabaeorum libros legit quid [...]m ecclesia, sed eos inter canonica [...] Scripturas non recipit; sic & haec duo volumina (sapientiae & Ecclesiastici) legat ad aedificationem plebis, non ad authoritatem ecclesiastic [...]rum dogmatum confirmandum The Church readeth them, but accounteth them not amongst the canonicall Scriptures: it readeth them for the edification of the people, not to confirme the authority of the doctrines of the Church. And this that Hierome saith, is confirmed also by Austine himselfe, where he teacheth, thatAugust de ciu. Dei. lib. 17. ca. 20. Aduersus contradictores non tanta fir [...] pr [...]eruntur quae scripta non sunt in Canone Iudaeorum. those things which are not written in the canon of the Iewes, are not with so great strength (or authority) alledged against them that contradict vs. Hereby therefore they are proued to be no canonicall Scriptures properly so called, because canonicall Scriptures being [Page 932] the rule and measure of our faith, do conuince those that contradict, which S. Austine acknowledgeth these do not. The third place alledged by M. Bishop, helpeth yet further to cleare this matter, where Gaudentius the Donatist alledging the example of Razias, killing himselfe in the second booke of Machabees, for defence of their Circumcellions casting themselues downe frō rocks, and prouoking others to kill them, that they might be accounted martyrs, S. Austine first condemneth the fact, which the Author of that booke commendeth, and then addeth for exception further:Idem cont. Epist. Gaudent. li. 2. ca. 23. Hanc Scripturam quae appellatur Machabaeorum Iudaei non habent sicut legem & Prophetas & Psalmos, quibus Dominus testimoniū perhibet tanquā testibus suis dicens, Oportebat impleri, &c. Sed recepta est ab ecclesia nō inutiliter si sobriè legatur vel audiatur, maximè propter illos Machabaeos qui pro Dei lege sicut veri martyres à persecutoribus tam indigna at (que) h [...]rrenda perpessi sunt, &c. This Scripture which is called of the Machabees, the Iewes account not as the law, and the Prophets, and the Psalmes, to which the Lord giueth testimony as his witnesses, saying, All things must be fulfilled which are written of me in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalmes, but it is receiued of the Church not vnprofitably if it be soberly read or heard, specially for those Machabees, who for the law of God like true martyrs suffered so vnwoorthy and horrible things at their persecutors hands. Where we see how coldly he speaketh of the receiuing of that booke, as rather to excuse the Church, then to defend it for so doing, that it was done not vnprofitably, and yet with this exception, if it be soberly read, and the reason of the receiuing of it, not for the authority of the booke, but for the story of those Machabees, who there are recorded so constantly to haue suffered torments for their obseruing the law of God. But withall he absolutely sheweth, that those bookes are none of thē,Luk. 24.44. to which Christ gaue testimonie as his witnesses, who notwithstanding calleth those witnesses by the name ofVer. 27. all Scriptures, thereby giuing fully to vnderstand that these are no Scriptures. Hereby therefore we conceiue, that S. Austine well discerned the defect of these bookes, and rightly vnderstood that they are not so to be accounted of as those are, to which Christ hath giuen witnesse by his owne word. No otherwise therefore could he conceiue of the booke of Wisedome being of the same kinde, and that he did so, it plainly appeareth, for that of that and the booke of Ecclesiasticus it was that he said that which before I mentioned, that the bookes which are not in the canon of the Iewes, are not alledged with so great authority against them that say against vs. And that this booke was not receiued in the Church as a booke of diuine authoritie, appeareth by the very place which Maister Bishop citeth, where it [Page 933] is shewed, that Saint Austine citing a testimonie out of the said booke, exception was taken against it,Aug. de prae [...]. sanct. cap. 14. Quod à me positum fratres istos ita respuisse dixistis tanquam non de libro canonico adhibitū. For that it was taken out of a booke that was not canonicall. S. Austine indeede pleadeth earnestly to gaine credit to it, and alledgeth that of long time it had bene accustomed to be read in the Church, and men had vsed to cite the testimonie of it as diuine, but yet could not expresly say that euer it was reckoned for a Canonicall booke. And as for those arguments, M. Bishop is deceiued, to thinke that they could proue it to be Canonicall, because the booke ofRuffinan exposit. symb. the Pastour was in like sort read in the Church, as Ruffinus beareth witnesse in the place before alledged, and yet was not accounted canonicall Scripture, and Cyril and Ambrose cite the bookes of Esdras by the name ofCyril. cont. Iulian. lib. 1. Sic ait Scriptura diuinitùs inspirata, &c. Ambros. de obitu frat. Prophetico sermone dicitur, &c. [...]epeto sacro Scriptura solatia tua & de bono mort. cap. 11 Ait propheta ad angelum, &c. holy Scripture, and inspired of God, and Ambrose calleth him by the name of a Prophet, whereas Hierome calleth those bookesHieron. praefat. in Esdram & Nehem. Nec apocryphorum tertij & quarti libri s [...]mnijs delectetur. dreames, and wisheth no man to be delighted with them. They vsed these bookes in their Sermons casually as we do, thinking it not materiall to cite them for exhortation to the people, howsoeuer they held them not of sufficient authority otherwise. Therefore they cited them with condition sometimes,Hieron. ad furiam. Legunus in Iudith. sicut tamen placet volumen recipere. if we will receiue such or such a booke, as Hierome doth the booke of Iudith, andOrigen. in Math. tract. 30. Si recipitur liber qui dicit quoniā sapientia est quae facta est populo columna nubis, &c. Origen the booke of Wisedome, of which we here speake. By these things therfore it is plaine enough, that though Austin were not willing that authority should in that sort be detracted from any booke that was receiued publikely to be read in the Church, yet that he was well able to discerne, and so did, which bookes were of diuine and infallible authority, and which were to be accounted of inferiour and lesser worth, iudging thereof in effect no otherwise then we do. Now from this M. Bishop goeth to another cauill at that that M. Perkins saith, that a man to come to know the Scriptures to be of God, must first take and beleeue them so to be. He saith that the mans wits were from home in so discoursing, but the cause is, because his wits serue him not to conceiue that which M. Perkins saith. Very well and truly doth Saint Austine obserue, thatAug. in Ioan. tract. 29. Jntellectus merces est fidei: ergo [...]oli quaerere intelligere vt credas, sed [...]rede vt intelligas. vnderstanding is the reward of faith: Seeke not therefore, saith he, to vnderstand that thou maiest beleeue, but first beleeue that thou maiest vnderstand. He gathereth it from that which the Disciples say,Iohn. 6.69. We beleeue and know that thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God. They first beleeue, and in beleeuing they learne to know. The beliefe of which Maister Perkins [Page 934] speaketh, is the beliefe of a learner, of whom in matters of other knowledge, they are woont to say, Oportet discentem credere, the learner must beleeue. There are in all Arts and Sciences certaine propositions and principles, which the learner first accepteth vpon the word of him that teacheth him; which notwithstanding afterwards he attaineth so to know, as that if he that taught him, should say any thing to the contrary, he should thinke him beside himselfe, and by no meanes yeeld to him, as knowing that certainly now which he did at first beleeue. Euen so is it in this case; a man hauing it wrought out of his owne conscience, that there is a God, to whom honour, and worship, and seruice is due, and that this God vndoubtedly hath some way reuealed wherein that honour and worship doth consist, betaketh himselfe vpon the testimonie of the Church, to the reading and hearing of the Scriptures, and in the exercise thereof, findeth and feeleth that to be true, which was testified vnto him, and saith:Psal. 48.7. Like as we haue heard, so haue we seene in the Citie of our God. And as the Samaritans being drawn to Christ by the report of the woman, after they had seene and heard him, say,Iohn. 4.42. Now we beleeue not because of thy saying, for we haue heard him our selues, and know that this is indeede the Messias the Sauiour of the world, so this man being first brought to the Scriptures by the report of the Church, and thereby beleeuing the same to be of God, doth by his owne experience afterwards fully apprehend the truth and certainty of that report, yea more then was reported, so that he saith,Origen. in Cāt. hom. 2. Per illos quidem audiui; ad te autem veni & tibi credidi, apud quē muliò plura viderunt oculi mei quàm annunciabantur mihi. By them I heard of thee, and I came to thee, and haue beleeued thee, with whom mine eies haue seene much more then before was told me. Therefore he resteth not his faith now vpon the Church, but vpon God himselfe, so that though the Church should slide backe, and denie that which it hath before affirmed, yet he standeth secure, and chooseth rather to die a thousand times, then to forgoe the comfort and hope that he hath conceiued by the Scriptures, which were at first deliuered vnto him by the Church. Thus Christian people haue beene woont to receiue the Scriptures of the hands of the Church, wherein they haue liued without seeking any further approbation and warrant thereof, because in the vse of them they haue giuen a sufficient warrant and testimonie of themselues. So then we rest not the Scriptures vpon the discerning of priuate spirits, as Maister Bishop idlely and vainely cauilleth, [Page 935] but we make the Church as the hand of God, whereby he putteth the Scriptures into our hands, and priuate spirit doth no more but subscribe to the testification of the Church. But now if Maister Bishop will question the publike testimonie of our Church as touching knowledge what Scriptures are to be deliuered, we answer him, that such and such onely we acknowledge and deliuer by our testimonie, because by like testimonie those onely haue beene acknowledged and deliuered vnto vs. Here then we referre our selues to Tradition, and therefore all that Maister Bishop alledgeth to the end of this section, is but fighting with a shadow of his owne, and nothing against vs. He saith in the end that Brentius and Chemnitius admit of this Tradition, albeit they reiect all other Traditions beside this one, whereas Chemnitius setting downe eight kindes of Traditions, acknowledgeth seuen of them, and determineth our defence against the Papists, to consist in one kinde onely. We fight not against the word, we know it hath his vse; Maister Perkins in three conclusions here acknowledgeth Traditions: the Church of Rome hath brought it by her abuse to one speciall vse and meaning, and in that vse onely wee impugne it, namely as it importeth matters not of temporarie rites and ceremonies indifferently vsed, but of perpetuall doctrine and faith, which neither in word nor in meaning can be verified and confirmed by the written word, presupposed and acknowledged to be the word of God. In this sence wee denie Traditions; the name otherwise we reiect not; wee say that by testimonie of Tradition the notice of the canonicall Scriptures is giuen vnto vs. This Maister Bishop thinketh should make for the credit of their Church of Rome, dreaming that this must be by the tradition of that Church, or that that Church must be the witnesse vnto vs of this tradition. But therein hee very much deceiueth himselfe; amongst all the traditions mentioned by the auncient Writers, wee neuer finde this tradition, that for the number of the bookes of canonicall Scripture, wee must take the tale and tradition of the Church of Rome. If he can make good any such tradition, he shall finde vs much the more fauourable for all the rest. Otherwise we doe not know why it should not be as readie for the Church of England, to iudge which are canonicall Scriptures, as it is for the Church [Page 936] of Rome. What meanes should they haue for the discerning of them, that is not as open to vs as it is to them? We take the account of holy Scriptures in the same sort as the auncient Church did,Ruffin in exposit. symb. Secundum traditionem patrum: Sicut ex patrum monumentis acceptmus. Hilar. prolog. in Psal. Secundū traditiones veterum. according to the tradition of the fathers, and out of the monuments of the fathers. Wee reckon those onely for canonicall bookes, which from the time of the Apostles, haue had certaine and vndoubted testimonie to be so; testimonie I say, of so many Churches, and nations, and peoples, to which at first they were deliuered, and thenceforth vsed amongst them to be read in their Churches, expounded in their pulpits, meditated in their houses, which the fathers haue perpetually cited in their bookes, and opposed in generall Councels against Schismatikes and heretikes, to which they haue attributed all authoritie for the deciding and determining the causes and controuersies of the Church,Aug. in Ioannis epist. tract. 2. Contra quas nullus audeat loqui qui se vult quoquo modo vocari Christianum. against which none dare speake, saith Saint Austine, who will in any sort be called a Chrstian man. Idem cont. faust. l. 11. cap. 5. Excellentia canonicae authoritatis veteris & noui testamenti Apostolorum confirmata temporibus per successiones episcoporum, & propagationes ecclesiarum tanquam in sede quadam sublimiter constituta est, cui serutat omnis fidelis & pius intellectus. The excellencie of the canonicall authoritie of the old and new testament, saith he againe, being confirmed in the time of the Apostles, hath by succession of Bishops and propagation of Churches beene set in a high and loftie seate, that all faithfull and religious vnderstanding may be seruant vnto it. Now by the Scriptures which thus irrefragably and vnquestionably haue beene receiued vniuersally of the whole Christian world, wee learne to iudge of those bookes adioined to the old testament, whereof question is betwixt the Church of Rome and vs. For in those bookes as touching the old testament, we learne thatRom. 2.2. to the Iewes were committed the words of God, whereof it followeth, that none are to be accounted the words of God, that were not committed vnto them. The bookes committed to them our Sauiour Christ nameth to haue beeneLuk 24.44. Moses, and the Prophets, and the Psalmes, and calleth theseVer. 27. all the Scriptures, as before was noted. Because then these are all the Scriptures, and those which we seclude from the Canon are none of these, it followeth that by the sentence of Christ himselfe, they are declared to be no Scriptures. And hereto agreeth the auncient tradition of the Church of the Iewes, recorded by Iosephus, who acknowledgeth that they hadIoseph. cont. Apion. lib. 1. Sūt nobis solummodo duo & viginti libri quorū iustè fides ad nutitur. Horum quin (que) sunt Moseos &c. Amorie Moseos vs (que) ad Artaxerxem Persarū regem Prophetae temporum suorum res gestas conscripserunt in tredecim libris. Reliqui vero quatuor hymnes in Deum & vitae humanae praecepta noscuntur continere. onely two and twenty bookes, to which [Page 937] iustly they gaue credit, whereof fiue are the bookes of Moses: From whom to the time of Artaxerxes King of Persia, the Prophets wrote the matters of their times in thirteene bookes, which are thus reckoned, 1. Iosuah. 2. the Iudges with Ruth. 3. the two bookes of Samuel. 4. the two bookes of Kings. 5. the two bookes of Chronicles. 6. Ezra and Nehemiah. 7. Esther. 8. Iob. 9. Esay. 10. Ieremy. 11. Ezechiel. 12. Daniel. 13. the booke of the twelue lesser Prophets. The other foure, saith he, containe Hymnes and Songs to God, and precepts of humane life, which are, the Psalmes, the Prouerbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Canticles. Of those things which were afterwards written, hee saith,Ab Artaxerxe vs (que) ad nostrum tempus singulae sunt conscripta, nō tamen priori simili fide sunt habita, cò quod non fuerit cert [...] successio prophetarum. that they were not of like credit to the former, because there was no certaine succession of Prophets amongst them. This tradition the Iewes hold constantly and inuiolably till this day, and in their dispersion through the world, do still giue witnesse to the bookes that were deliuered to their fathers, God by his prouidence appointing them to beAugust. cont▪ faust. lib. 12. cap. 23. Quid est hodie gen [...] ipsa nisi quaedā scriniaria Christianorum, ba [...]ulans legem & Prophetas in testimonium assertionis ecclesiae. the roll-keepers of the Christians, as Saint Austine noteth, carying the law and the Prophets for the testimonie of that which the Church teacheth. If God then haue appointed them to be witnesses of those bookes of the old Testament, which should serue for the assertion of our faith in the new, wee should doe amisse to admit of other bookes of the old Testament for assertion of our faith, whereof they giue no witnesse. This computation of the Scriptures according to their tradition, is followed by the fathers of the Christian Church, professing exactly to set downe the number of Canonicall bookes, as byEuseb. lib. 4: cap. 25. Ʋeteris instrumenti libros diligenter cogritos subieci: Where wisedome in the Greeke is added by apposition to the Prouerbs, so called by the auncients. Melito Bishop of Sardis, byJdem. lib 6. cap. 24. Where a fault is committed by Eusebius, in leauing out the booke of the twelue lesser Prophets, for the two and twentith. Origen, byAthan. in Synopsi. Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria, byEpiphan de mens. & pond. Epiphanius Bishop of Cyprus, by the whole Councell ofConcil. Laodic. cap. 59. Laodicea, for the Greeke and Easterne Churches, and for the Latine and Westerne Churches, byHilar. Prolog. in Psal. Ita secundum traditiones veterum deputantur. Hilarie, byHieron. in Prolog. Galeato. Hierome, byRuffinus in expositione Symboli. Ruffinus, all reckoning for Canonicall Scriptures the same that wee doe, and excluding from the Canon the same that wee exclude. [Page 938] The same reckoning we finde in the Canons, which haue gone in the Church of Rome vnder the name of the Canons of the Apostles; onelyCanon. Apostol. 84. three bookes of Machabees are foisted in, of which we reade not to that purpose any other-where. Yea, and that they went not in that account in the Church of Rome, is apparent by Gregory Bishop there, who being to apply the example of Eleazar in the Machabees, to the matter that he had in hand, saith;Gregor. Moral. lib. 19. cap. 13. De quae re non inordinatè agimus si ex libris licet nō canonicis, sed ta [...]n ad ecclesiae edificationē editis exempli [...]m proferamus. Eleazar enim, &c. Of this thing we shall not doe amisse, to bring an example out of the bookes, though not canonicall, yet set forth for the edification of the Church. In which words he plainly sheweth, that neither the bookes of Machabees, nor the rest of that sort were holden for canonicall Scriptures, albeit they were set forth to be read, for that they contained many things profitable for the edifying of the people. For this cause S. Austine reckoneth them amongst the canonicall bookes, but because he confesseth, as we haue seene, that in contradiction they haue not thatAugust. cont. faust. lib. 28. cap. 4. Confirmatiua authoritate clarescerent. confirmatiue authority, which elsewhere he nameth for the prerogatiue of the Scriptures, he thereby confesseth that they are not truly canonicall, because it is for that authorities sake that the name of canonicall Scriptures is giuen to those to which it doth appertaine. Therefore we reckon him also as a witnesse of this tradition, whereby our Church discerneth what books wee are to approoue for determining faith and doctrine in the Church, and vnder that name to commend as the infallible Oracles of God, to the deuotion of the people. But now Maister Bishop will aske, what the reason is, that admitting this tradition we do not admit also of other their traditions, of which we also reade in the writings of the fathers? Whereto to say nothing that their traditions are vncertaine as touching their beginning, variable in their proceeding, corrupt in their vse, and many of them vpstart deuices, shamefully and lewdly attributed to the fathers, whereas this tradition of the Scriptures without alteration or interruption, hath had constant & perpetuall acknowledgment both of the whole nation of the Iewes; and of the whole Christian Church throughout the whole world, from the beginning vntill this day, wee answere him, that by this tradition it selfe, wee are instructed against the admitting of their traditions. For this tradition or deliuering of the Scriptures from God, is as the deliuering of a commission [Page 939] from a Prince. For as by the commission the subiect is directed what to do in the Princes seruice, and is thereby listed and bounded so, as to do nothing but according to the tenure and warrant of the commission, being punishable if he shall attempt any thing further vpon his owne head: so by this commission of holy Scripture deliuered vnto vs by the Church from God, we are instructed and limited what to beleeue and what to doe as touching faith and dutie towards God, and are iustly to be punished if we shall dare in any sort to go beyond the bounds and warrant of this commission: yea and the Church it selfe is to hold and professe it selfe so tied to the precepts and rules of this commission, as that it may not presume to obtrude or thrust any thing vpon the people of God to be beleeued and taught, but whereof it hath thereby receiued warrant and instruction from God himself. And if the Church shall further attempt or enterprise any thing, as the Church of Rome doth, it is to receiue checke and controlement from this writ of Gods commission; neither are we to thinke our selues discharged for that we are thus told by the bearer of the writ, so long as by the writ it selfe we are commaunded otherwise.
18. W. BISHOP.
The two next arguments for traditions, be not well propounded by Master Perkins. The third is to be framed thus: Either all the bookes of holy Scripture containe all needfull doctrine to saluation, or some certaine of them without the rest; not some of them without the rest, for then the other should be superfluous, which no man holdeth: therefore all the bookes of holy Scripture put together, do containe all necessary instruction. Now then the argument followeth, but some of those bookes of holy Scripture haue bene lost, therefore some points of necessary doctrine contained in them are not extant in the written word, and consequently to be learned by tradition. Master Perkins answereth, first supposing some of the books to be lost, that all needfull doctrine which was in them, is in some of the others preserued. But why did he not solue the argument proposed? were then those bookes superfluous? Doth the holy Ghost set men to pen needlesse discourses? which this answer supposeth: therefore he giues a second more shamefull, that none be perished, which [Page 940] is most contrary vnto the plaine Scriptures, 1. Paral. vit. 2 Paral. 9. as S. Iohn, Chrysostome proueth, Hom. 9. in Mat. Et hom. 7 an priorem ad Corinth. where he hath these expresse words: That many of the Propheticall bookes were lost, may be proued out of the history of Paralipomenon (which they translate Chronicles.) Now as for M. Perkins guesses, that some of them are yet extant, but otherwise called, some were but little roles of paper, some prophane and of Philosophie, I hold them not worth the discussing, being not much pertinent, and auowed on his word onely, without either any reason or authoritie.
R. ABBOT.
Of this argument well propounded, we deny the minor propositiō. We say that some of the Scriptures, though some other had miscaried, should containe all doctrine needfull to saluation. The consequence that he maketh thereof, that then those other are superfluous, is childish and absurdly iniurious to the Scripture. The same doctrines are contained in a hundred places of holy Scripture, and who will hereupon conclude that they are superfluous in one place because they are contained in another? The Euangelists diuers times record the same stories, and euen word for word; and must it follow, that the latter did superfluously write that which the former had set downe? There is no point of necessary doctrine and faith contained in any one booke of holy Scripture, but the same hath testimonie and witnesse of other bookes. Matters of fact and circumstance there may be one where, which otherwhere are not mentioned, but points of necessary doctrine and faith, haue manifold testimonie of the written word. Supposing it then to be true which M. Bishop saith, that some of the old bookes were lost, which the wisedome of God thought necessary for those times, though vnnecessary for vs, yet it cannot be inferred hereof, that any doctrine was thereby lost, because though there might be some matters of storie there onely mentioned, yet there could be no matter of doctrine that was not contained in Moses law. And if Maister Bishop will needs perswade vs, that some points of doctrine were there deliuered that are not in other scripture, and must now be learned by tradition, we desire to vnderstand whether by tradition he haue learned what those traditions were, and that out of their Churches treasury of traditions he will discouer these secrets, [Page 941] of which neither the Prophets nor Euangelists, nor Apostles, nor Fathers, nor Councels were euer able to informe vs. He telleth vs that Chrysostome affirmeth the losse of those books; but doth Chrysostome tell him of any doctrines deriued by tradition from those books? Surely he wanted some proofe for the Popes triple crowne & his yeare of Iubile, and the great storehouse of merits and satisfactions at Rome, and dreaming it in his sleepe, beleeued it when he was awake, that these matters were written of in these bookes, and the bookes being now lost, they come to vs by a tradition of which the world neuer heard any thing for the space of two or three thousand yeares. But we must thinke that he wrote not these things for vs, but for them who he thought would be more ready to beleeue him then we are. Now M. Perkins further answereth, that though those bookes were lost, yet it followeth not that any part of the Canon of the Scripture was lost, because there might be bookes which were not reckoned for Scripture bookes. For proofe hereof he bringeth the words of the Apostle,Rom. 15.4. Whatsoeuer things were written before time, were written for our learning, arguing hereof, that because bookes that be lost cannot serue for our learning, and all the books of scripture that were formerly written, were to serue for our learning, therefore no bookes of scripture formerly written could be lost. M. Bishop after his manner, calleth it a shamefull answer, but saith not a word to disproue it. He telleth vs that there were such bookes, but he proueth not that they were bookes of scripture, and to the reason alledged out of the Apostles words he replieth nothing at all, and therefore I passe him ouer, without any further answer.
19. W. BISHOP.
Master Perkins his fourth obiection of the Iewish Cabala, is a meere dreame of his owne: our argument is this, Moses who was the pen-man of the old Law, committed not all to writing, but deliuered certain points needfull to saluation by tradition; nor any Law-maker that euer was in any country, comprehended all in letters, but established many things by customes, therfore not likely that our Christian law should be all written.
That Moses did not pen all, thus we proue: it was as necessary for women to be deliuered from originall sinne as men. Circumcision the remedie [Page 942] for men, could not possible be applied to women, as euery one who knoweth what circumcision is can tell; neither is there any other remedy prouided in the writen law, to deliuer women from that sinne: therefore some other remedy for them was deliuered by tradition.
Item, if the child were likely to die before the eight day, there was remedy for them, as the most learned do hold, yet no where written in the law. Also many Gentiles, during the state of the old Testament, were saued, as Iob, and many such like, according to the opinion of all the auncient Fathers: yet in the Law, or any other part of the old Testament, it is not written what they had to beleeue, or how they should liue: wherefore many things needfull to saluation were then deliuered by tradition.
To that reason of his, that God in his prouidence should not permit such a losse of any part of the Scripture: I answer, that God permitteth much euill. Againe, no great losse in that, according to our opinion, who hold that tradition might preserue what was then lost.
R. ABBOT.
It concerneth M. Bishop to speake well of the Iewish Cabala; for if the Cabala be not good, certainly Popish traditions are starke naught; the Iews hauing as good warrant for the one, as the Papists for the other. Both of them to purchase credit to their owne fancies and deuices, betooke themselues to this shifting pretence, that the word of God was deliuered first by Moses, and then by Christ and his Apostles, partly written and partly vnwritten. Whatsoeuer they haue listed to bring in, either of curiositie or for profit, they haue referred it to the vnwritten word, and this hath bene the sinke of all both Iewish and Popish superstition, both verifying in themselues that which our Sauiour obiecteth to the one,Mat. 15.6. Ye haue made the commaundement of God of no authoritie by your tradition. M. Bishop here like a louing brother taketh the Iewes by the hand, and will help them for the maintenance of their traditions, that by them he may gaine some reputatiō to his owne. His proofs for them are such as that without doubt they being but dul-heads in cōparisō of him, were neuer able for themselues to deuise the like. That Moses committed not all to writing, he proueth, because it was necessary for women to be deliuered from originall sin; but they could not be deliuered from it by circumcision, not being capable therof, and no other remedy is prouided [Page 943] in the written law; therefore some other remedie was delivered for them by tradition. Further he alledgeth, that there was remedy for children dying before the eight day, before which they might not be circumcised: but there is none found written, therefore it was deliuered by tradition. O the excellent wit of this man! he hath with these arguments so troubled the whole pack of the Protestants, as that not one of them can tel what to say. But for our learning, M. Bishop, we are desirous to know of you what these remedies were that you speake of? What was the ceremonie for the freeing of women from originall sinne, and children dying before eight dayes old? Where haue ye found, or how can ye prooue that there was any such? Surely you that can see so farre into a milstone of traditions, are able (I trow) to informe vs what it was, if any such thing were. Ridiculous vain man bringing in steed of proofes fantasticall imaginations, whereof he hath no ground, nor can giue vs any testimony at all, either from the Iewes themselues, or from other ancient writers, but only out of the presumptions and idle dreames of some of their owne schoolmen. Yea and in this deuice of his he crosseth the doctrine of his owne part: for tell vs M. Bishop, did circumcision take away originall sin? If it did so, what difference then betwixt the sacraments of the old Testament and of the new? You are wont to tell vs, that the sacraments of the old Testament did signifie grace, but not giue grace: that they did signifie the taking away of sinne, but not take it away: that they did signifie iustification, but did not iustifie. Therefore Bellarmine accordingly determineth, that circumcision did not iustifie or take away sinne, but in that respect was of as little force as vncircumcision, yea and argueth that if circumcision had iustified, then iustification should haue bene proper to men, because men onely are circumcised; so farre is he from conceiuing that some other remedie was prouided for women in steede of circumcision. For expounding the Apostles words,Rom 3.29. Is God the God of the Iewes onely, as if he had said,Bellar. de effec. sacram. cap. 14. Quasi dicat, Deus est omnium Deus: quomodo, igitur credibile est cum dedisse remedium contra peccatū solis Iudaeis? Possumus nos etiam hinc alitèr argumentari: An masculorū Deus tantū? nonne et foeminarum? Quis ergo credat Deum dedisse remedium quod solis masculis prosit? God the God of all; how then is it credible that he should giue remedy against sinne to the Iewes onely? he addeth: We may hence also argue, Is God the God of men onely? is he not also the God of women? Who then will beleeue that he gaue a remedy (against sinne) that should be auaileable for men onely? His resolution then is, that circumcision was no remedie against sin, because God would not appoint a remedy against sinne (as he conceiueth) which [Page 944] should not be common to the Gentiles as well as to the Iewes, to women as well as men. Now therefore inasmuch as M. Bishops foundation faileth, surely that which he buildeth vpon it must needs fall, and looke what he will say was the deliuering of men from originall sinne, the same he must confesse hath bene the deliuering of women also, so that either he must resolue one meanes for both out of the written word, or passe ouer to tradition vnwritten; and if he haue not a tradition for both, then all his matter of Iewish tradition must come to naught, and there is nothing proued but that Moses committed all to the written law. But his phrase of deliuering from originall sinne, implieth an errour before confuted in the question of that point. Our regeneration consisteth in the forgiuenesse of sinnes, and the first fruites of the sanctification of the holy Ghost, the same spirit working sometimes without any signe or sacrament of initiation, as in the fathers vntil the time of Abraham, who himselfe was iustified before the sacrament of Circumcision; sometimes with that signe of circumcision, proper in execution to men onely, but yet sealing the fruite of Gods promise and the effect of his spirit both to men and womenEphes. 1.5.9. according to the purpose of the grace of God: sometimes with a signe common both to men and women, as in our baptisme we see, thereby shewing that he worketh freely according to his owne will, not tying himselfe to outward signes, but sauing onely by his grace, either with signes where they are, or without, where either there is no institution, as in the beginning, or there wanteth meanes and oportunitie of execution, as oft befell in circumcision of the old Testament, and doth befall in baptisme of the new. Now as touching M. Bishops third reason, it is as reasonlesse as the former, so that we may wonder that the author of it should be so without reason. Iob and many such like Gentiles (saith he) were saued. Very true. But in the Law or any other part of the old Testament it is not written what they had to beleeue or how they should liue. But that is not true: for seeing there is butEph. 4.5. one faith, 2. Corin. 4.13. the same spirit of faith of the whole body of Christ from the beginning to the end, by that faith that is written in the law of Moses, we know what they had to beleeue, and according to that faith how they ought to liue. Yea and where it is written, what they did beleeue and how they did liue, there it is written what they had to beleue, and how they were to liue. But in the booke of [Page 945] Iob it is written of himself and of his friends, what they did beleeue, and what the ordering of their life was, all according to the law of Moses, and the faith therein contained. It is therefore vntrue which M. Bishop saith, that it is not written what they had to beleeue or how they were to liue. But yet giuing the man his way, let vs see what his conclusion is: Therefore (saith he) many things needfull to saluation were then deliuered by tradition. We may see his head was troubled, and he had forgotten what he was to conclude; for this his conclusion should haue bene, Therefore Moses committed not all to writing. But this would not follow; for though it were not namely written of Iob what he had to beleeue, yet we cannot hereof inferre, that therefore he had any thing else to beleeue but that that is written. What hindereth I say, but that Moses may be conceiued to set downe the faith whereby Iob was to be saued, though he do not expresly say, that Iob was to beleeue thus. But it may be that M. Bishop meant, that that conclusion should be subordinate to the former, and so would reason thus, Iob and such like receiued many things by tradition, therefore Moses committed not all to writing. Yet neither can this stand good, because nothing letteth but that Moses might commit to writting all that faith that Iob receiued by tradition. Iob wasAmbros. Offic. lib. 1. caep. 36. Iob antiqutor Mose, &c. auncienter then Moses, as Ambrose saith, and might receiue the doctrine of faith by word and tradition of other men; but yet we see that that faith is no other but what Moses after comprised in the written law. Albeit what that tradition was, hath beneSect. 1. before declared, not resting in relation from one man to another, but continually renewed and confirmed by reuelation and illumination immediatly from God, being certainly corrupted by tradition where he did not graciously shew himselfe for the preseruation of it. And as for other Gentiles, whosoeuer they were that were saued after the writing of the Law, they were saued onely by that faith which the scriptures of Moses and the Prophets haue described vnto vs. But M. Bishop not content to bring Moses alone for a patron of traditions, telleth vs beside, that not any law-maker in any country comprehended all in letters, but established many things by custome: therefore (saith he) it is not likely that our Christian law should be all written. Where we may iustly hisse at his grosse and wilfull absurditie, that will measure the Law-maker of heauen with the law-makers of the earth, and by imperfection [Page 946] in the lawes of men, will argue imperfection in the lawes of God. No vnderstanding of man can either by laws or by customes prouide for all occurrents of the commonwealth, but dayly there are arising and growing the occasions of new lawes; and will he then frame the light of God to the measure of our darknesse? And yet what lawmaker hath there bene, or is there in the world, who if he were able to comprehend an absolute perfection of all lawes, would not certainly take course to set the same downe in writing, as being the only secure and safe way for the perpetuating therof? And if we will thus conceiue of any wise and reasonable man, how much more should we attribute it to the wisedome of God, that knowing the slippernesse and mutabilitie of the minds & thoughts of men, he would for safetie and assurance set downe in writing whatsoeuer he would haue to stand for law of worship and seruice towards him? I need not to stand vpon this, for the comparison is of it selfe so odious and absurd, as that euery man may wonder that the mans discretion should faile him so far as to reason in this sort. For conclusion of this section, a toy took him in the head concerning somwhat said by M. Perkins in the sectiō before. It was said that it should cal the prouidence of God in question, to say that any part of Scripture should be lost. M. Bishop answereth, that God permitteth much euill. True, but he permitteth no euill iniurious to his owne glory. M. Perkins supposeth out of that that was said before, that all Scripture was at first written for our learning. To say that it was intended for our learning, and yet is now lost, what is it but to call in question the prouidence of God? His other answer, that there should be no great losse, because tradition might preserue that which was then lost, is a temerarious and witlesse presumption, contrary to the experience of all ages, whereby it is found that nothing is continued according to the first originall which is deliuered by word only from man to man. And his assertion is so much the more ridiculous in this behalfe, for that he knoweth not any thing that Tradition hath preserued that was written in those bookes. If Tradition haue preserued any thing thereof from being lost, let him acquaint vs with it; or if he cannot do so, let him giue vs leaue to take him for that we finde him, a meere babler, giuing himselfe libertie to say any thing without feare or wit.
20. W. BISHOP.
Now insteed of M. Perkins his fift reason for vs of milke and strong meate: wishing him a messe of Pap for his childish proposing of it, I will set downe some authorities out of the written word, in proofe of traditions.
Our Sauior said, being at the point of his passion, Iohn 16.12. that he had many things to say vnto his Apostles, but they could not as then beare them.Acts 1. Our Sauior after his resurrection appeared often vnto his Disciples, speaking with them of the kingdome of God, of which little is written in any of the Euangelists.
1. Cor. 11.I commend you brethren that you remember me in all things, and keepe the Traditions euen as I haue deliuered them to you.
1. Tim. 6.O Timothy, keepe the depositum, that is, that which I deliuered thee to keepe:2. Tim. 1. Hold fast by the holy Ghost, the good things committed vnto thee to keepe: which was as S. Chrysostome and Theophylact expound, the true doctrine of Christ, the true sence of holy Scriptures, the right administration of the Sacraments, and gouernement of the Church: to which alludeth that auncient holy Martyr S. Irenaeus,Lib. 3. c. 4. saying, that the Apostles layd vp in the Catholicke Church, as in a rich treasury, all things that belong to the truth.
S. Iohn who was the last of the Apostles left aliue, said, Epist. 3.13. that he had many other things to write, not idle or superfluous, but would not commit them to ink and pen, but referred them to be deliuered by word of mouth. And to specifie for example sake some two or three points of greatest importance, where is it written that our Sauiour the Sonne of God, is [...], that is, of the same substance with his Father? Where is it written, that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Sonne as well as from the Father? Where is it written that there is a Trinitie, that is, three persons really distinct in one and the very same substance? And that there is in our Sauiour Christ Iesus no person of man, but the substance of God and man subsisting in the second person of the Trinitie? Be not all and euery of these, principal articles of the Christian faith, and most necessary to be beleeued of the learned, and yet not one of them in expresse termes written in any part of the holy Bible? Wherefore we must either admit traditions, or leaue the highest mysteries of our Christian faith vnto the discretion and courtesie of euery wrangler, as shall be more declared in the argument following.
R. ABBOT.
The messe of pap hath scalded M. Bishops mouth, and he would faine put it off to M. Perkins. He is ashamed of the childishnesse of this reason, yet not denying it to be one of theirs, but onely blaming M. Perkins his maner of proposing it, whereas we imagine he would haue done it, if he had knowne how to haue proposed it in better sort. But because he is so desirous to passe it ouer, let vs be content also to let it go, leauing the messe of pap to them whose the reason is, and let vs follow him to examine the authorities which he bringeth for proofe of their traditions. The first is from the words of ChristIohn 16.12. at the point of his passion, saying that he had many things to say vnto his Apostles, but they could not as then beare them. Which words being of old a speciall refugeTertul. de veland virgin. of Montanus the heretike, an ancient Papist, we cannot wonder to be vsed now by the Papists for the shrowding of that trash and the like as they haue borowed of him. But of these words so much hath bin saidSect. 7. before, as that I need not here to stand vpon them any further. His second authoritie is that in the Acts, concerning our Sauiours appearing to his DisciplesAct. 1.3. by the space of fortie dayes, and speaking of the things which appertaine to the kingdome of God. Of these things (saith M. Bishop) little is written in any of the Euangelists. And we desire to know what he hath learned of those things by tradition; and if he will name to vs these or these things, we desire to know how he can proue that those were the things whereof Christ spake: if he cannot proue it, we reiect his foolish presumption, and can much better denie then he affirme. What those things were, by tradition we know nothing, but by Scripture we do know. The effect of all his speeches is set down by S. Luke in his last chapter. There he maketh his ApostlesLuke 24.48. witnesses of those things which he spake. What they witnessed, appeareth in their sermons euery where in the Acts of the Apostles, and in their Epistles and writings, all consonant and agreeable to that briefe summe there expressed by S. Luke. Now then to argue as we haue done before, we are sure as touching the things that are written, that they are of those things wherof Christ spake; but how doth M. Bishop proue that he spake any thing more then that that is written? It is expressed by S. Luke that the things [Page 949] whereof Christ spake were things appertaining to the kingdome of God. But S. Paul Acts 28.23. testified the kingdome of God out of the law of Moses and out of the Prophets. The things therefore which Christ spake, as is also imported in theLuk 24.27.44 46. last of S. Lukes Gospell, were no other but according to the scriptures of Moses and the Prophets, and therefore M. Bishops conceit of matters vnwritten must needs be an idle dreame. Thirdly he alledgeth the Apostles words, commending the Corinthians for that1. Cor. 11.2. they kept the traditions euen as he had deliuered the same vnto them. Where we find the name of traditions, which we denie not, but traditions of doctrine that should remaine vnwritten we find not. By traditions we vnderstand here out of the circumstance of the words following, rites and ceremonies prescribed by the Apostle for order and decencie in the publicke assembly of their Church, which kinde of traditions M. Perkins hath acknowledged in the beginning of this question. If M. Bishop will alledge that this is but a shift, and will needs enforce that it must be vnderstood of matters of doctrine, we wil gratifie him so farre, but still we require him to proue that those matters of doctrine were any other then were afterwards put in writing. There was but litle of the new Testament written at the writing of this Epistle. Those things which were afterwards written, must needs be vnderstood in these traditions whereof the Apostle speaketh, if we vnderstand them of doctrine, because we know that by his preaching he had deliuered those things vnto them. And if the Apostles words be necessarily to be vnderstood of those things that are written, we desire to know how they can enforce any necessitie of vnderstanding any other things thereby. One of these traditions he mentioneth afterwards,Ver. 23. the institution of the Lords Supper. It is written by himselfe, it is written by the Euangelists. Here is then a tradition, but no tradition vnwritten. The sacrament of Baptisme was another of his traditions, but that is written also. Another tradition he himselfe expresseth, to haue bene1. Cor. 15.3. the death and resurrection of Christ, but that tradition is also plentifully contained in the Scriptures. So elsewhere he signifieth it to haue bene his2. Thess. 3.6. tradition, that he which would not labour should not eate, and that tradition he hath alsoVer 1 there set downe in writing. Now sith these were of the number of his traditions, and yet are written, what should hinder but that the rest are written as well as these? [Page 950] M. Bishop alledgeth the place, and so leaueth it without head or taile: there is the name of traditions, and that is enough for him, whereas if he should draw an argument from thence for their traditions, he knoweth that his folly would too plainly appeare. His next citation is out of S. Paul to Timothy: 1. Tim. 6.20. O Timothy keepe the depositum, saith he. Where we see that one ape will be like another: his masters of Rhemes would affect a foolish kind of singularitie in translating, and he wil shew himselfe as wise as they. Why could they not as well haue giuen vs English, and said, keepe that that is committed vnto thee to keepe, seeing that is the signification of the word depositum. Yet in the other place he is content to leaue them,2. Tim. 2.14. Hold fast by the holy Ghost the good things cōmitted vnto thee to keep, where they reade, keep the good depositum. But what is that that was thus committed to Timothy to keepe? He telleth vs, that it was the true doctrine of Christ, the true sence of holy Scriptures, the right administration of the Sacraments, and the gouernment of the Church. But what of all this? We expected vnwritten traditions, and in all these things we see no necessitie to vnderstand any thing but that that is contained in the Scriptures. In the Scriptures we learne the true doctrine of Christ; and whatsoeuer is contained in the true sence of Scripture, is contained in the Scripture. There we learne whatsoeuer necessarily belongeth to the administration of Sacraments and gouernment of the Church. But our question is here of necessary doctrines which are neither contained in the word nor sence of holy Scripture, and M. Bishop doth amisse in the citing of these places, vnlesse he can make it good, that such were committed to Timothy by S. Paul. Albeit those particulars are neither set downe by Chrysostome nor Theophylact; onely Theophylact generally expoundeth the words thus,Theop. int. Tim. cap. 6. Quaecun (que) scilicet tibi sunt per me demandata, tanquam Domini praecepta seruata, nec horū quicquam imminues. 2. Tim. 3.15. Whatsoeuer things haue bene committed vnto thee by me, keepe as the commandements of the Lord, and diminish nothing thereof. Now although those words haue reference to more then is written in those two epistles, yet they haue not reference absolutely to more then is written, because in the latter of those Epistles the Apostle plainly telleth him, that q the Scriptures are able to make him wise vnto saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus. As for that which M. Bishop alledgeth out of Irenaeus, it is nothing at all to his purpose. He saith thatIren. lib. 3. ca 4. Apostili quasi in depositoriū d [...]ues plenissimè in Ecclesiae contulerūt omnia quae sunt veritatis. the Apostles haue layd vp in the Church, as in a rich treasury, all things that belong to the truth: but [Page 951] how they haue laid the same vp in the Church, he hath before expressed:Ibid. cap. 1. The Gospell which they first preached, they after by the will of God deliuered to vs in the Scriptures to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. Thus then the Church is the treasury of truth, by hauing the Scriptures which are the oracles of all truth. His last authoritie is taken from the words of S. Iohn which he vseth in his two latter Epistles: Hauing many things to write vnto you, I would not write with paper and inke, but I trust to come vnto you and speake with you mouth to mouth. We see S. Iohns words, but hard it is to say how we should conclude traditions from them. S. Iohn wold write no more to them in that sort, or in those Epistles; but doth it follow hereof that he would teach them any thing that is not contained in the Scriptures? He might haue many things to write vnto them according to the Scriptures; and what should leade vs to presume that he should meane it of other things whereof we are taught nothing there? In a word, what is there in the citing of all these authorities but impudent and shamelesse abusing of ignorant men, whilest for a colour he onely setteth them downe, and for shame dareth not set downe how that should be inferred that is in question betwixt vs and them? But to fill vp the measure of this illusion he goeth on yet further, and by way of specification asketh, Where is it written that the Sonne of God is of the same substance with the Father? or that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Sonne as well as from the Father? or that there is a Trinitie, that is, three persons really distinct in one and the very same substance? or that there is in Christ the substance of God and man subsisting in one second person of the Trinitie? Absurd & wilful wrangler, where was it written which Christ said,Luke 24.46. Thus it is written, and thus it behoued Christ to suffer and to rise againe from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sinnes should be preached in his name amongst all nations. Where is it written in the Prophets which S. Peter alledgeth,Acts 10.43. To him giue all the Prophets witnes, that through his name all that beleeue in him shall haue forgiuenesse of sinnes? Where doe Moses and the Prophets say that which Saint Paul sayth,Ibid. 26.22.23. they do say that Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light to the people and to the Gentiles? To come nearer to him, he hath told vs before, that the articles of our Beleefe are contained in the Scriptures. But where is it written in the Scriptures, that we should [Page 952] beleeue in God the Father almightie, maker of heauen and earth? or that we should beleeue in the holy Ghost? or that there is a holy Catholike Church, a communion of Saints? I will say as he saith here, Be not all these things necessary to be beleeued, and yet not one of them in expresse termes written in any part of the holy Bible? He will say, that though they be not there written in expresse termes, yet in effect and substance they are written there, and are thereby to be declared and prooued, and so he will verifie the words of our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles Peter and Paul, in those citations of Moses and the Prophets. Wizard, and are not those other articles then written in the Scriptures, because they are not written in expresse termes? Did not the Fathers conceiue all those points of faith from the Scriptures, and by the Scriptures make proofe of them? Is it not the rule of their owne schooles which I haue before mentioned out of Thomas Aquinas, thatSupra. sect. 12. concerning God nothing is to be said, but what either in words or in sence is contained in the Scriptures? What, are we maintainers of traditions, in saying that faith onely iustifieth, that Christ onely is our Mediator to the Father, that Saints are not to be inuocated, nor their images to be worshipped, because these things are no where written in expresse termes? Let it not offend thee, gentle Reader, that I be moued, to see a lewd man labouring by vaine cauillations to sophisticate and delude those that are not able to vnderstand his cosinage and fraud. It is the cause of God, and who can beare it patiently, that the soules which Christ hath bought should be intoxicated with such charmes? We do not say, that nothing is to be beleeued but what is written in the Scriptures in expresse termes, but we say that nothing is to be beleeued but what either is expressed in the Scriptures, or may be proued thereby, and therefore in oppugning traditions, we oppugne onely such doctrines of faith, as neither are expressed in the Scriptures, nor can be proued by the Scriptures. Let M. Bishop proue their traditions by the Scriptures, and we will not reiect them for vnwritten traditions, but will receiue them for written truth. But of this see what hath bene said before in the twelfth section of this question, and in the eleuenth section of the answer to his Epistle to the King.
21. W. BISHOP.
The sixt and last reason for traditions: Sundry places of holy Scriptures be hard to be vnderstood, others doubtfull, whether they must be taken literally or figuratiuely: if then it be put to euery Christian to take their owne exposition, euery seuerall sect wil coyne interpretations in fauour of their owne opinions; and so shal the word of God, ordained only to teach vs the truth, be abused and made an instrument to confirme all errors. To auoide which inconuenience, considerate men haue recourse vnto the traditions and auncient records of the Primitiue Church, receiued from the Apostles, and deliuered to the posteritie, as the true copies of Gods word: see the true exposition and sence of it, and thereby confute and reiect all priuate and new glosses which agree not with those ancient and holy commentaries: so that for the vnderstanding of both difficult and doubtfull texts of Scripture, traditions are most necessary.
M. Perkins his answer is, that there is no such need of them, but in doubtfull places, the Scripture it self is the best glosse, if there be obserued first the analogie of faith, which is the summe of religion, gathered out of the clearest places: secondly the circumstance of the place, and the nature and signification of the words: thirdly the conference of place with place: and concludeth, that the Scripture is falsly termed the matter of strife, it being not so of it selfe, but by the abuse of man.
Reply. To begin with his latter words, because I must stand vpon the former. Is the Scripture falsly termed matter of strife, because it is not so of his own nature? why then, is Christ truly called the stone of offence or no to them that beleeue not? S. Peter sayth, Yes. No, sayth M. Perkins,1: Pet. [...]. because that cometh not of Christ, but of themselues. But good Sir, Christ is truly termed a stone of offence, and the Scripture matter of strife, albeit there be no cause in them of those faults, but because it so falleth out by the malice of men.
The question is not wherefore it is so called, but whether it be so called or no truly: that which truly is, may be so called truly. But the Scripture truly is matter of great contention, euery obstinate heretike vnderstanding them according to his owne fantasie, and therefore may truly be so termed, although it be not the cause of contention in it selfe, but written to take away all contention.
But to the capitall matter, these three rules gathered out of Saint Augustine, be good directions, whereby sober and sound wits may much [Page 954] profit in study of Diuinitie, if they neglect not other ordinary helpes of good instructions and learned commentaries: but to affirme that euery Christian may by these meanes be enabled to iudge which is the true sence of any doubtfull or hard text, is extreme rashnesse and meere folly. S. Augustine himselfe wel conuersant in those rules, endued with a most happie wit, and yet much bettered with the excellent knowledge of all the liberall Sciences: yet he hauing most diligently studied the holy Scriptures for more than thirtie yeares, with the helpe also of the best commentaries he could get, and counsell of the most exquisite, yet he ingeniously confesseth, That there were more places of Scripture, that after all his study he vnderstood not, then which he did vnderstandEpist. 119. cap. 21.. And shall euery simple man furnished onely with M. Perkins his three rules of not twise three lines, be able to dissolue any difficultie in them whatsoeuer? Why do the Lutherans (to omit all former heretikes) vnderstand in one sort, the Caluinists after another, the Anabaptists a third way, and so of other sects?
And in our owne country how commeth it to passe that the Protestants find one thing in the holy Scriptures, the Puritans almost the cleane contrary? Why I say is there so great, bitter, and endlesse contention among brothers of the same spirit, about the meaning of Gods word? If euery one might by the ayd of those triuial notes, readily disclose all difficulties, and assuredly boult out the certaine truth of them. It cannot be but most euident to men of any iudgement, that the Scripture it selfe can neuer end any doubtfull controuersie, without there be admitted some certain Iudge to declare what is the true meaning of it. And it cannot but redound to the dishonor of our blessed Sauior, to say that he hath left a matter of such importance at randon, and hath not prouided for his seruants an assured meane to attaine to the true vnderstanding of it. If in matters of temporall iustice, it should be permitted to euery contentious smatterer in the Law to expound and conster the grounds of the law and statutes as it should seeme fittest in his wisedome, and not be bound to stand to the sentence and declaration of the Iudge, what iniquitie should not be law, or when should there be any end of any hard mater, one Lawyer defending one part, another the other: one counseller assuring on his certaine knowledge, one party to haue the right, another as certainly auerring not that, but the contrary to be law, both alledging for their warrant some texts of Law. What end and pacification of the parties could be deuised, vnlesse the decision of the controuersie be committed vnto the definitiue [Page 955] sentence of some, who should declare whether counsellor had argued iustly, and according to the true meaning of the Law: none at all, but bloudy debate & perpetuall conflict, each pursuing to get or keepe by force of armes, that which his learned counsell auouched to be his owne.
To auoid then such garboiles and intestine contention, there was neuer yet any Law-maker so simple, but appointed some gouernour and Iudge who should see the due obseruation of his Lawes, & determine all doubts that might arise about the letter and exposition of the Law, who is therefore called the quicke and liuely law; and shall we Christians thinke that our diuine Law-maker, who in wisedome, care, and prouidence, surmounted all others, more than the heauens do the earth, hath left his golden lawes at randon, to be interpreted as it should seeme best vnto euery one pretending some hidden knowledge from we know not what spirit? no no, it cannot be once imagined without too too great derogation vnto the soueraigne prudence of the Sonne of God.
In the old Testament, which was but a state of bondage, & as it were an introduction to the new, yet was there one appointed vnto whom they were commanded to repaire for the resolution of all doubtfull cases concerning the Law: yea, and bound (were they vnder paine of death) to stand to his determination; and shall we be so simple as to suffer our selues to be perswaded, that in the glorious state of the Gospell, plotted and framed by the wisedom of God himselfe, worse order should be taken for this high point of the true vnderstanding of the holy Gospel it selfe, being the life and soule of all the rest?
R. ABBOT.
It is truly said by Thomas Aquinas, thatThom. Aquin. sum. p. 1. q. 39. art. 4. c. In proprietatibus locutionum non tantum attendenda est res significata, sed etiam modus significandi. in propriety of speeches we are not only to regard the thing signified, but also the manner of signification. A speech may be true, & yet true only in some manner of signification, which therefore in propriety of speech is not true, because the thing properly & of it selfe is not that that the speech importeth it to be. Christ, saith M. Bishop, is truly called the rocke of offence. Be it so, yet it is true only in some manner of signification in which it is that the Scripture so calleth him; in proprietie of speech it is not true, because Christ of himselfe and properly is not so. He becommeth so to vnbeleeuers onely by their default, and therfore onely accidentally and respectiuely is so called: set aside the [Page 956] respect, and he cannot be truly called so. Euen so the Scriptures are made a matter of strife by the iniquitie and importunity of euill men, and to them onely they are so called, whereas in themselues they are not so, but properly serue for the ending and determining of all strife. Maister Perkins therefore might iustly say, that they are falsly termed the matter of strife, hauing respect to the affection and intention of them by whom they were so termed. For they who gaue this name, gaue it by way of deprauing and disgracing the Scriptures, when being required by vs to stand to the iudgement of the Scriptures, they refused to do so, and alledged that the Scriptures could giue no iudgement, but rather were themselues matter of controuersie and strife; seeking by this pretence to draw all to the determination of their owne Church. But herein they offered indignity and dishonour to him who hath giuen vnto vsPsal. 119.104.105. his word to be the lanterne vnto our feete, and the light vnto our steps, by his precepts to get vnderstanding to hate all the waies of falshood. Froward men may take occasion to striue about matters of the Scriptures, when notwithstanding the Scriptures cleare those things whereabout they striue.Tertul de resur. carn. Videntur illis materias quasdam subministrasse & ipsas quidem ijsdem literis reuincibiles The Scriptures, saith Tertullian, seeme to minister matter to heretikes, but yet they are to be conuicted by the same Scriptures. Where there is in the heart humility and obedience to the word of God, there question and controuersie soone endeth: but where there is frowardnesse and selfewill, there will be no end of contention, howsoeuer there be apparent conuiction. To leaue this, & to come to the matter specially in hand, it seemeth that M. Bishop hath much forgotten what he was about. The matter in hand is to proue traditions, that is, doctrines of faith beside the Scriptures, and he maketh here a long discourse concerning the meanes of attaining to the vnderstanding of the Scirptures. Let that meanes be what it may be; in the true vnderstanding of the Scriptures there is no other but the doctrine of the Scriptures; and what is that to their traditions? In this argument he & his fellowes keepe their woont, that is to trifle and say nothing to the matter whereof they pretend to speake. Yet to follow them in their own steps, the question is of the true interpreting and expounding of the Scriptures. It is apparent they say, what the Scripture saith, but it is doubtfull what it meaneth. There be many difficulties; some expound one way, some another way, but how is it to be knowne who expoundeth the right [Page 957] way? M. Perkins bringeth them in playing their old trump, that we must haue recourse to the tradition of the Church, imitating therein the old heretikes, whose allegation was as Irenaeus recordeth, thatIren. lib. 3 cap. 2. Cū arguuntur ex Scripturis in accusationem conuertuntur ipsarum scripturarum, &c. quia non possit ex his inuentri veritas ab his qui nesciant traeditionem. by the Scriptures the truth could not be found out by them that were ignorant of tradition. To this M. Perkins answereth, that the Scripture it selfe declareth it owne meaning, if we obserue the analogie of faith gathered out of the manifest places of Scripture; if we weigh the circumstance of the place, and signification of the words; if we diligently weigh and compare one place with another, and vse such other like helpes as the Scripture yeeldeth. With these words M. Bishop notably plaieth the sycophant, as if M. Perkins hereby affirmed, that euery Christian man by these means is enabled to iudge which is the true sence of any doubtfull or hard text: that euery simple man furnished with these three rules, is able to resolue any difficulty in the Scriptures whatsoeuer. Against this he bringeth in the confession of S. Austine, that after so long study, the things which he knew not in the Scripture, were more then those which he did know. Thus he setteth vp a S. Quintin for himselfe, and bestoweth himselfe very valiantly in running at it. But where doth M. Perkins professe this effect of those three rules with euery Christian man, euery simple man, nay where doth he affirme so much of any learned man, be he neuer so learned? He setteth downe those rules as S. Austine doth the same and many other, as necessary helpes for the searching of the truth, and by the exercise whereof men should labour to profit and grow in the vnderstanding of the Scriptures, & may attaine to the knowledge of that truth that is necessary to saluation, but farre was he from conceiuing that which M. Bishop speaketh of, that euery simple man may thereby resolue all difficulties whatsoeuer. M. Bishop for the attaining of the sence of Scripture, referreth vs to their Iudge, and to the traditions and auncient records of the primitiue Church, to those auncient and holy commentaries. But is he so witlesse as to think that any man vsing this direction of his, shall be thereby enabled in the Scriptures, to resolue all difficulties whatsoeuer? If he will haue no such fantasticall paradox gathered of that which he saith, why doth he lay the imputation of it vpon M. Perkins, when it followeth no more of M. Perkins speech one way, then it doth of his the other way? As for his question, why the Lutherans notwithstanding these rules, do vnderstand the Scriptures in one sort, the Caluinists after another, [Page 958] the Anabaptists a third way, we answer him, that in his question there is more malice then wit. We aske him the like question, how it commeth to passe that notwithstanding their rules & directions, yet all these differ from them in the expounding of Scripture? Now as he will answer that notwithstanding their directions be true, yet that cannot hinder but that heretikes will dissent from them, so we answer him, that notwithstanding our rules and instructions in this behalfe be true, and taken from the course of the auncient fathers, yet that cannot let, but that Popish heretikes, and selfe-willed Lutherans, and foolish mad Anabaptists will dissent from vs. If he will say that albeit all these dissent from them, yet they themselues agree in one, the like will be said of all other parties, that albeit others do vary from them, yet amongst themselues they vary not. It is therefore no more prejudice to our rules that others dissent from vs, then it is to Papists that we dissent from them. As for the Anabaptists, let him not put them to vs, because we wholy detest them, but rather take them home to them, because being both of them the wicked ofspring of him who isIohn. 8.44. a liar, and the father of lies, they haue both learned of him to teach men by equiuocations & mentall reseruations, to lye, to periure & forsweare thēselues. As for our own country, we must tell him that the dissension betwixt Protestants & Puritanes, was neuer so mortall and deadly amongst vs, as was the dissention of the secular Priests & Iesuites amongst them; the one in no sort to be cōpared to the other. If there might be such a garboile more then hellish or diuellish amongst them without preiudice of their religion, what preiudice should it be to vs, that there is some matter of difference amongst vs? He wil say that the maine matter amongst them, was but a matter of circumstance & of gouernment, and so his wisedome knoweth, if he list, that the matters of controuersie amongst vs, are onely matters of ceremonie and forme. He will say that they all accorded in the religion established by the councell of Trent, and so let him know, that we on both parts subscribe to the same articles of religion established amongst vs. He vvill say that there is some controuersie about the meaning of some of those articles amongst vs, and so let him remember that there is great question of the meaning of some of the articles of the Trent religion amongst them. In a word, wee are able alwaies to iustifie, that in substantiall points of faith there is no [Page 959] so great difference amongst vs, but that there is greater to be proued to haue bene continually amongst them. But now M. Bishop hauing lightly passed ouer those obseruations of M. Perkins, commeth himselfe to set vs downe a course for the attaining of the true and right sence of holy Scripture. For the first part whereof, he bestirreth his Rhetoricall stumpes by way of declamation, to shew vs how necessary it is, that in the Christian Church there should be a Iudge for the deciding and determining of controuersies and questions that arise about the Scriptures, and if in matters of temporall iustice Iudges be appointed, and euery law-maker do ordaine gouernours and Iudges for the declaring and executing of his lawes, and God tooke this course amongst the people of Israel in the old testament, he telleth vs that surely Christ in the new testament would not leaue his Church vnprouided in this behalfe. Where we will seeme for a time not to know his meaning, but will simply answer him, that Christ in this behalfe hath prouided for his Church, hauing giuen theretoEphe. 4.11.12. Pastours and teachers for the gathering together of the Saints, for the worke of the ministery, and for the building vp of the body of Christ, till we all meete together in the vnity of faith and knowledge of the sonne of God vnto a persit man. As in ciuill states there are appointed magistrates and gouernours in townes and cities, for the resoluing and deciding of causes and questions of ciuil affaires, so hath God appointed the ministers of his word, euery one according to the portion of the Lords flocke committed vnto him, to deliuer what the law of God is, and to answer and resolue cases and doubts, as touching faith and duty towards God,Tit. 1.9. to be able to exhort with wholsome doctrine, and to improue them that speake against it; to be the same to the people, as God of old required the Priests to be,Malach. 2.7. The Priests lippes should preserue knowledge, and men should seeke the law at his mouth, for he is the messenger of the Lord of hostes. If of theseActs. 20.30. any arise speaking peruerse things to draw Disciples after them, the rest are warnedVer. 28. to take heede to the Lords flocke, and therfore are by common sentence & iudgement to condemne such, that thereby the people of God may take knowledge to beware of thē. But if in the Church any controuersie or question depend, parts being taken this way & that way, so that the vnity of faith and peace of the Church is endangered therby, the example of the Apostles is to be imitated, and in solemne assembly & councel the matter is to [Page 960] be discussed and determined, the Bishops and Pastors gathering themselues together either in lesser or greater companie as the occasion doth require, and applying themselues to do that that may be for the peace and edification of the Church. And this hath bene the care of godly Christian Princes, that [...] 17.8 9. 2. [...]on. 1 [...].8. as amongst the Iews there was a high court of iudgement established for the matters of the Lord, to the sentence whereof they were appointed to stand, yea and he that did presumptuously oppose himselfe, was to die for his contempt; so there should be in their Christian States consistories of iudgement, assemblies and meetings of Bishops for considering and aduising of the causes of the Church, and what could not be determined in a lesser meeting should be referred to a greater, to a Councell prouinciall, or nationall, or general. By their authoritie they haue gathered them together, they haue sometimes bin themselues present and sitten with them as moderators, and after as princes haue by their edicts ratified and confirmed what hath bene agreed vpon, as we may see inEuseb. de vit. Constant. li 3. ca. 13. Prolatas sententias sensi [...] excipete, vitissim ferre openi viri (que) parit, &c. quid ipse sentiret eloqu [...]. Constantine the great in the Councel of Nice, inSynod. in Trullo per tot. Praesidente eodem pi [...]ssimo Impe [...]tore, &c. Conueniente Synodo secu dum Imperialem sanctionē. Constantine the fourth in the sixt Synod at Constantinople in Trullo, inToleta [...] concil. 3. Princips omnes reg [...]ra [...] sui pontifi [...]es in vnū conuenire mandauit, &c. p [...] tet. Reccaredus the King of Spaine in the third Councell of Toledo. Now therefore albeit the Empire being diuided, and many Princes of diuers dispositions possessing their seuerall kingdomes and states, there be no expectation or hope of a generall councel, yet M. Bishop seeth that we hold it necessary that in euery Christian state there should be Iudges appointed for the causes and matters of the Lord & of the Church, euen as in our church of England we haue our soueraigne Synods prouincial or national, the sentence whereof we account so waighty, as that no man may dare vpon peril of his soule presumptuously to gainsay the same. But yet with all, for the excluding of his issue, he must vnderstand that in causes & matters of faith and of the worship of God, we make these to whom this iudgement is cōmitted, not lawgiuers at all, but Iudges only. As therfore the Iudge is not his owne mouth, but the mouth of the law, not to speak what he liketh, but what the law directeth, nor to make any other construction of the law but what is warranted by the law: euen so the Iudge ecclesiasticall is to be the mouth of God, notEzech. 13.3. to follow his owne spirit, norIerem. 23.16. to speake the vision of his own hart, but out of the mouth of the Lord, neither to make other interpretation of the laws of God, then by the same lawes can be iustified and made [Page 961] good. Thus we see, that as God tied the Iewes to the sentence of the Priests, so he required the sentence of the Priests to be according to the law. Deut. 17.11. According to the law, which (law) they shall teach thee, thou shalt do; thou shalt not decline from the thing which they shall shew thee. Lyra. ibid. Hic dicit glossa Hebraica, si dixerint tibi quòd dextera sit sinistra, vel sinistra dextera, talis sententia est tenenda quod pataet manifestè falsū esse, quòd sentē tia nullius hominis cuiuscun (que) sit authoritatis est tenenda, si contineat manifestè falsitatem vel errorem, & hoc patet per hoc quod praemittitur in textu. Indicalunt tibi iudicij veritatē; & postea subditur: Et docuerint te iuxta legem eius. Ex quo patet quòd si dicunt falsum vel declinem à lege Dei manifestè, non sunt audiendi. The Hebrew glose, saith Lyra, here teacheth, that if they say to thee, that the right hand is the left, or the left the right, this sentence is to be holden, which appeareth to be manifestly false, saith he, because the sentence of no man is to be holden of what authoritie so-euer he be, if it do manifestly containe falshood and errour, and this is plaine by that that is put before in the text, They shall shew thee the truth of iudgement, & is afterwards added, They shall teach thee according to the law, whereby it is plaine that if they say any thing false, or decline manifestly from the law of God, they are not to be hearkened vnto. It is not then so to be conceiued, as that obedience should be absolutely due vnto them, because as in the ciuill state there may be corrupt Iudges that wrest the law, and giue sentence against law, so there may be corrupt men also in places of ecclesiasticall iudgement, men more affected to their owne will, then to the word of God, seeking rather themselues then Iesus Christ. It is therefore to be obserued, that as in matters of ciuill iustice, some things there are in the law so cleare, that if the sentence of the Iudge be contrary thereto, euery man may discerne and see that he swarueth from the truth, neither will a man take it to be law which the Iudge pronounceth, because his owne eies perceiue the contrary; so those things that concerne faith and religion towards God, some things by the Scripture it selfe are so apparent and plaine, as that it is manifest, that not for any ambiguity in themselues, but by the iniquity and frowardnesse of men they are called into question; and that to question the exposition, is nothing else but to seeke collusion. In which cases the Iudge hath no more to do, but to deliuer the peremptory sentence of God himselfe,Aug. ac bapt. cont. Donat lib. 2. ca. 6. Ass. ramu [...] fra [...]eram diuinam in scripturis sanctis, & in illa quid sit grauius appendamus imm [...] non appendamus, sed à Domino appensa recognoscamus. not to weigh, as S. Austine saith, but to recognize and acknowledge what the Lord hath already weighed. Sometimes matters are more hard and doubtfull, not so much haply of themselues, as by meanes of opposition and contradiction, and therfore are not so readily plaine, vntill they be made plaine. For the explaning and declaring whereof, the Church as the Iudge is to vse the help of the law it selfe, that is, of the holy Scripture, and to that purpose to apply the rules before expressed, and so not by meere authority, but by [Page 962] testimonie and warrant, to approue to the conscience of euery man the sentence that shall be giuen for determining the thing in doubt.O [...]gen in Le [...] h [...] 5. Inductus testa [...]ent [...]s l [...]t omne ve [...]ū quod ad Dea [...] [...]tinet requiri & dis [...]uti, at (que) ex [...]sis omnim rerum scienti [...]m capi. Siquid autē superficerit quod non diuina scriptura decernat, nulla alia tertia scriptura debet ad authoritatem scientia suscipi, sed quod superest, Deo reserueni [...]. By the two testaments, saith Origen, euery word that pertaineth to God, may be sea [...]ched out and discussed and all knowledge of things may be taken from them, and if there be any thing further, which the holy Scripture determineth not, there ought no other writing be receiued for authority of knowledge, but what remaineth we must reserue to God. Idē in Ierem. ho. [...]. Necesse est nobis Scripturas sanctas in testimonium vocare. Sensus quippe nostri & enarrationes si [...]e his testibus non habent fidem. It is necessary for vs, saith he, that we call the holy Scriptures to witnesse; for our sences and expositions without these witnesses haue no credit. Idem in Math. tr. 25. Dibemus ad testimonium omnium verborū quae proferimus in doctrina, proferre s [...]sum Scripturae qu [...]si confirm entera que [...] exp [...] mus sensum. Sicut enim omne aurum quodquod fuerit extra templum non est sancti fi [...]arum, sic omnis sensus qui [...]uerit extra diuinam Scripturam, qu [...]muis ad [...] rab [...]lis videatur quibusdam, non est sanctus, quia non continetur à sensu Scripturae quae sol [...] cum solum sensum santifi [...]are qu [...] in se habet. We must, saith he again, for witnesse of all the words which we vtter in teaching bring forth the sence of Scripture, as cōfirming the sence which we deliuer: for as all the gold which was without the temple was vnholy, so euery sence which is without the holy Scripture, though to some it may seeme admirable, is vnholy, because it is not contained of the sence of Scripture, which is wont to make holy, only that sence which it hath in it selfe. By this rule the iudgment of the Church is to proceed, & so to vse the gift of interpretation, as that he that gainsaieth may be conuicted as by the testimony of God himselfe, and they who haue not the gift of interpretation, may yet see & perceiue that their constructions and expositions are according to the Scripture. Now if the Church in their affirming or expounding, shall contrary that which the Scripture hath manifestly taught, & vnder pretence of being the Iudge in the causes of God, shall iudge against God, what shall we then do? Surely as a priuate man may by ordinary knowledge of the law, be able to accuse a Iudge of high treason against his Prince, euē so in this case a priuate man by ordinary knowledge of the law of God, may be able to accuse the Church of high treasō against God. And as it is ridiculous in case of treasō, to alledge that it belongeth to the Iudge to giue the meaning of the law, and to leaue him at liberty to expound it, that it may rest therupon whether his own fact be treason or not; so it is in like sort ridiculous, to alledge that it belongeth to the Church, to make the meaning of the Scriptures; that the Church is Iudge, & it must rest in the power therof, by expounding the scriptures to determine whether that which it selfe cōmandeth, be offence to God or not. The Church indeede is Iudge, but tied to bounds of law; if the Church iudge against the euidence [Page 963] of the law, then God himselfe by his owne word is to be the Iudge. For what an absurditie shall it be further to require a Iudge, where God himselfe hath pronounced a sentence, or to enquire after a meaning where the law speaketh as plainely as the Iudge can deuise to speake? When the Iudges of the people of the Iewes said,E [...]. 8.12. A confederacie, and Esay the Prophet cried out, say not, A confederacie, that is, follow not them that leade you to leagues and couenants with idolatrous nations, who was to be the Iudge betwixt them? Esay saith to the people:Ver 20. To the law and to the testimonie; if they speake not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Who was to be the Iudge when the Prophet Ieremie said one thing, andIerem 26.1 [...]. the Priests and Prophets who were the Iudges, said another? They said,Ver. 15. This man is worthy to die: he saith, If ye put me to death, ye shall bring innocent bloud vpon your selues. Who was now to be iudge betwixt them? Surely none butVer 4. the lawes which God had set before them, to which he calleth them;Cap. 11. 3. 4. the couenant which he commaunded their Fathers when he brought them out of the land of Egypt. When our Sauiour Christ stood on the one side, and the Iudges, namely, the high Priests, and Scribes, and Elders of the people on the other side, where was the Iudge?Iohn 5.39. Search the Scriptures saith our Sauiour Christ, for they are they that testifie of me. We see the highest court of iudgement vnder heauen pronounceth sentence against the Sonne of God. God indeed had appointed them for Iudges, the righteousnesse of the cause of Christ was not to be discerned but only by the Scriptures. Thus it hath bene in the Church of Christ; the Donatists on the one side affirmed thēselues to be the Church; the Catholike and godly Bishops affirmed the Church to be with them; whom did these godly Fathers make the Iudge? Optatus speaking of a maine question betwixt them, whether he that was already baptized, though by an heretike, might be baptized againe, saith:Optat. contra Parmenian. li. 5. Vos dicuis, licèt, nos dicimus, Non li [...]et. Jnter lic [...]t vestrum, & non licet nestrum, [...]tant & remigrant animae populorū. Nemo vobis credat, nemo nobis: omnes contentiosi homines sumus Quaerendi sunt iudices. Si Christiani, te vira (que) parte dari nosess [...]nt quia siudijs veritas impeditur. D [...]foris quaeren [...]us est iudixisi Paganus, non potesi nosse secreta Christian [...] si li [...], [...] est Chri [...]tu [...]i baptis [...]at [...] Ergo ni [...]rr [...]s d [...] hac re [...]ul [...] poterit reper [...]ri iudiciū, de [...] quare [...] dus est iudex. Sed vt quid p [...] sanus ad coel [...], [...]m habemus hic in Euāgelio? Testament [...]m [...]qu [...], &c. Ergo voluntas c [...] vilut in Testamento, sic in Euangelio inquiratur. You say it is lawful, and we say, it is not lawfull. Betweene your, it is lawful, and our, it is not lawful, the peoples soules do wauer. Let none beleeue you nor vs; we are all contentious men. Iudges must be sought for: if Christians, they cannot be giuen of both sides: for truth is hindred by affections. A iudge without must be sought for: if a Pagan, he cannot know the Christian mysteries: if a Iew, he is an enemy of Christian baptisme. No iudgement of this matter can be found on earth, but frō heauē, But why knock we at heauē, whē here we haue the testamēt of Christ [Page 964] in the Gospell? In the Gospell, as in his Testament, we are to enquire and search what his will is. To the like effect Austin speaketh as touching a question betwixt him and the Pelagians, whether there be sinne in infants from their birth or not:Aug. de nupt. & concupis lib. 2. cap. 33. Ista controuersia iudicem quaerit. Iudicet ergo Christus & cui re [...] mors eius profecerit ipse dicat, Hic est, inquit, sanguis, &c. Judicet cum illo, & Apostolus quia & in Apostolo ipse loquitur Christus, &c. This controuersie requireth a iudge: let Christ therefore be Iudge: let himselfe say what his death serued for. This is my bloud, saith he, which shall be shed for many for remission of sinnes. Together with him let the Apostle iudge, because Christ himselfe speaketh also in the Apostle. Thus they made no doubt to make the Scripture the Iudge, or Christ himselfe in the Scripture: knowing well that the iudgement of the Church in such cases is no other but only the pronouncing of a sentence already giuen by the highest Iudge. To this purpose therefore he requireth of the Donatists the bringing foorth of such things as are euident and plaine, because Christ somewhere or other hath plainely spoken whatsoeuer is necessarie for vs to know.Idem de vnit. Eccles cap. 5. Hoc praedico atque propono vt quaeque aeperta & manifesta deligamus, &c. This I say before hand and propound, that we make choyce of such speeches as are open and manifest. We are to set aside such things as are obscurely set downe, and wrapped vp in couers of figures, and may be interpreted both for our part and for theirs. It belongeth to acute men to iudge and discerne who doth more probably interpret those things, but we will not in a cause which the people are interested in, commit our disputation to such contentions of wit, but let the manifest truth cry and shine foorth. Reade to vs those things that are as plaine as those are that we reade to you. Bring somewhat that needeth not any man to expound it. This is the course of Ecclesiastical iudgement; by this meanes they are to stoppe the mouths of contentious men, and to satisfie the people that are interested in the cause. By all this then it appeareth, that God hath not left his Church destitute of authoritie of iudgement, but hath both appointed Iudges, and prescribed them lawes whereby to iudge; onely that we remē ber, thatPsal. 82.1. he is the Iudge amongst the Iudges, and the sentence must be his. But now we know what it is that M. Bishop aymeth at, for he would faine haue it conceiued, that there should be some one to be iudge, and that one must be the Pope. They name sometimes the Church, and somtimes the Councell, but the Church is but the cloake-bagge, and the Councell the capcase to cary the Pope whither it pleaseth them, because neither 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 [Page 965] 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 frō 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 expounded2. 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,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,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: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 frō 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 [Page 966] 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:Alph [...]ns [...]e Castro lib. 1 ca 4 contra haeres. Cū cons [...]t pl [...]res cor [...] ad [...] [...]sse ill [...]teratos, vt Gra [...]atram penitùs ignorāt, qui fit, vt sicras literas interpretari p [...]s [...]t? Thus it was printed twice at first, but after for th [...] 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 thatGregor. lib. 4. Ep. 32. Vniuersa Eccl [...]sia. quod absit, à statu suo corru [...]t, quando is qui appell [...]tur v [...]uersaelis cadit Et lib. 6 Ep [...]. 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, thatCipria de simp. Praelat. Episcopatus v [...] est c [...] a singulis in s [...]dum p [...] t [...]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, thatId [...] lib. 3. Ep. 13 [...] er [...]runt, &c. vt si quis ex hoc co [...]io haere [...] [...], & gregē Christ [...]cerare & v [...]stare t [...] [...]rit sa [...]ueni [...] caerer [...], & quasi p [...]teres vtil [...]s & [...] S [...]cord [...]s [...] Dominic [...]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 [Page 967] they haue bewitched the world to entertaine this paradoxe, which in the old Christian world was neuer heard of, thatHosius de expresso Dei verbo Siquis habeat interpretationem Ecclesiae Romanae de aliquo loco Scripturae, etiāsi nec sciat nec intelligat an & quomodo cum Scripturae verbis conueniat, tamen habet ipsissimum verbū 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, thatRhem. Testam. Argument of the Epistles in generall. if any thing in Paules Epistles sound to him as contrary to the doctrine of the Catholike Church, (it is vnknowne what Church they meane) he faileth of the right sense. Thus howsoeuer clearely the scripture soundeth, yet it meaneth not that which it saith, if it be contrarie to that which they affirme. To this impudent deuise they are driuen, because they see that the scripture condemneth them, vnlesse they themselues haue the managing of the scripture: that if the scripture be admitted for iudge, it peremptorily pronounceth sentence against them, so that they haue no meanes to colour their abhominations, but by challenging to themselues to be iudges of the scripture. As for vs we hang the doctrine of faith, not vpon our expositions, but vpon the very words of God himselfe; we make the holy scripture the iudge, not in ambiguous and doubtfull speeches, but in cleare and euident sentences, where the very words declare what the meaning is. It is a question betwixt vs and them whether Saints images be to be worshipped or not: they say they are, we say they are not. Let the Iudge speake,Exod. 20.4. Deut. 5.8. Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any likenesse of any thing in heauen aboue, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters vnder the earth; thou shalt not now down to them, nor worship them. It is a question whether there be now any sacrifice to be offered for the forgiuenesse of sins. They say there is so in their Masse, we say there is none. Let the Iudge speake:Mat. 26.28. This is my bloud of the new Testament which is shed for you, & for many for remission of sins. Heb. 10.18. Now where remission of sins is, there is no more offering for sin. It is a question betwixt vs, whether the Saints be our Mediators vnto God or not. They say they are, we say they are not. Let the Iudge determine it.1 Tim. 2.5. There is one God (saith he) and one Mediatour betwixt God and man, euen the man Iesus Christ. It is a question whether a man be iustified before God by workes or not. They say it must be so; we say it cannot be. Let the Iudge answer it,Rom. 3.20. By the workes of the lawe shall no flesh be iustified in his sight. Gal. 3.11.12. That no man is iustified by the law in the sight of God, it [Page 968] is euident, for the iust shall liue by faith, and the law is not of faith, but the man that shall do those things shall liue in them. They alledge that the Iudge saith, thatIam. 2.24. a man is iustified by workes, and not by faith onely: we say, that that is onely in the sight of men or with men: they say that it is in the sight of God. Let the iudge end it.Rom. 4.2. If Abraham were iustified by workes, he had to reioyce, but not with God. It is a question whether the crosses and sufferings of the Saints do yeeld vs any helpe with God, or any part of satisfaction for our sinnes. They say they do, we say they do not: let the iudge tell vs whether they do or not.1. Cor. 1.13. Was Paul crucified for you? Gal 6.14. God forbid that I should reioyce but in the crosse of our Lord Iesus Christ. It is a question whether the people ought to be partakers of the Lords cup: they say no; we say yea. Let the iudge decide it.Mat. 26.27. Drinke ye all of this. Thus in all matters betwixt them and vs, the iudge speaketh clearely on our side: his words are so plaine as nothing can be more plaine. Yet notwithstanding they tell vs, that all these things haue another meaning, which we must take vpon the Popes word. The commā dement (forsooth) is meant of the idols of the Gentiles, not of the images of Saints. As if a whore-monger should say, that the lawe forbiddeth whoredome of Christians with heathens, not one with another. The Scripture, they say, intendeth there is no other Mediator of redemption but one, but Mediators of intercession there are many. As if an adulterous woman should say, that she may haue but one husband of this or that sort, but of another sort she may haue many. And yet they make them mediators of redemption also, because they make them mediators of satisfaction, and redemption is nothing else but the paiment of a price of satisfaction. Thus they dally in the rest, and shew themselues impudent and shameles men: let them for their meanings reade to vs as plaine words of the iudge, as those are that we reade to them, and we will admit of them. If not, they must giue vs leaue to stand to the sentence of the iudge of heauen and earth, and to account the Pope as he is, a corrupt and wicked iudge, although were he what he should be, yet void of all title of being iudge to vs.
22. W. BISHOP.
Giue me leaue (gentle Reader) to stay somewhat longer in this matter, [Page 969] because there is nothing of more importance, and it is not handled any where else in all this Booke. Consider then with your selfe, that our coelestiall Law-maker gaue his law, not written in Inke and Paper, but in the hearts of his most faithfull subiects, Ierem. 31. 2. Cor. 3. endowing them with the blessed spirit of truth, Iohn 16. and with a most diligent care of instrusting others, that all their posteritie might learne of them all the points of Christian doctrine, and giue credit to them aswell for the written as vnwritten word, and more for the true meaning of the word, then for the word it selfe. These and their true successors be liuely Oracles of the true and liuing God, them must we consult in all doubtfull questions of Religion, and submit our selues wholy to their decree. S. Paule that vessell of election, may serue vs for a singular modell and patterne of the whole; who hauing receiued the true knowledge of the Gospell from God, yet went vp to Hierusalem with Barnaby, to conferre with the chiefe Apostles, the Gospell which he preached, lest perhaps he might runne in vaine, and had runne, as in expresse words he witnesseth himselfe. Gal. 2. Vpon which fact and words of S. Paule, the auncient Fathers do gather, that the faithful would not haue giuen any credit vnto the Apostles doctrine, vnlesse by S. Peter and the other Apostles, it had bene first examined and approued. Tertul lib. 4. in Marc. Hier. Ep. 89 quae est 11. inter Ep. Augustini. August. lib. 28. contra Faustū, cap. 4. Againe, when there arose a most dangerous question of abrogating Moses lawe: was it left to euery Christian to decide by the written word? or would many of the faithfull beleeue S. Paule, that worthy Apostle in the matter? Not so, but vp they went to Hierusalem, to heare what the pillars of the Church would say: where, by the decree of the Apostles in councell, the controuersie was ended: which S. Paule afterward deliuered in his preaching, commanding all to obserue and keepe the decree and ordinance of the Apostles Acts 16.. And if it would not be tedious, I could in like manner shew, how in like sort euery hundredth yeare after, errors and heresies rising by misconstruction of the written word, they were confuted and reiected, not by the written word onely, but by the sentence and declaration of the Apostles scholers, and Successors.
See Cardinall Bellarmine,Tom. 1. lib. 3. cap. 6. I will onely record two noble examples of this recourse vnto Antiquitie, for the true sense of Gods word: the first, out of the Ecclesiasticall historie, Lib. 11. cap. 9. where, of S. Gregorie Nazianzen and S. Basil, two principall lights of the Greeke Church, this is recorded: They were both Noble men, brought vp together at Athens: and afterward for thirteeene yeares space, laying aside all profane bookes, employed their studie wholy in the holy Scriptures. [Page 970] The sense and true meaning whereof they sought, not out of their owne iudgement, (as the Protestants both do, and teach others to do) but out of their Predecessors writings and authoritie: namely, of such as were knowne to haue receiued the rule of vnderstanding from the Tradition of the Apostles: these be the very words.
The other example shall be the principall pillar of the Latin Church, S. Augustine, who not onely exhorteth and aduiseth vs to follow the decree of the auncient Church, if we will not be deceiued with the obscuritie of doubtfull questions, Lib. contra Crescon. 1. c. 33 but plainely affirmeth, That he would not beleeue the Gospell, if the authoritie of the Church did not moue him vnto it.Con [...]ra Epist. sund. cap. 5. Which words are not to be vnderstood as Caluin would haue them: that S. Augustine had not bene at first a Christian, if by the authoritie of the Church, he had not bene therunto perswaded: but that when he was a learned and iudicious Doctor, and did write against heretikes, euen then he would not beleeue these books of the Gospell to haue bin penned by diuine inspiration, and no others, & this to be the true sense of them; vnlesse the Catholike Church (famous then for antiquitie, generalitie, and consent) did tell him, which and what they were: so farre was he off from trusting to his owne skill and iudgement in this matter, which notwithstanding was most excellent.
R. ABBOT.
M. Bishop here setteth the stocke vpon it, and at one game he is minded to winne all, but indeed as a cousening gamester by shifting and iugling beguileth honest simple men, so doth he abuse the simple Reader with goodly glorious words, crauing leaue as it were to giue him satisfaction in a high point, and applying himselfe vnder this colour most trecherously to delude him. Consider (saith he) that our coelestiall lawgiuer gaue his law not written in Inke and Paper, but in the hearts of his most faithfull subiects. For this he quoteth the words of God by the Prophet Ieremy: Ierem. 31.33. After those dayes, saith the Lord, I will put my law into their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, &c. and the words of the Apostle to the Corinthians2. Cor. 3.3. Ye are manifest to be the Epistle of Christ ministred by vs, not written with inke, but with the spirit of the liuing God, not in tables of stone, but in fleshly Tables of the heart. Now therefore he will haue vs to conceiue that which Andradius one of the great masters of the Trent-Councell [Page 971] hath told vs, thatAndrad. Orth. explicat. lib. 2. Non spectauit Christus vt Euā gelium literit descriptum aut in membranu exaratum iaceret, sed vt verbis explicatum omni creaturae promulgaretur. Christ did not looke that the Gospell should lye written in letters or printed in parchments, but that by declaration of words it should be published to all creatures. Where we see how they apply themselues so much as in them lyeth to impeach & vilifie the authoritie of Scriptures, as if they were written onely of priuate fancie, and Christ had had no care or regard to haue it so. But how impertinently those places are brought for proofe hereof, appeareth very plainely out of the words themselues. For what was the law that God promised by Ieremy to write in the hearts of his people? Was it not the law giuen before by Moses, concerning which Moses also expresseth the same promise that Ieremy doth:Deut. 30.6. The Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seede, that thou maist loue the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soule that thou maist liue. NowExod. 34.1. that law God himselfe had deliuered in writing, andVers. 27. commaunded Moses also to write the same. Therefore the words of Ieremy as touching writing Gods law in our hearts, can import nothing against the writing of it with inke and paper, but onely that the lawes which were before by the ministerie of Moses deliuered onely in inke and paper, should by the power of the holy Ghost through the faith of Christ be wrought and written in the affections of the heart: that God in Christ would not administer onely outwardly the letter of the lawe, whether in writing or in preaching, but would in both by the regeneration of the spirit giue grace inwardly for the fulfilling of it. As little to that purpose is the other place. The false Apostles laboured to impeach the credit of S. Paules Apostleship, as if he had had no sufficient commission or warrant of it. S. Paul for himselfe alledgeth, that the Corinthians were as an Epistle from Christ, whereby he was sufficiently commended and his calling testified vnto them, in that the Gospell by his ministery had had so great successe, & taken so great effect amongst them. That singular effect of his preaching he importeth to haue bene a greater assurance vnto them then any epistle written with inke and paper, and to haue commended his ministerie aboue the ministerie of Moses, who gaue the Law onely in tables of stone, because here the spirit of God concurred with the outward seruice, and wrought mightily in their hearts, for the receiuing of the doctrine of the faith of Christ, and conuerting of thē vnto God. Now to say that the Corinthiās were an epistle not writtē [Page 972] with ink nor in tables of stone, what is it to shew that the celestial law-giuer gaue not his lawes written with inke and paper? Surely the difference of the two testaments, which is the thing that M. Bishop would insinuate, was neuer holden to consist in this, that the one should be written and the other vnwritten, because euen in the old testament the new was written, but herein it stood, that the one either written or taught by word, ministred onely knowledge what we ought to do, not anie grace for the doing of it, but the other not only teacheth by writing or by preaching but ministreth also grace to worke in the heart obedience to that that it teacheth.August. de sp. & lit. cap. 20. Propter veteru hominis noxam quae per literam rube [...]rem & minantem minimè fanabitur dicitur illud testamentū vitas: hoc verò nonum propter nouitatem spiritus qua hominem nouum san [...]tà vitio vetustatis, The old Testament, saith S. Austin, is so called because of the corruption of the old man, which was not healed by the commanding and threatening letter, but the other the new, because of the newnesse of the spirit, which healeth the new man from the old corruption. But we would gladly know of M. Bishop how it is true which the Apostle saith, that2. Tim. 3.16. all Scripture is inspired of God, if it be true which he saith, that God did not giue his lawes written with inke and paper. If the Gospell might well enough haue bene kept in mens hearts without writing, why were the faithfull so instant with S. Marke first, & after with S. Iohn, as we haue seene before, for the writing of their Gospels? Why doth the Apostle tell the Philippians, thatPhil. 3.1. it was necessary for them that he should write vnto them the same things that he had preached vnto them, if there were no such necessitie? Why is S. Iohn in the Reuelation so often commaundedReuel. 1.11 & cap. 2.1. &c & cap. 14.13. to write, to write, if tradition might serue as well as writing? Surely Irenaeus telleth vs, that it wasJren. [...]ib. 3 c. 1. Euangelium per voluntatem Dei in Scripturu nob [...]s tradiderunt. by the will of God that the Apostles deliuered vnto vs the Gospell in writing, as we haue shewed before. So likewise we haue heard S. Austin saying, thatAug. supra sect. 14. Christ commanded his disciples to write what he would haue vs to reade of his sayings and doings. The same S. Austine saith againe, thatIdem in epist. Ioan. tract. 2. Contra insidiosos errores Deus voluit pouere firmamentum in scripturis sanctis contra quas nullus audet loqui qui quoquo modo se vult videri Christianum. God would place a bulwarke against deceiptfull errors in the holy Scriptures, against which no man dare speake that will in any sort be taken for a Christian man. Do these Fathers tell vs that it was the will of God, the commaundement of Christ, that his lawes should be deliuered vnto vs written with inke and paper, and will M. Bishop perswade vs that it was not the will of God? But I would further question with him, What, are they all so perfect in the Gospell at Rome, as that they neede no written Gospell? Is it so setled in their hearts & remembrances by tradition only, as that without [Page 973] any Scriptures it might be preserued amōgst them? If M. Bishop say yea; he knoweth himselfe to be a lyer. If he say, no, what is the reason that he setteth thus lightly by inke and paper? Fie vpon this wilfull blindnesse: how strange a thing is it that any man should thus cast a veile ouer his owne eyes? He telleth vs further, that Christ endowed his Apostles with the blessed spirit of truth, & with a most diligēt care of instructing others, that all their posteritie might learne of them al the points of Christian doctrin. Now thus far he saith true: but his purpose is, with a little truth to colour a great lye. For he addeth, that we should giue credit to them aswell for the written as vnwritten word. Sycophant, what haue we here to do with the vnwritten word? The vnwritten word is the matter in question, and must it here be presumed before it be proued? Let it first be made good, that the Apostles meant to leaue behind them any vnwritten word. We say, that because they had care that all posteritie by them should learne all the points of Christian doctrine, therefore they had care that all the points of Christian doctrine should be committed to writing, that as S. Luke professeth to haue written to the intent that Theophilus Luk. 1.4. might thereby acknowledge the certainty of those things wherof he had bene instructed, so by his writings and the rest, we should acknowledge the certaintie and assured truth of their doctrine, and not lye open to the illusions of such impostors and cosiners as M. Bishop is, who vnder the names of the Apostles should broach those things which the Apostles neuer thought. Whereof we haue a notable example inEuseb. hist. lib. 3. ca. 36. Papias, who succeeded immediatly after the time of the Apostles, who whilest he was not contented with those things which were left in writing, but was still hearkening after euery one that tooke vpon him to haue bin a follower of any of the Apostles, and enquiring what any of them had said or done, swallowed manie gudgeons giuen him by such deceiuers, and deliuered,Alia tāquam ex viua trad. tione ad se relata et peregr [...]na [...] quasdam seruatoris parabolas & doctrinas cum non nullis fob [...]losis adijcit, &c. Apostolicas d [...]sputationes non rectè accepit, &c. Quamplurimis [...]os se ecclesiasticis viris ciroris causam dedit, quiad antiquitatem ipsius respexerunt. &c. as reported to him by tradition, many fabulous things and strange doctrines, conceiuing himselfe by that meanes amisse of the Apostles speeches, and giuing occasion to many other to erre as he did, whilest for his antiquitie they respected him very much. This is the end of M. Bishops vnwrittē word: they wil teach vs what pleaseth their Lord god the Pope, & thē make vs beleeue it is a part of the vnwritten word. But yet he addeth again, that our crediting the Apostles shold be more for the meaning of the word then for the word it self. Where it is not in any good meaning that he thus nicely distinguisheth betwixt the word it self & the [Page 974] meaning of the word, leauing it forsooth to be vnderstood, that they left the word one way and the meaning of the word another way; the one in writing and the other by tradition. But what, will M. Bishop haue vs thinke that the Apostles would write words, and not meane by their words to signifie their meaning? Is it likely that they would write one thing and in meaning intend another? Did they not write to that very end, that in their writing it should appeare to all ages what doctrine they taught? Surely they were honest and plaine dealing men; they wold not beguile vs, they wold not mock vs: they haue simply told vs what their mind is. There are manie difficulties in their writings and in the whole Scriptures, it is true, but yet there are perspicuities also so farre as is needful for the clearing of them. There is to exercise the strong; but yet there is also to sustaine and comfort the weake. There is to prouoke the appetite, but yet there is also to satisfie the hunger. There isB [...]rnard. in paru. ser. 64. In Pelago sacra lection [...] & agnus ambulat & elephas natat. depth for the Elephant to swim, but there are also shelfes and shallowes for the lambe to wade. It is truly said by S. Austin, thatAug. ep. 3. Non quòd ad ea quae necessaria sunt saluti tanta in eis difficultate peruentatur. without any great difficultie we thereby attaine to those things that are necessary for saluation, and thatIdem de vtilit. credendi. cap. 6. Inscripturis disciplina ita modificata vt nemo inde haurire non possit quod sibi satis est si modo ad hauritendum deuotè ac piè vt vera religio poscit accedat. the doctrine thereof is so tempered, as that there is no man but may draw from thence that that is sufficient for him, if he come to draw with deuotion and pietie, as true religion requireth he should do. M. Bishop goeth on and telleth vs, These and their true successors be the true and liuely oracles of the true and liuing God; them we must consult in all doubtfull questions, and submit our selues wholy to their decree. But what M. Bishop? are not onely the Apostles, but their successors also the liuely oracles of God? Which of the successors of the Apostles euer tooke vpon him either seuerally or ioyntly so to be? We haue heard thatEphes. 2.20. the houshold of God are built vpon the foundations of the Apostles and Prophets, but that they are built vpon the foundations of the Apostles successours we neuer heard. As for consulting with the Fathers in doubtfull questions, we willingly yeeld to do it, that we may haue their helpe to find out in the Scripture the resolution of such doubts, but that we are to submit our selues wholy to their decree as accounting them the oracles of God, is a point of learning which S. Austin knew not when he said;Aug. de nat. & grat. cap 61. Eg [...] in hutusmedi quorumlibet hominum scriptu liber sum, quia solis Canonicis Scripturis debeo fine vlla recusa [...]nne confensum. I am free in such writings of men whatsoeuer they be; because to the Canonicall Scriptures onely do I owe consent without refusall. But not to stand too long vpon these fancies, let one place of Hierome [Page 975] be an [...]s [...]er to them all.Hier. in Psal. 86. Quomodo narrabit Dominus? Non verbo sed Scriptura. In cutus Scriptura? in populorum: quae Scripturae populis omnibus legitur, hoc est, ve omnes intelligant, &c. The Lord will declare or shew in the Scripture of the people, and of the Princes that haue bene in her. How will the Lord declare? Not by word but by writing, or by Scripture: In whose Scripture? Euen in the Scripture of the peoples, which is read to all peoples: that is, that all may vnderstand. The Lord hath spoken by his Gospell, not that a few, but that all should vnderstand: the Princes of Christ haue not written for a few, but for all the people. The Princes are the Apostles and the Euangelists. Those (saith he) which were or haue bene in her. Marke what he saith, which were, not which are: so that the Apostles excepted, whatsoeuer after shall be said, is cut off, and hath no authoritie. Albeit therfore a man be holy, albeit he be learned, after the Apostles, he hath no authoritie. In which words he sheweth vs, that the counsell of God thought good to leaue vs the Apostles doctrine, not by word, not by tradition, but by writing: that the scriptures which he hath giuen vs by them are so disposed, as that they serue for the vnderstanding of all men, that all authoritie of doctrine is concluded and ended in them, neither hath any after them authoritie to teach vs any thing towards God, that is not warranted and approued by their writings. It is false therefore which M. Bishop saith, that Christ gaue not his lawes written with inke and paper: and againe, that the meaning of the word is not to be knowne by the word it selfe: and againe, that the successors of the Apostles also are the liuely oracles of the true and liuing God. In the next place he abuseth the Apostle S. Paule, and vnder colour of the names of two or three of the Fathers, absurdly misapplieth his going vp to Hierusalem, as if he had gone to haue his doctrine examined and approued by the Apostles that were before him. He nameth S. Peter single and by himselfe, as to haue vs to conceiue, that S. Paul yeelded some high preheminence & superiority to him. But there is no such matter as he pretendeth, the Apostles own declaration ouerthroweth all this fancie. He professeth, thatGal. 1.12. he receiued not his Gospell of man, nor was taught it but by the reuelation of Iesus Christ. After that he had receiued the reuelation of the Gospell from Christ, & was appointed to preach the Gospell amongst the Gentils, directly against M. Bishops deuise he saith:Ver. 16.17. Immediatly I communed not with flesh and bloud, neither went I vp to Ierusalē to thē that were Apostles before me, but went into Arabia, &c. Ambros. in Gal. cap. 1. Nec consilium cutusquam petijt, aut ad aliquem retulit quid esset acturus, sed protinùs Christum praedicauit, &c. Non fuisse dicit necessitatem electum se à Deo pergend [...] a [...] praecessores Apostolos, vt aliquid fortè disceret ab eis, &c. He asked no mans counsell (saith Ambrose) nor referred it to any man what he should [Page 976] do, but foorthwith preached Christ. He saith, that there was no necessity that he being chosen of God, should go to the Apostles his predecessors, as haply to learne any thing from them. Now how badly doth M. Bishop deale to make his reader beleeue, that S. Pauls doctrine was first to be examined and approued by Peter, and the rest of the Apostles, when as S. Paul professedly saith, that he went not to take any approbation from them, because he had receiued equall authoritie & cō mission with them. He further declareth, thatVer. 18. three yeares after he went to Hierusalem to see Peter, and abode with him 15. daies. Ambros. ibid. Non vt al [...]quid ab eo disceret, quia [...]am ab authore didicerat, à quo & ipse Petrus fuerat instructus, sed propter [...]ffectum Apostolatus, & vt sciret Petrus hanc illi datam licentiam quam & ipse acceperat Not to learne any thing of him, saith Ambrose, because he had already learned of the author himself, by whom Peter was taught, but for affection of the Apostleship & that Peter might know that the same cōmission was giue to him which Peter himselfe had. He went to himTheophy. act [...]n Gal. 1. Non vtilitatis sed honoris duntaxit gratia, vt Petrū spectaret. not for any benefit, but for honors sake to see him, saith Theophylact. Not for any such honors sake as M. Bishop imagineth, as to acknowledge him his superior in place & office, S. Paul himself professing himself2. Cor. 12.11. in nothing to haue bene inferiour to the very chiefe Apostles, but for that honours sake of which the same Apostle saith:Rom. 12.10. In giuing honor, go one before another, & wherof we are wont to say, that we name a man honoris gratia, for honors sake, by whichTheophyl. vt supra. Vt cum qui aetate esset prouect [...]or veneraretur & magnificeret the yonger honoreth the elder, the equall his equall, yea & the superior his inferior. For otherwise it is true which Cyprian saith thatCyprian. de simpl. Pralat. Hoc erāt reliqui Apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari conserito praediti & hoacris & potestatis. the rest of the Apostles were the same that Peter was, indued with equall fellowship both of honour and of power. But to go forwardGal. 2.1. 14. yeares after befell that that M. Bishop here speaketh of, that Paul went vp againe to Ierusalem. The occasiō whereof was that that the mentioneth here as another matter, about the question of the Gentils obseruing of Moses law. Paul and Barnabas had preached the Gospell with great successe amongst the Gentils, and namely, at Antioch. Whilest they were abiding there,Act. 15.1. there came downe certaine frō Iudea, & taught the brethren, Except ye be circumcised after the maner of Moses, ye cannot be saued. Hereupon there was great dissention and great disputation of Paule and Barnabas against thē. These false Apostles pretended thēselues to haue come frō the Apostles at Ierusalē, and to haue receiued their instructions frō thē, as may appeare by those words of their answer,Ver. 24. We haue heard that certaine which departed frō vs haue troubled you with words, and cumbred your minds, saying ye must be circumcised & keep the law, to whom we gaue no such commandement. Vnder this colour [Page 977] they slandred Paul, as teaching another Gospell then the other Apostles did. Now when as they thus pretēded the Apostles names, and made shew to haue receiued commandement from them, it was necessarie for the satisfaction of the Church, that the matter should be cleared by the Apostles themselues. Wherefore it was thought good, & GodGal. 2.2. by reuelation also so directed, as the Apostle signifieth, thatAct 15.2. he and Barnabas, & some other of thē should go to Ierusalē to the Apostles and Elders about this question. This occasion of his going let S. Ambrose declare:Ambr. in Gal. 2. A Iudaeis causa legis mala illi siebat opinto, quasi discordaret à praedicatione caeterorū Aposto lorum, & hinc fiebat multis scrupulus, ita vt gentes possent perturbari ne in aliud inducer [...] tur ab eo quàm tradebant Apostoli, qui cum Domino fuerant. Nam ipsa occasione subuersi sūt Galatae à Iudaeis dicentibus, quiae aliud tradebat Paulus quam Petrus. Hinc factum est vt admonitus reuelatione Domini ascenderet Hierosolymā, &c. The Iewes, saith he, caused an euill opinion of him in behalfe of their law, as if he disagreed frō the preaching of the rest of the Apostles, & herby some scruple grew to many, so as that the Gentils might be troubled or perplexed with doubt, left by him they should be drawne to any thing else then the Apostles deliuered who had bene with the Lord. For by this occasion the Galathians were peruerted by the Iewes, saying, that Paul deliuered or taught otherwise then Peter did. Hence it came to passe, that being admonished by reuelation from the Lord, he went vp to Hierusalem. What to do? to be examined and approued of thē as his superiors & iudges, as M. B. saith? What, had he preached the Gospell now 17. yeares, & doth he now at length remember himselfe to come to his superiors to be examined of them? no such matter. He came as he saithVer. 2. to confer with them of the Gospell which he preached among the Gentils. NowHiero. in Gal. 2. Aliud est cō ferre, aliud discere. Inter conferentes aequalitas est, inter docentem & discentē, minor est ille qui discit. it is one thing to confer, saith Ierome, another thing to learne. There is equality bewixt thē that conferre; but betwixt him that teacheth, and him that learneth, he that learneth is the lesser. He conferred then with the other Apostles, as his equals, not in respect of himselfe, as to haue any thing added to himself by thē, but only for satisfactiō of the Church, that the scandall of the slander of the false Apostles might be remoued, & all the Church might know, that in their doctrine they cōsented al in one, that so neither his labor thenceforth, nor that that he had bestowed might be bestowed in vaine, by reason of any such false suggestions of his dissenting from the rest. And to shew that he conferred with thē to no other end, he saith afterwards, thatVer 6. they added nothing further to him, thatVer. 7. they saw that the Gospel of the vncircumcision was committed to him as the Gospell of the circumcision was committed to Peter, Ver. 9. that they who seemed to be pillars, Iames, Peter, and Iohn, gaue vnto him, and Barnabas right hands of fellowship, yea that he was so farre from being inferiour to them, as that at Antioch: Ver. 11. he withstood Peter to his face as iustly to be blamed, for not going the right [Page 978] way to the truth of the Gospell, in that he seemed by his cariage to draw the Gentiles to the obseruation of the law contrary, to that which before had bene acknowledged by him. Now then the reason is manifest of S. Pauls going vp to the pillars of the Church, albeit he were as great a pillar as any of them. And as for the sentence of the Councel, it did not teach him any thing which he knew not, but onely signified the common acknowledgement of that which he had before taught.Chrysost in Gal 1. Ab initio quid esset agendum perspexerat, nec opus h [...]bebat vllo doctore, sed quae post multā discussionē erant Apostoli decreturi, haec ipsa citra discussionem coelitus h [...]bebat apud se certa & indubitata. He vnderstood from the beginning, saith Chrysostome, what was to be done, and needed no teacher, but what the Apostles after much debating should decree, the same had he certain and vndoubted with himself from heauen without debating. Now by this that hath bene said, we may conceiue what to thinke of those allegatiōs which M. Bishop for a shew hath quoted in the margēt. That which Tertullian saith is apparently false, thatTertul. contra Marc. lib. 4. Ascendit ad consultandos Apostolos ne fortè secundū illos non credidisset, & non secundum illos euangelizaret. Paul went to Hierusalem to consult with the Apostles, lest haply he had not beleeued as they did, or did not preach the Gospell as they did. As though it were likely, that the Apostle would haue continued his preaching for 17. years, not knowing whether he preached right or wrong. As though he knew not that which he preached to be the truth, hauing receiued it (as before is shewed) by the reuelation of Iesus Christ. That which Ierome saith must be esteemed according to the humor wherein he wrote it, which was in great choler and stomacke towards S. Austin for disliking his opinion as touching Peters dissimulation, mentioned in the chapter wherof we here speake. His words are, thatHieron apud August. Epi. 11. Ostendens se non habuisse securitatē Euangelij praedicandi, nisi Petri & illorum qui cum illo erāt fuisset sententia roboratum. Paul had not had securitie of preaching the Gospell, had it not bene confirmed by the sentence of Peter and those that were with him. As though he had preached 17. yeares, as before was said, without warrant of preaching? As though he expected confirmation now frō Peter, or those that were with him, who so long before had had confirmatiō frō Christ himselfe? As though he became an Apostle by warrant of Peter, & those that were with him, who in the beginning of his Epistle writeth himselfe,Gal. 1.1. Paul an Apostle, not of men, nor by man, but by Iesus Christ, with many other words before mentioned, disclaiming the receiuing of any authority frō men. Ieromes heat made him forget that which is before cited out of his exposition vpō that Epistle, that conferēce importeth equality, & therfore that the Apostle shewing that he went to confer with the rest of the Apostles, importeth that he receiued of thē no warrant of authority, but only by cōsent. [Page 979] As for that which is quoted out of S. Austine, it maketh nothing to M. Bishops purpose.August. cont. Faust lib. 28. ca. 4 Si non inueniret in carne Apostolos quibus cōmu [...]icando & cū quibus Euangeliū conferendo eiusdē societatis esse appareres, ecclesia illi omnino no crederet. Sed cùm cognouisset eum hoc annuntiantem quod etiam ill [...] annuntiabant, et in eorum comunione at (que) vnitate viuentem, accedentibus etiam per eum talibus signis qualia & illi operabantur, ita eam Domino cōmendante, [...] ruit authoritatē vt verba illius hodie sic audiantur in ecclesia, tanquam in illo Christus sicut ipse verissimè dixit l [...]cutus audiatur. If there had bene no Apostles liuing, that Paul in communicating with them, and conferring with them of the Gospell, might appeare to be of the same societie, the Church would not haue beleeued him. But when they knew him preaching the same which they preached, and liuing in their vnity and fellowship, doing also the same miracles which they did, God thus commending it, he obtained authority, that his words are now heard in the Church, as if Christ were heard speaking in him, as he himselfe most truly saith. In which words he attributeth to the rest of the Apostles the giuing of a testimonie, that he was of the same societie and fellowship with them, but importeth nothing at all of any their iudiciall power or superiority ouer him. The occasion of the words will shew the purport of them. Manicheus the heretike wrote an Epistle as the Apostle of Christ, contrarying those things which were written by the true Apostles. The Manichees vrged this Epistle as the true story of Christ, alledging that the Gospels were corrupted and not true. S. Austine questioneth how the Church should take him for an Apostle, or admit that for truth which he wrote concerning Christ, when as he liued not in the time of the Apostles, nor was knowne to be one of them, by hauing communion and fellowship with them. For euen Paul, saith he, if he had liued after their times, and had not bene knowne to haue society and company with them, and by his preaching & miracles together with them, had not bene commended to the Church by God, the Church could not haue taken him for an Apostle of Christ, nor beleeued him vpon his owne word. This is all that is said, and nothing intended that the rest of the Apostles should giue him warrant as Iudges, but only as witnesses testifie him to be one of them. But now admit that they were as Iudges, & were to giue commission & warrant to S. Paul; what is it that M. Bishop would proue thereby? Forsooth that there were some of authority for iudgement, and deciding the controuersies of the Church. Be it so; but why doth he take paines for that which we do not denie? Yea but it is that Peter may be knowne to be the Iudge. Be it so that Peter amongst the rest was one, yea & a chiefe man amongst them, because S. Paul saith, thatGal. 2.9. Iames, and Peter, and Iohn seemed to be pillars, that is, speciall and chiefe men amongst the Apostles. Yea, but that is not enough, but Peter must be the high & soueraigne Iudge, [Page 980] and the rest only assistants & helpers to him. But that is apparently false, because in that iudgment of which S. Paul speaketh Iames sate as the chiefe, and accordingly pronounced the definitiue sentence;Chrysost. in Act. hom. 33. Iacobus fert & non resilit: illi erat principatus concreduus. to him, saith Chrysostome, the principality or chiefty was committed. Yet let vs yeeld so much that Peter was the highest Iudge in this assembly; what of that? Marry forsooth the Pope succeedeth in Peters place, & he must therefore be the one high & supreme Iudge ouer all Churches. This is the issue that M. Bishop driueth at, but for his life cannot tell how to conueigh the Pope into S. Peters place. This conclusion Bellarmine maketh out of three places that are here alledged, quoting them only as M. Bishop doth frō him, but citing no words, & saying of them that theyBellar. de verbo Dei. lib. 3. cap. 5. Disertè affirmāt Ecclesiā nō fuisse Paulo crediturā nisi Euangelium eius à Pe [...]o confirmatū fuisset. Ergo Petr [...] erat tunc & proinde success [...]ris eius nunc de doctrina fidei. expresly affirme, that the Church would not haue beleeued Paul, had not his Gospell bene confirmed by S. Peter. Therefore it belonged to Peter then, and now to his successour, to iudge of the doctrine of faith. Where we see him to be outright a Iesuite, that is, a man of a brazen face & a wicked conscience, for that he knew well that two of these do not mention Peter, but speake generally of the Apostles, the third which is Hierome, nameth not Peter alone as he doth, but coupleth with him those that were with him, and maketh that which he saith common to them all. But it is a further point of impudency in him, to force that vpō the Pope hereby, which neuer any of these fathers nor any other euer imagined, that he should be in Peters place the vniuersall Iudge of Christian faith, so that if S. Peter who they say was Bishop of Rome before, had bene dead before that councell of Hierusalem, & Paul the third had succeeded in his place, Paul the Apostle must haue had his Gospell confirmed by Paul the Pope, as impious a caitife as euer the world bred. I will not stand to take any further in this filth, let them lie in it that loue it, and M. Bishop hauing taken vpon him to sweare whatsoeuer Bellarmine doth lie, must be content to be dawbed with his dirt. He goeth on and telleth vs, that he could shew how euery hundred yeeres after, heresies were confuted and reiected not by the written word only, but by the sentence and declaration of the Apostles schollers and successours. So then they were not reiected by the sentence and declaration of any one Iudge, he is now gone from that, but it was by the sentence and declaration of the Apostles schollers and successours, as all Bishops were. And indeede in those first Councels the Bishop of Rome had no more to do then other Bishops, yea somtimes lesse then some others, to whō the moderation of the [Page 981] present businesse by general consent was cōmitted, as in the Nicene councell toTheod. hist. li. 2. ca. 15 Cuius concilij su [...]t ille non princeps? Hosius Bishop of Corduba in Spaine aboue all the rest of the Bishops, who therforeConcil Nicen. subs [...]ript. in sine. subscribed first of all. And as for the deciding of matters, it was referred onely to the authority of the written word, as appeareth in the same councel of Nice, where Cō stantine propoundeth this rule vnto thē:Theo. l. hist. li. 1. ca. 7. Euangelici & Apostolici libri necnon antiqu [...]rū Prophetarum oracula planè nos instruunt quid de reb [...]s d ui [...]is ( [...]) sentiendum sit: proinde posita h [...]stili discordia sumamus ex dictis diuini spiritus explicatione [...] quaestionum. The bookes of the Euangelists & Apostles, as also the oracles of the old Prophets, do plainly instruct vs what to think concerning Gods matters: therefore setting aside all hostile discord, let vs take the resolutions of our questions frō the words of the holy Ghost. Their sentence therfore was but to acknowledge and pronounce the sentence, which the holy Ghost had giuen in the written word, & no otherwise did they take vpō them to declare it, but by the same word. Onely for the greater satisfaction of the Church, & the more fully to take away all cauillations of heretikes, they alledged somtimes the testimonies of such as had bene before them, to shew that by the same written word, they had taught no otherwise thē they did. Albeit there were not alwaies general Councels for the confuting and reiecting of heresies, but many times the Pastours of the Church in their priuate writings confuted and condemned them only by the verdict & sentence of the written word. So Hilary only by the voice of the heauenly Iudge in the Scriptures, reiected the Arian heresie,Hilar. de synod. cont. Arian. fidē Nicenā nunquā nisi exulaturus audiui. neuer hauing heard of the Nicene definition, vntill he was going into banishment for that f [...]ith. Yea, and after the definition of the councell, S. Austin did not rest vpon their sentence, but vpon the sentence of the written word, and therefore saith to Maximinus the Arian:August. contra Maximin lib. 3. cap. 14. Nec ego Nicenum, nec in debes Ariminēse tanquā praeiudicaturus proferre consiliū. Nec ego huius, nec tu illius authoritate deti [...] [...] [...]ripturarū a [...] [...]tibus, nō [...] [...]nque propr [...] [...] [...] tris (que) comu [...] testibus res cū re, causa cū causa, ratio cū ratione conceriet. It is not for me to alledge the councell of Nice, nor for thee to alledge the councell of Ariminum: neither am I bound to the authoritie of the one, nor thou of the other. By testimonies or authorities of Scripture, not proper to either of vs, but cōmon to both, let matter try with matter, cause with cause, reason with reason. He knew very wel that the sentence of a councel might be quest [...] ned also, & therfore that the controuersie must finally rest vpon [...] sentence of the Scripture. M. Bishop further referreth vs to Bellarmine, as touching those Councels euery hundred yeeres, whose instructions are needlesse to vs to certifie vs of the truth in that behalfe, being otherwise better to be knowne then by any thing that he can tell vs. But I would wish that he that desireth to know the qualitie and disposition of that wretched man, should throughly examine that chapter that Maister Bishop quoteth, wherein he hath [Page 982] set downe so many apparent & wilfull lies, as that it may well appeare what spirit it was that led him throughout his whole bookes. In the next place he telleth vs an idle tale & impertinent, of Basil & Gregory Nazianzene, of whom Ruffinus reporteth, thatRuffin. lib. 2. c. 9. Omnibus Graecorū se [...]ularium libris remotis solu diuinae S [...]ripturae volumnibus operā dabant carum (que) intelligentians non ex propria praesūptione, sed ex maiorum scriptis & authoritate sequebantur; quos & ipsos ex Apostolica successione intelligendi regulā suscepisse constat. laying aside their prophane studies, they applied themselues only to the bookes of holy Scripture, and sought after the vnderstanding of them, not out of their own presumption, but out of the writings & authority of their auncients, who also themselues by such as had succeeded frō the Apostles, had receiued the rule of vnderstanding. To what end doth he alledge this against vs? Where it is said that they sought not the vnderstanding of the Scriptures out of their own presumption, for the shooting of his bolt, he maketh a parenthesis thus, As the Protestants both do & teach others to do. But the Protestants would haue him know, that that description of the studies of those two fathers, doth rightly describe the studies of euery learned Protestant. They see it to their griefe in all our bookes, & in the processe of this whole book, it wil appeare to him, that the Protestants vse the help of the fathers writings as a singular benefit of God, for the true vnderstāding of the Scriptures, and for the finding out of the truth in those controuersies that are depending betwixt vs & them. Yea, so farre are we from contenting our selues with our own vnderstanding, as that we forbeare not to turne & wind all Popish authors, either of former or latter time, that what gold we can find in their dunghils, we may apply it to the furnishing of the temple of the Lord. But it pitieth me to think of the sillinesse of this man, in vpbraiding vs with not searching the writings of the auncient fathers, of whō I am perswaded that we may truly say, that he neuer read so much as one volume of any one of the fathers, & had bene in pitifull case for the writing of this book, had not Bellarmine bene content vpō trust to lend him the whole stock. Well, he hath read them that haue read the fathers, & if they lie, be it so; he cannot tell how to help either himselfe or them. Thus for the finding of a Iudge we came first to the Pope, and from the Pope he hath brought vs to the councels, & from the councels to the writings of the fathers, & now frō the writings of the fathers he leadeth vs to the Church. He alledgeth to this purpose two sayings of S. Austin. The former vpon occasion of the question betwixt the Donatists & him is thus,August. cont. Crescon. lib. 1. ca. 33. Quisquis falli metuit istius obscuritate quaestionis, candem ecclesiam de illa consulat quam sine vlla ambiguitate sancta Scripturae demonstrat. Whosoeuer feareth to be deceiued by the obscurity of this question, let him seeke for aduice to that same Church, which [Page 983] without any ambiguity the holy Scripture doth demonstrate and point out. We admit the condition; we willingly hearken to the iudgement of that Church: in obscure points which we do not readily vnderstand, we highly esteeme the censure of that Church, which otherwise by the Scripture is demonstrated to be the true Church. S. Austine in those words hath reference to the whole Church from the time of the Apostles, & very rightly directeth him that was not able otherwise to discerne, to presume that to be the truth which from the very originall had bene continued and practised in the Church. This serueth not M. Bishops turne, because it fitteth not to M. Bishops Church. No more doth that other place which he citeth,Idē cont. epist. funda. cap. 5 Ego verò Euangelio non crederē nisi me Catholicae ecclesiae cōmcueret authoritas. I should not beleeue the Gospell, vnlesse the authority of the catholike Church should moue me to it. M. Bishop before hand telleth vs that S. Austin did not speak this as touching his being at first a Christian, but euen now being a learned and iudicious Doctor, he would not beleeue but for the authority of the Church. But very lewdly doth he abuse S. Austine in making him so to say, as if he had resolued that it being supposed that the Church should backslide and fall away, he himselfe also would play the Apostata, and fall away from the faith of Christ. What, was his faith built vpon men, and not vpon God himselfe? Did he not know that thoughRom. 3.4. euery man be a liar, yet God is true? What if the whole world had conspired against the booke of God, as not long before by Arianisme it had against the Sonne of God, when Constantius the Emperour said to Liberius Bishop of Rome concerning Athanasius, Theodoret hist. li. 2. ca. 16. Quota pars tiles orbis terrarum qui solus facis [...]m homine scelerato? Liberius. Nō dimnuitur solitudine mea verbum fidei. Who art thou to the whole world, who thus alone standest with a wicked man? Liberius though afterwards he yeelded, yet for that time answered well; The word of faith is no whit impeached by my being alone; and would not, think we, S. Austine beare the like minde, howsoeuer all other sell away, yet constantly to cleaue to that which he knew to be the truth? It is not all M. Bishops foolish Rhetorick that can make vs to beleeue that S. Austin would make any such protestation to that effect. Yea, and were not both he & his fellowes very absurdly wilfull, they would well enough see, as haply they do, by that which goeth before, and that which followeth, that it can be no otherwise construed, but as in the person of a man at first receiuing the Christian faith; to whō it is no small motiue thereunto, that the same faith hath found credit & entertainment throughout the whole world. But the words [Page 984] themselues shall best declare to what purpose they were set down.Idē vt supra. Si inuonires aliquem qui Euangelio nondū credit, quid faceres dicenti tibi Non credo? Ego verò Euangelio non crederem nisi me Catholicae ecclesiae commoueret authoritas. Quibus ergo obtemperaui dicētibus, Credite Euangelio; cur eis non crederē dicētibus mihi, Noli credere Mani [...]haeo? Elige quod v [...]lis. Si dixeris, crede Catholicis ipsi me monent vt [...]ullam fidem accōmodē vobis, &c Si dixeris, Noli Catholicis credere, nō rectè facies per Euangeliū mo cogere ad fidem Manichaei, quia ipsi Euangelio Catholicis praedicantibus credidi. If thou shouldest find any man who yet beleeueth not the Gospell, what wouldest thou do to him saying vnto thee, I do not beleeue? Surely I should not beleeue the Gospell, vnlesse the authority of the catholike Church should moue me vnto it. Whom then I haue hearkened vnto, saying vnto me, Beleeue the Gospell, why should I not hearken to them, saying to me, Beleeue not Manicheus. Chuse whether thou wilt. If thou wilt say, Beleeue thē of the catholike Church, they giue me warning to giue no trust to you. If thou wilt say, Do not beleeue thē of the catholike Church, thou shalt not do well to force me by the Gospel to the faith of Manicheus, because by the preaching of them of the catholike Church, I haue beleeued the Gospell. We see that both the propounding and the processe of these whole words, do cry out against M. Bishop, and as it were with loud voice, do proclaime that S. Austins meaning was no other, but that the consent and authority of the Church ouerspreading the whole world, was at first a mighty & strong inducement vnto him, to beleeue that Gospell wherein all so constantly did accord; because it could not be taken but to be of God which had gotten that estimation and account with so many nations and peoples of so strange and diuers dispositions. Marke the words gentle Reader, What wouldest thou do to him, saying, I do not beleeue: Surely I should not beleeue vnlesse, &c. vnto whō I hearkned saying, Beleeue the Gospel, &c. By the preaching of them I beleeued the Gospel. The thing is apparent vnto any man that doth not stop his owne eies that he may not see. And hereof most holily & deuoutly the same S. Austin speaketh in his confessions to God, euen as it were to tell vs the meaning of these words:Idē Confess lib. 6 cap. 5 Semper credidi & esse te & curam nostri gerere etiamsi ignorabam vel quid sentiendum esset de substātia tua, vel quae via duceret aut reduceret ad te. Ide [...] (que) eū essemu [...] insirmi ad inueniendam liquida ratione veritatē & obhoc nobis op [...]s esset authoritate sancta [...]ū literarum, [...]am credere caeperam nullo modo te fuisse tributurū tam excellentum illi Scriptur [...]e per omneti [...]m terras authoritatem nisi & per ipsam tibi credi & per ipsam te quaerivoluisses. I alwaies beleeued, saith he, that thou art, and that thou hast care of vs, albeit I knew not what to think of thy being, or which way should leade me or bring me againe to thee. Therefore when I was too weake by apparent reason to find out the truth, and for this purpose needed the authority of the holy Scriptures, I began now to beleeue that by no means thou wouldest giue that excellency of authority to those scriptures euen throughout the whole earth, but that thou wouldest haue vs therby to beleeue thee, and thereby to seeke thee. This place sheweth the true effect of that other speech, and it is great impudency and impiety in M. Bishop and his fellowes, to force vpon S. Austine that protestation which they do by their false construction.
23 W. BISHOP.
This matter is so large, that it requireth a whole question: but being penned vp within the compasse of one obiection, I will not dwell any longer in it, but here fold vp this whole question of Traditions, in the authorities of the auncient Fathers; out of whom, because I haue in answering M. Perkins, and else-where, as occasion serued, cited already many sentences; I will here be briefe.
S. Ignatius the Apostles Scholler, doth exhort all Christians, Euseb li. 3.36. To sticke fast vnto the Traditions of the Apostles, some of which he committed to writing.
Polycarpus, by the authority of the Apostles words, which he had receiued from their owne mouthes; confirmed the faithfull in truth, and ouerthrew the heretikes. Ibid. li. 5. c. 20.
S. Irenaeus, who imprinted in his heart Apostolicall traditions, receiued from Polycarp, saith, If there should be a controuersie about any meane question, ought we not to runne vnto the most auncient Churches, in the which the Apostles had conuersed, and from them take that which is cleare & perspicuous to define the present question? For what if the Apostles had not written any thing at all, must we not haue followed the order of Traditions, which they deliuered to them to whom they deliuered the Churches?
Origen teacheth, that the Church receiued from the Apostles by Tradition, to baptize Infants. Rom. 6.
Athanasius saith: Lib. de decre [...]. Niceni conc. We haue proued this sentence to haue bene deliuered from hand to hand by Fathers to Fathers: but ye, O new Iewes, and sonnes of Caiphas, what auncestors can ye shew of your opinion?
S. Basil hath these words: De Spir. Sanct. cap. 27. We haue the doctrine that is kept and preached in the Church; partly written, and part we haue receiued by Tradition of the Apostles in mysterie, both which be of the same force to godlinesse, and no man opposeth against these, who hath at the least but meane experience of the Lawes of the Church. See Gregory Nazianz. Orat. 1. in Iulian.
R. ABBOT.
M. Bishop is here as he was before, like the melancholike merchant of Athens, who reioyced at the sight of euery ship that came in perswading himselfe that it was his ship. He cannot light any where vpon the name of traditions, but he presently imagineth that it is meant of their Popish vnwritten traditions. And here in the first place to colour this, he translateth the words of Eusebius amisse, by changing the singular number into the plurall.Euseb. hist. lib. 3. cap. 32. Vt Apostolorum traditioni indivulsè adhaerent admonebat. [...] He warned them, saith Eusebius concerning Ignatius, that they should cleaue stedfastly to the tradition of the Apostles. He saith not traditions, as to note sundry doctrines left vnwritten, as M. Bishop would haue it, but tradition, as entirely & generally to signifie the doctrine deliuered by the Apostles. Therefore he must necessarily be vnderstood of the doctrine of the Apostles which is written, but there is no necessity of vnderstanding any more. This tradition, that is, the doctrine deliuered by the Apostles, Eusebius saith that Ignatius did testifie by writing, and what he testified we should see by those writings if we had them now in such sort as he left them, euen no other doctrine but what the Apostles before had left in writing. But those Epistles haue bene diuersly in hucksters hands, being growne to greater number then Eusebius and Hierome heard of in their times, & containing many things now which they had not then, and many then which they haue not now. Ignatius now is made to say, thatIgnat. epist. 5. ad Phil. p. Siqu [...] dominico die reiunauer [...]t aut sabbato praeter vnum sabbatū, is est Christi interfector. if any man fast vpon the Lords day or vpon the Saterday, he is a murtherer of Christ, whereas S. Austine confesseth, thatAug. epist. 86. Quibus diebus [...]unare eporteat vel quibus non oporteat nullo Domini vel Apostolorum praecepto inuenio definitum. he found it not defined by any precept of Christ or his Apostles what daies we are to fast and what not, and Hierome as we haue heard before confesseth, that Paul and others with him did fast vpon the Lords day. He is now made to say, thatIgnat. ibid. Siqu [...] eum Iudaeis pascha peregeris, & festi eorum Symbola susceperit, is particeps est & socius eorū qui Dominum occiderunt & Apostolos eius. if any man obserue Easter with the Iewes, or shall beare the marks of their festiuall day, he is a companion and partaker with thē who killed Christ and his Apostles, whereas it is manifest by the ecclesiastical history, thatEuseb. hist. lib. 5 cap 23. Polycarpus the Bishop of Smyrna at that time kept Easter in that sort, & refused to yeeld to Anicetus Bishop of Rome to do otherwise, & therefore that there was no such obseruation to which Ignatius should adioine any such censure as here is. Againe Hierome citeth this sentence out of Ignatius, thatHieron. cont. Pelug lib. 3. Ignatius vir Apostolicus & martyr scribit audacter Elegit Dominus Apostolos qui super omnes homines erant peccatores. Christ chose Apostles who were sinners aboue all men, which now is not found in those [Page 987] Epistles that we haue. Therfore sith we haue his writings no otherwise but maimed and corrupted, it is hard from them now to gather any certaintie at all, and those some traditions which M. Bishop speaketh of, are but meere forgeries conueyed into them by the Popes agents, albeit the former of those traditions which I haue mentioned, maketh them also murtherers of Christ, because they fast vpon the Saterday, or else they must denie that these epistles do faithfully report the traditions of the Apostles. But what tradition it was that Irenaeus meant, wil appeer by that that is cited in the next place concerning Polycarpus, who M. Bishop sayth, by the Apostles words receiued from their owne mouthes confirmed the faithfull in truth, and ouerthrew the heretickes. Let his author speake, and let the Reader iudge how honestly he dealeth in this citation. The words are the words of Irenaeus, of whom Eusebius reporteth, that in certaine speeches against Florinus the hereticke, he saith of himselfe hauing bene with Polycarpus when he was very yong,Euseb. hist. eccl. lib. 5. ca. 18. Commemorare queā sermones eius quos fecit ad multitudinē, & quomodo se cum Ioanne ac reliquis qui Dominū viderunt conuersatum esse dixerit, & sermones ecrū memorauerit, & quae ex illis de Domino audierant & de virtutibus eius & doctrina tanquā ex ijs qui ipsi verbū vitae viderant et cuncta sanctis Scripturis consona recensuerit. I remember the sermons that he made to the people, and how he told that he had bene conuersant with Iohn and others that saw the Lord, and mentioned their speeches, and what he had heard of them concerning the Lord and concerning his miracles and doctrine, as receiued from them who themselues had seene the Word of life, and reported all things agreeable to the holy Scriptures. Here was then the tradition of Polycarpus, containing nothing else but according to the Scripture. As touching the tradition thatSee the Answer to the Epistle. sect. 11. Irenaeus speaketh of, it hath bene before shewed that it containeth nothing else but the elementall articles of Christian faith, for the auouching whereof he was forced to appeale to the tradition and successiue doctrine of the Church, because he had to do with heretickes that refused the triall of the Scriptures. He saith rightly, that if nothing had bene written we must haue rested vpon Tradition; but because God knew that Tradition was too vncertaine and weake a meanes for preseruation of truth, therefore as he hath before said, the Apostles deliuered the Gospel which they preached in writing, and that by the will of God, to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. In a word, when he saith, What if the Apostles had not writtē any thing at all? must we not then haue followed the order of tradition? he intimateth that now that they haue written, we are to follow that which they haue written for the certaintie & assurance of our faith. He forceth the order of tradition in this sort vpon the heretiks, [Page 988] because by the Scriptures there was no dealing with them, but the matters whereof he treateth, are cleerly taught therein, as euery where he sheweth throughout his whole booke. His next allegation is vaine and childish. Origen teacheth that the Church receiued from the Apostles by tradition to baptize infants, whereas Bellarmine himselfe proueth it to be necessary by the Scriptures, as I haue shewedSect 12. before. That of Athanasius is as little to the purpose as all the rest. The thing that he hath in hand in theAthanas. lib. Quòd Nicena synod u congruis & pijs verbis decreta sua super Ariana haeresi exposuerit. booke cited, is to giue a reason of the decree of the Nicene Councell, that the Sonne of God is of the same substance with the Father. He sheweth, that the Fathers there assembled determined it by the Scriptures, Constantine also so directing them as we haue seene before. The matter was so cleared, as that the heretickes for shame were content to subscribe to that which was concluded vpon. Yet he declareth, that afterwards they fell to cauilling, that the words whereby the Councell expressed their meaning, were not found in the Scriptures; that they deuised them of themselues, and that none of the former Fathers had vsed the same. He answereth, thatCognoscet quisquis est studiosioris animi has voces tamitsi in Scripturis non reperiantur habere tamen eas eam sententiam qu [...]m Scripturae volunt, & hoc ipsum sonaere, &c. Whosoeuer is of a studious mind, or desirous to learne, will know that those words, though they be not found in the Scriptures, yet haue the same meaning which the Scriptures intend, and do signifie the very same. Further, against their other cauil he sheweth by diuers places alledged, that the Fathers of former times had vsed the same words and maner of speech as the Councell did. Hereupon he concludeth,Ecce nos demonstramus istiusmodi sententiā à patribus ad patres quasi per man [...] traditā esse. Vos autem nou [...] Iude [...], Cataphae (que) discipuli, quos verborū vestrorū patre [...]ac maiores demonstra [...]u [...]. Behold we shew that this sentence hath bene deliuered from fathers to fathers, as it were from hand to hand: but O you new Iewes and sons of Caiphas, what fathers or auncesters will ye shew vs for your termes? Now shall not we thinke that M. Bishop hath here brought vs a stout proofe for traditions vnwritten, and doctrines beside the Scripture? Euen as if we should say to M. Bishop and his fellowes, Behold we shew you that which we say of the sufficiencie of the Scriptures deliuered from fathers to fathers, euen as it were from hand to hand, and he should herupon cite vs for witnesses of their traditions. As much wit should he shew in this, as he now doth in that. The place of Basil is answered at largeSect. 16. before. He further referreth vs to the first oration ofGreg Nazi [...]n. contra Julian. erat. 1. Doctrina nostra insig [...]rē videus ob ecclesiae figuras quas traditio [...]e acceptas in hunc vsque diē serua [...]mus, &c. Idem hic cogit [...] scholas in omnibus ciuitatibus extruere parabat, & sacraria se des (que) partim altiores, partim depressiores, propha [...]um dogmatum lectiones & [...]xplicationes instituere; tum preca [...]o [...]um alternatim ca [...]arum f [...]rmam, &c. Gregorie Nazianzen against Iulian, but was ashamed to [Page 989] set downe any words of his, because the matters of tradition that he there mentioneth amongst the Christians, which Iulian the Apostata apishly would resemble in his Paganisme, were schools and formes higher and lower, lectures, hospitals, monasteries, companies of virgins, singing by turnes, and such other matters of external order and discipline in the Church, and what are these to prooue traditions, that is, matters of doctrine not contained in the Scriptures? We admit almost all those things which he there speaketh of, and yet we condemne traditions in that sence as we here make question of them. Surely M. Bishops traditions are in a miserable case, that in all antiquity can find no better foundations wherupon to build them. A man would not thinke that in so serious a matter he would so trifle as he hath done, bringing not one place in any sort appliable to his purpose, but only that of Basill, and yet neither that of sufficient waight to proue that that he hath vndertaken to proue, as before hath bene shewed.
24. W. BISHOP.
Because I haue cited already some of the Latine auncient Doctors: in stead of the rest, I will record out of them in a word or two, how old rotten heretiks vsed alwayes to reiect vnwritten traditions, and flie wholly vnto the written word. See the whole book of Tertullians prescriptions against heretiks, which principally handleth this very point. The same doth Irenaeus witnesse of the Valentinians and Marcionists. Lib. 3. cap. 2. The Arians common song vnto the Catholickes was, I will not admit to be read any words that are not written (in the Scriptures) as witnesseth S. Hilary in his booke against Constantius the Emperour, against whom he alledgeth the preaching of the Apostles and the authoritie of the auncient Bishops expressed in his liuely colours.
S. Augustine some 1200. yeares ago, recordeth the very forme of arguing, which the Protestants vse now a days in the person of Maximinus an Ariā, in his first book against him in the beginning. If thou shalt (saith this heretik) bring any thing out of the Scriptures which is common to all, we must needs heare thee, but these words which are without the Scriptures, are in no sort to be receiued of vs: when as the Lord himselfe hath admonished vs, and said, in vaine do they worship me, teaching commandements and precepts of men. How S. Augustine opposed against them vnwritten traditions, hath bene afore declared. [Page 990] The like doth S. Bernard affirme of certaine heretikes of his time called Hom. 62. Cant. Apostolici.
So that most truly it may be concluded, that euen as we Catholickes haue learned of the Apostles and auncient Fathers, our noble progenitors, to standfast and hold the Traditions which we haue receiued by word of mouth, as well as that which is written: euen so the Protestants haue receiued as it were from hand to hand of their ignoble predecessors, old condemned heretickes, to reiect all Traditions, and to flie vnto the onely Scriptures.
R. ABBOT.
For conclusion of this question he bringeth vs here a rotten tale, how old rotten heretickes vsed alwayes to reiect vnwritten traditions, and flie wholly to the written word. To make this tale good, he bringeth vs first a lie, and then a fond cauill. He referreth his Reader first to Tertullians booke of prescriptions, the purpose whereof what it is, I haue shewed before at large, but in all that booke is no word of heretickes flying wholly to the written word. Tertullian sheweth, how they mangled and marred the Scriptures being vrged therewith, reiecting what and where they list, so that by the Scriptures there was no dealing with them; but that they did flie to the Scriptures, or required triall thereby, he affirmeth not. And this is plaine by Irenaeus, euen in that place whence M. Bishop citeth him for his second witnesse, and where he speaketh of the very same heretickes of whom Tertullian spake.Iren lib. 3. c. 2. Cùm ex Scripturis arguuntur in accusationem ipsarum conuertuntur Scripturarum, quasi non rectè habeant, neque sint ex authoritate, et quia variè sunt dictae & quia nō possit ex his inueniri veritas ab his qui nesciant traditionem. Non enim per literas traditam illam, sed per vinam vocem; ob quam causam et Paulū dixisse, sapientiam loquimur inter perfectos. Heretikes (saith he) when they are reproued by the Scriptures, fall to finding fault with the Scriptures, as if they were not aright, nor of authoritie, and that they are doubtfully set down, and that by the Scriptures the truth cannot be found of them that are ignorant of tradition: for they say that the truth was not deliuered by writing but by liuely voice, and that therefore Paul said, We speake wisedome among those that be perfect. Now by these very words of Irenaeus, do thou esteeme (gentle Reader) the trecherie of this man, who beareth thee in hand that Irenaeus noteth it there for a propertie of heretickes to reiect vnwritten Traditions, and to flie wholly to the written word, when as it was their abusing and refusing of the Scriptures that made him to appeale to the tradition of the Church, the matters of their heresies being concerning [Page 991] the fundamentall articles of our beleefe, which are euidently taught by the written word. It is truly said, that heretickes shunne the Scriptures euen as the theefe doth the gallowes: and as it is true in other heretickes, so it is in the Papists, vpon whom how iustly those words of Irenaeus light, and how fully they describe their vsage towards the Scriptures, hath beneAnswer to the Epistle. sect. 11. before declared. To this apparent lie, M. Bishop addeth a blind cauill, for which he bringeth the speeches of Constantius the Emperour and Maximinus, both Arians, out of Hilary and Austine. The matter is answered sundry times before. Against the assertion of the Church, that the Sonne of God is consubstantiall or of the same substance with the Father, they excepted idlely and vainely, that they would admit no words that were not written. M. Bishop knoweth well that we do not so, because we receiue and professe those words which they refused, yea he knoweth that we say and teach, that the Pope is Antichrist, that the Church of Rome is the purple whore of Babylon, that the Masse is an abhominable idoll and wicked prophaning of the Sacrament of Christ, and such like, and yet these words are no where found in the Scripture. We contend not concerning words, let them vse what words they will, so that the doctrine imported and meant by those words be contained in the Scriptures. Of those heretickes called Apostolici, S. Bernard saith no such matter as he alledgeth. All that he saith is, thatBerna. in Cant. ser. 66. Instituta Ecclesiae non recipiunt. they did not receiue the ordinances of the Church, and what is that to the doctrines of faith taught by Christ and his Apostles, which are not contained in the Scriptures? Concerning which, against M. Bishops conclusion I conclude this question with the saying of Saint Austin before alledged, and worthy here againe to be remembred,August. supra sect. 8. Whether concerning Christ or his Church, or any thing that belongeth vnto our faith and life, I will not say, if we, not being to be compared to him that saith, If we, but if an Angell from heauen shall preach vnto you anything but what ye haue receiued in the Scriptures of the Law and the Gospell, accursed be he. Hearken to it M. Bishop, and let it make you afraid to pleade for Traditions any more.
CHAPTER 8. OF VOWES.
1. W. BISHOP.
MAster Perkins is very intricate and tedious in deliuering his opinion concerning Vowes: I will in as good order as I can, briefly correct his errors herein. In this passage (which he intitleth of our consents) he rangeth many things, wherein we differ much; as first, in the definition of a Vow, which he defineth thus: A Vow is a promise made to God, touching some dutie to be performed to him. This definition cometh too short of a Vow, and agreeth vnto all other couenants made betweene God and man; and so Adams acceptance not to eate of the forbidden fruite should be a Vow, and Noes building of the Arke: and briefly euery acceptance and promise to fulfill any of Gods commandements; and consequently euery breach of them must needs be two seuerall sinnes, the one of disobedience in such a precept, the other of infidelity by breaking of our vow. All which absurdities necessarily follow of M. Perkins his definition, and be things vnheard of either in holy Scriptures or among the ancient holy Fathers, proceeding onely out of the drosse of their owne deuices, and therfore with as great facilitie to be denied of vs, as they do with audacitie auouch them. To make vp then the definition, we must adde, that the promise to God be of some better good, proceeding from our owne free choise and libertie: so that no vow is made without a mans free choise to bind himself, ouer and besides all other necessary bonds; which to be of the nature of a vow, we gather first out of the holy Scriptures: Deut. 23. If thou make a vow, be not slow to performe it: but if thou wilt not promise, thou shalt be without sin. What can be more cleare, then that a mā may chuse whether he wil vow or no? which is confirmed in S. Paul: He that decreeth in his heart, not hauing necessity, but hauing power ouer his owne wil, &c. So that this libertie to promise, or not to promise, is of the substance of a Vow, and that if he list not to vow, he doth not sinne: which were very false, if the acceptance of necessary duties were Vowes. For he that refuseth to accept them, doth sin: as if a man should refuse to performe any of Gods commaundements. [Page 993] Hence it followeth most manifestly, that the promise which we make to God in Baptisme, of keeping Gods commaundements, is no vow, if a vow be taken properly, because it lieth not in vs to refuse it, without we will withall refuse the grace of Baptisme, and remaine in the state of damnation. And M. Perkins affirming it to be a Vow, and often repeating it, doth not once confirme it with any shadow of proofe, but takes that for granted, which he knowes we do denie flatly.
R. ABBOT.
What the nature of a Vow is, we shall best conceiue by the vse thereof, which we find expressed in the Law of God, which if we wel weigh & consider, we shall conceiue that a Vow is nothing else but a deliberate and solemne promise made to God of some honor or seruice to be done vnto him, interposed for a motiue to the obtaining and receiuing of some speciall benefite at his hands. The matter of Vowes in the law of Moses is vsually noted to be some ceremoniall worship, God hauing thereby prescribed to his people certaine formes of externall obseruations, whereby they should vpon occasions testifie their thankfulnesse and deuotion towards him. As in other their legall seruice they were restrained frō following their own deuice, so in this point also of Vowes they were limited; neither might any thing be done by vow to God, but whereof God had giuen warrant and approbation by the law. Albeit because deuotion and thankfulnesse is a matter of free and voluntary affection, and ready of it selfe to shew it selfe, therefore God, though he himselfe directed in that case what might and should be done by him that vowed, yet did not by expresse commandement tie any man to vow, but left it so farre forth to issue from the free and voluntary motion of his owne heart. Now the vse of vowes we find in Scripture to haue commonly bene vpon condition of receiuing some benefit and mercy at Gods hands. Thus Iacob being to go to his vnkle Laban for auoiding the fury of his brother Esau, Gen. 28.20. vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and keepe me in this iourney which I go, and will giue me bread to eate and clothes to put on, so that I come againe to my fathers house in safety, then shall the Lord be my God, and this stone which I haue set vp as a pillar, shall be Gods house, and of all that thou shalt giue mee, will I giue the tenth vnto thee. [Page 994] So the sonnes of Iacob the Israelites in the wildernesseNum 21.2. vowed a vow, saying, If thou wilt deliuer and giue this people (which were of the Canaanites) into mine hands, I will make their cities anathema, that is, I will vtterly destroy them, reseruing the spoyle thereof to be consecrated vnto thee. ThusIudg 11.30. Iephthe vpon condition of victory against the Ammonites, vowed for a burnt offering to the Lord whatsoeuer at his returne should first meete him out of his owne house:1. Sam. 1.11. Hannah vpon condition of hauing a sonne, vowed him for a perpetuall Nazarite to the Lord:Psal 66.12. Dauid maketh vowes to God in the time of his trouble, namely vpon condition of being deliuered therefrom: and Absolon though counterfeitly, yet expressing the manner and vse of vowing, saith to Dauid his father,2. Sam 15.8. Thy seruant vowed a vow when I remained in Geshur in Aram, saying, If the Lord shall bring me againe to Ierusalem, I will serue the Lord, pretending thereby the offering of some sacrifices and offerings, by which he would shew himselfe thankfull to God. And thus as in all other seruice of the Law the performance of outward ceremonies was required, not for themselues, but for the spirituall duties that were shadowed thereby, euen so was it in vowes, that not for the carnall and outward things that were vowed, but for the inward affections and deuotions thereby exercised, they were acceptable vnto God. For it is true which Tertullian saith,Tertul. aduers. Marc. lib 3 Non exigens Deus quae fiebant, sed propter quod fiebant, ob honorem sci [...]icet Dei. God did not require the things themselues that were done, but that for which they were done, which was for the honor of God. Therefore to speake properly and principally of the intention of vowes, the matter of them was spirituall and inward deuotion, though acted by carnal seruice. But spirituall acts and duties of religion are the same now that they were then, and the same then as now. Therefore the thing properly and principally meant in vowes, continueth now the same as it was also then. Whereof it must follow, that they who make vowes of other intendment then they did, & make promises to God of other matters then were meant in their vowes, do deale very sinisterly and corruptly in alledging their example for the warrant of them. Yea and seeing the spiritual deuotions intended in their vowes are common to all persons & of all conditions, neither did import any thing that should belong to any deuided sorts or societies of mē, but what all Christians should alike performe to God, what are they but deuisers of new worship and seruice vnto God, who vnder the colour [Page 995] of those vowes, do now bring in select and speciall acts & exercises of religion peculiar onely to some men? If all Christian deuotions signified by those vowes, were found amongst the Iews, as hath bin said, and these select and peculiar deuotions were not found, certain it is that these deuotions are but superstitions, and haue no warrant from the old Testament to be practised in the new. Now then to come to that which M. Bishop saith, albeit there is no man but well knoweth that a promise is more then a bare acceptance, yet wholly to take away that cauil, we terme a vow a solemne promise, whereby a man in speciall manner bindeth himself to that which he voweth. Albeit where there is a promise made to keepe Gods commandements, who but an absurd man wil hold it for an absurdity to affirme that in the breach there is a double trespasse, because to the obseruation he was tied with a double bond, both absolutely by dutie, and respectiuely by couenant and prom [...]se, and therfore must needs be said to violate his dutie the one way, and his fidelitie the other. Otherwise why doth God vponDeut. 5.27. a promise to keepe his lawes, so often charge his people in speciall manner for dealingPsal. 78.8. vnfaithfully with him, calling them in that respectDeut. 32.20. children in whom is no faith, no fidelitie or trust,Esa 30.9. lying children, Chap. 57.4. a false or lying seed, with sundry other speeches in sundry places to the like effect. It was therefore but a Romish distemper of M. Bishops eies, that made him vnable to see gold from drosse, and caused him to take that for an error, which cōmon vnderstanding should informe him to be a truth. As for that which he telleth vs, that by our definition we make all couenants with God and promises to him to be vows, we answer him, that we do indeed take all serious and solemne promises to God to be very fitly contained vnder that name, not but that in precise manner of speaking there is a difference to be made betwixt them, but because we are not much scrupulous of distinction of words & terms, where saue only in circumstance there is no difference betwixt the things themselues, no difference, I say, at all in that respect wherein they are questioned betwixt the Papists and vs. For the onely difference is this, that vowes properly so called are vttered, as by examples I haue shewed before, with condition of obtaining somewhat at Gods hands, but other othes and couenants, and promises, are absolutely and simply made. According to this strict rule of speaking, it is onely a couenant and promise that we make to God in Baptisme, to forsake the Diuell and all his workes, [Page 996] to beleeue in God and to serue him; but it is a vow, when a man in sicknes, by way of repentance of his former life, saith, If the Lord will be mercifull vnto me, and vouchsafe to restore me to health againe, I will forsake all my former euill wayes, and betake my selfe faithfully to his seruice. The matter then on both sides is one & the same, and the difference is onely in forme of speaking, which being no other, we make no doubt of calling both by the name of vowes, neither is there any question in that behalfe, because the Papists terme absolute promises Vowes as well as we. But M. Bishop, out of the drosse of their schooles, taketh vpon him to teach vs another difference, that a vow is a promise to God of some better good, the same proceeding out of our owne free choise and liberty, whereas other promises may be of necessary duties, not being at our choise, but whereto we are tied otherwise. Where he leaueth vs to guesse what he meaneth by some better good, the words importing a comparison, and therefore implying a reference to some other good, then which that is better which we promise by a vow. This mysterie Thomas Aquinas shall open for vs, who saith, thatThom. Aquin. sum. 22. qu. 88. art. 22. in corp. Dicitur maius bonum in comparatione ad bonū, quod comunitèr est de necessitate salutis. this better good is so called in comparison of that good that is commonly necessary for the obtaining of saluation: meaning thereby that it is better then those vertues and good workes which in common belong to the dutie of euery Christian man. Which fancie of theirs is very fond & vaine, because when of old the vow was sacrifice, and the common dutie was mercie, the vow could not be said to be of a better good then was the common dutie, for that mercie was better then sacrifice, as God himselfe gaue to vnderstand, saying,Ose 6.6. I will haue mercie and not sacrifice. Yea it hath bene before shewed, that of old the thing principally intended in vowes was matter of common dutie, though included for the time as it were in the shell of those outward ceremonies, and therefore vowes cannot be said to be of better good then common dutie. We see the speciall matter of Iacobs vow before mentioned, to haue bene that that concerneth euery man for the obtaining of saluation, Then shall the Lord be my God: before which, neither the building of a house to God, nor the giuing of a tenth of his goods to God, could be preferred as a better good. And who doth not vnderstand and see, that in this assertion of a better good in their vowes, they affirme that that is directly contrary to the doctrine of the Scriptures. How doth he vow a better [Page 997] good, who in the vow of continencie burneth with fleshly lust, when the Apostle so plainly saith,1. Cor. 7.9. It is better to marry then to burne? How do they vow a better good in their vow of pouertie and beggery, when as our Sauiour saith,Act. 20.35. It is a more blessed thing to giue, then to receiue? How do they in their vow of obedience tie themselues to a better good, in making themselues slaues to the rules of men, then other men do in following the commaundements of God, when as the Scripture saith,1. Corin. 7.23. Be ye not made the seruants of men? These are very peeuish and absurd deuices, bred in corrupt and rotten braines, and no way sauouring of Christian vnderstanding. As for that which he addeth, that a vow must proceed of our owne free choise and libertie, and that no vow is made without a mans free choise to bind himselfe, whether he vndrstand it of vowing, or of the thing that is vowed, there is no necessitie therof. For albeit it be true that a man is not alwayes tied to vow, but sometmies is at libertie whether to vow or not, yet this is not so alwayes and in all vowes, because (as shall be hereafter shewed) it is one part of honour and dutie which God requireth of euery Christian man, that we religiously vow and promise our selues and our faithful seruice vnto him. Whereby it appeareth as touching the thing vowed, that it is not alwayes at our free libertie and choise before our vow, whether to do it or not. For seeing necessary duties are some part of the matter of vowes, and it cannot but be sinne to forgo necessary and commanded dutie, it must needs follow, that vowes are made of those things also, which it is sinne otherwise not to do, and are not at our choise and libertie whether to be bound to them or not. It had bin sinne in Iacob not to haue the Lord for his God, and yet it is the thing that he voweth, as we haue seene, Then shall the Lord be my God. The words which M. Bishop alledgeth for his purpose out of Deuteronomy,Deut. 23.21. If thou vow a vow, be not slacke to performe it, but if thou forbearest to vow, it shall be no sinne vnto thee, are altogether referred to legall vowes. The spirituall dutie of thanksgiuing exercised by those types and figures, could not be omitted without sin, but it was no sinne not to make the ceremoniall vow; they were at their owne free choise and libertie in that behalfe, but we cannot thence frame a rule generally for all vowes. The other place which is cited, is wholly impertinent, S. Paul thereby not onely affirming that the father doth well to keepe his daughter a virgine, when he is vpon [Page 998] good grounds assured that he hath no necessitie to do otherwise, when he hath ful resolution that without any snare or danger to her he may so do.1. Corin. 7.37. He that standeth firme in his owne heart that he hath no need (by perill or feare of incontinencie to marry his daughter) but hath full power ouer his owne will (to do safely what he liketh in that behalfe) and hath decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, he doth well. Ambros. in 1. Cor. 7. Hoc dicit vt qui virginem habet cui animus ad nuptias non est, seruet illam, nec illic ingerat fomitem nuptiarum, quam videt nubendi voluntatē non habere: si enim beneficia praestanda sunt, quantò magis minimè sunt anferend [...]? This is his meaning, saith S. Ambrose, that he that hath a daughter that hath no minde to marry, keepe her a virgin, and do not thrust vpon her occasion of mariage, who he seeth hath no will or desire thereto; for if it be for a man to do a benefite, much more is it for him not to take it away. Now how badly doth M. Bishop deale to wrest these words to his description of vowes, as if the Apostle had spoken of vowing to be where there is no necessitie thereof, but a man hath full power whether to vow or not, when indeed he saith nothing at all to that effect. Here is therefore as yet no proofe, that libertie to promise or not to promise is of the substance of a vow, nothing to proue that the name of vowes doth not belong to the acceptance of necessary duties, such duties as in the refusall whereof we should commit sinne. Nothing therefore is there to hinder, but that the promise that we make to God in baptisme should properly be called a vow, if we vnderstand the proper vse thereof in respect of the thing vowed as M. Bishop doth. We take the proper vse from the manner not from the matter of it, as hath bene before said, but because the question here is what is properly the matter of a vow, we say there is no exception thence to be taken why the promise of baptisme should not properly be called a vow. Surely Hierome makethHieron. in Esa. lib. 7. cap. 19. Votum offert et soluit Domino qui est sanctus corpore & spiritu. holinesse in body and spirit the matter of a Christian vow. S. Austin asketh the question & answereth it,Augus. in psal. 75. Quid debemus vouere [...] Credere in illum, sperare ab illo vitā aeternam, benè viu [...]re secundum communē modū, furiū non facerè, adulterium non, facere, nō amare vinolentiā &c. What are we to vow to God? To beleeue in him, to hope for eternal life at his hands, to liue wel according to the manner of life that is common to all, not to steale, not to commit adultery, not to loue drunkennes, not to be proud, not to kil, not to hate our brother. And againe,Jdem in Psal. 131. Quid vouemus Deo nisi vt simu [...] templū Dei: What do we vow to God but to be the temple of God? He maketh itIdem de Temp. ser 7. Votū eptimū offe [...]re animā nostrā. Quomodo? Moribus sanctis, cogitationibus casti [...], operibus fructuosis, auertendo à malo, & conuertendo ad bonum. the best vow to offer our soule to God. How? By holy behauiour, by chast thoughts, by good workes, by declining from euill, and turning to good. If these things be the matter of Christian vows, why is the profession of baptisme which containeth al these things, denied to be a vow? The great schoolmaster of the Romane church [Page 999] definethPet. Lombard. sen lib. 4. dist. 38. Votū est testificatio quaedā promissionis spontaneae quae Deo & de his quae Dei sunt fieri debet, &c. Commune illud quod in baptismo omnes faciunt. &c. a vow to be the testification of a voluntary promise which is to be made to God, and concerning those things which belong to God; and according to this definition maketh that a vow which all make in baptisme, because there volūtarily men protest and promise to consecrate to God both their bodies and their soules, as being both his by right of creation & redemption, and wil M. Bishop here come in and tell vs, Hic magister non tenetur, Here our master tels a lie? Their ordinary glosse calleth those protestations of baptismeGloss. ordinar. in Psal. 75. Communia vota sine quibus non est salus. the common vowes, without which there is no saluation: and Thomas Aquinas durst not deny but that the same properly do fall into the nature of a vow, becauseThom. Aquin. sum. 22 q. 88. art 2. ad 1. Sub voto baptizatorū cadit quia voluntariè fit, licet sit de necessitate salutis, &c. & in corp. Omninò voluntarium proprijssimè cadit sub voto. they are volūtarily done, but forsooth most properly they are no vowes, because that is most properly a vow which is altogether voluntary, that is, such as that a man is wholly at his owne choise whether he do it or not. And whence commeth this most properly? Marry out of the forge of Thomas Aquinas his braines, who seeing that that which he was to say for their other vowes could not well hang together, if the promise of baptisme should be taken for a perfect vow, hewed and pared the definition of a vow that it might be fitted for his turne. Azorius the Iesuite telleth vs, thatAzor. lib. 11. cap 14. Baptisma esse votū propriè dictum veteres Theologi cū magistro videntur sentire: sed probabilius est quod scholastici alij tenent. the auncient Diuines, as also the Master of the Sentences, seeme to thinke that baptisme is a vow properly and truly so called, but (saith he) it is more probable which the rest of the Schoole-men hold. Thus against the iudgement of the ancient Diuines, they frame all things as they list, and we must take euery of their blinde sophismes to be a certaine rule of truth. But we refuse them to be our masters, and chuse to follow that which the Church before them hath followed, accounting all those things the matters of our vowes to God which were figured by those ceremonies and sacrifices which were vowed by the law, euen all the spirituall sacrifices of praise and thanksgiuing, and al good works whereby we honor and glorifie almightie God, all which according to our state of life we promise to God in baptisme, and therefore do account that promise a vow, because it containeth the spiritual substance of those ancient vows. The compiler of the book of Sentences in S. Austins works, hath frō one or other gathered this sentence,Sent. apud August. to. 3. in fine. Quisquis benè cogitat quae voueat Deo & quae vouendo persoluat, seipsum voueat & reddat. Hoc exigiur, hoc debetur. Whosoeuer well bethinketh him what to vow to God, and what in vowing to pay, let him vow himselfe and pay himself. This is required of God, and this is due to God. If this be the right conceit of a vow, then the promise of baptisme is a vow, and it is [Page 1000] not true which M. Bishop saith, that there is no vow properly so called of necessary duties, because we vow that which God requireth, and which is due to God. Albeit for conclusion I am to aduertise thee (gentle Reader) that we make not the matter of vowes to consist onely in necessary duties, that is, such duties as God namely requireth of vs, but that sometimes we vow those things which rest vpon our choise, and whereof in particular we are commanded nothing. For albeit God require thankfulnesse and dutie for the mercies which we haue receiued of him, yet he hath not precisely set downe, that by way of thanks a man should always do this or that, but hath left the deuout and thankfull minde to cast and consider which way he may testifie the affection of his heart, by doing some good worke whereof he hath vnderstanding by the word of God that it shal be acceptable vnto him. Thus a man, though not bound to it, yet may vow to do seruice to God in the ministery of the Church, and being a minister, conceiuing his seruice in this or that sort to be profitable to the Church, may by vowing himself thereto abridge himselfe of that libertie which otherwise he might enioy. So may a man vow a part of his goods to the poore, asLuke 19.8. Zacheus did, when as by no commaundement he is vrged so to do. The like may men do for the building and endowing of Schools, Hospitals, Colledges, and such other godly & charitable vses, when yet these things by precept are not necessarily layd vpō them. Yea neither do we question but that a man vpon good grounds, and so long as he shal not therby be1. Cor. 7.35. intangled in a snare, may priuatly vow vnto God a single life, to the end that he may the more commodiously apply himselfe to the seruice ofMat. 19.12. the kingdome of God; this vow being conditionall only so far as it shal be seconded with the gift of God, and so long as it shal stand with peace of conscience towards him. In these & such like is the true imitation of the outward ceremony of the law, wherin men were at their liberty whether to vow or not; works wherof generally we haue warrant by the word of God, but whereof in particular there is no necessitie imposed vpon vs, being left vnto vs at large, thereby freely and voluntarily to exercise our zeale and deuotion towards God. Wherin notwithstanding we are to remember that caution that Chrysostome giueth,Chrysos. in psal. 49. Si quis autē exactè perpenderit, etsi minimè promittatur, virtus tamen ei debetur. Id Christus fignificans dicebat, Quae debuimus facere fecimus. If a man exactly weigh the matter, our vertues are due to God, albeit they be not promised or vowed, which Christ signifieth when he saith, We haue done that that [Page 1001] was our dutie to do. For seeing we are boundLuke 10.17. to loue the Lord our God with all our hart, with al our soule, with all our mind, with al our strength, we must conceiue that though nothing be directed vnto vs in particular as touching the necessity of such or such a worke, yet in the generall we do nothing therein but what we owe to God, because whatsoeuer is within vs or whatsoeuer is without vs, we owe all to him. Yea and the vow of our baptisme doth after a sort containe all these other vowes in that being there consecrated wholy to God, we vndertake thereby to take all occasions and oportunities to do honor vnto God. As for popish vows, being as they are for the most part brainsick & idle fancies, such as whereof neither in the general nor in the particular we haue any testimonie from God that they are accepted in his sight, they are onely apish counterfeits of those legall and ceremoniall vowes, but do no way carrie the true resemblance of them, nor that life of spirituall worship and seruice that was shadowed thereby.
2. W. BISHOP.
The second point of our supposed consent is, that Vowes were some part of Gods worship in Moses law, but are not so in the Gospell, which we also deny. M. Perk. proues his assertion thus: Vows belonged to the ceremonies of Moses law, but all those ceremonies are abolished by Christs passion.
Ans. That Vowes in thēselues were no part of the ceremonies of Moses law, but true parts of the worship of God in all estates, as well in the state of nature and the Gospel, as in Moses law: but this point M. Perk. handleth againe in the first point of our difference, where it shall be discussed. Thirdly he saith that speciall vowes may be made in the new law, to performe some bodily exercise for some good end, as to fast, to taske our selues to prayers, or study of holy Scripture, and such like, but many rules must then be obscrued: that we vow an honest thing agreeable to Gods word: this we allow. Secondly, that it be so made that it may stand with Christian libertie, that is, that it make not such things necessarie in conscience, which Christian religion leaues at libertie. This rule of his is flat repugnant to the nature of a vow, and contrary to himselfe. For he saith a little before, that a Christian may vow fasting, prayer, almesdeeds. I then demaund, hauing vowed these things, is he not bound to performe them? Yes, or else he breakes his vow, with which God is [Page 1002] highly displeased. Deut 23. Eccles. 30. An vnfaithfull promise displeaseth God. Then is it manifest, that all vowes do abridge vs of our libertie, and make that vnlawfull for vs, which before our vow was lawfull: which is so euident of it selfe, that I maruell where the mans wit and memorie was when he wrote the contrary.
His other rules, that a vow be made with good deliberation and with consent of our superiours, and not onely of things possible, but also of the better sort, Quaest. 88. we allow, for they are taken out of our Doctors. See S. Thom.
R. ABBOT.
That which M. Perkins saith is true, that in the law of Moses the ceremoniall worke it selfe was a part of the worship of God, and was to be done in it selfe by way of obedience to God. He speaketh not of the act of vowing simply by it selfe, as M. Bishop falsly wresteth his words, but of the vow of a ceremoniall dutie in the way of seruice to God, which if M. Bishop do not acknowledge to be abolished, he must become a Iew, and practise the sacrifices and offerings prescribed by Moses law. But of this he telleth vs that we shall heare more hereafter, and we are content to wait his leisure, As touching vowes vnder the Gospell, M. Perkins affirmeth, that they may be made as touching the performance of some outward & bodily exercise, for some good ends and purposes, as when a man seeing himselfe prone to drunkennesse, doth by vow bind himselfe for a time to the forbearing of wine and strong drinke, or vpon occasions tieth himselfe to set fasting, and prayer, and reading of the Scriptures, and giuing of some set almes, and such like. But as touching such vowes, he deliuereth certaine cautions to be obserued. The first M. Bishop alloweth, that our vow be agreeable to the will and word of God. The second he vnderstandeth not, and therefore cauilleth at it. It is required that our vow stand with Christian libertie, that is, that by vowing we intangle not our consciences with any opiniō of the necessity of the things themselues which we haue vowed, as if any worship or holinesse consisted in those externall and formall obseruations, but that in our practise of them we know that in themselues they are no matters of conscience, nor do yeeld vs any part of righteousnesse with God. Now this which M. Perkins applieth against the conceipt of the very things themselues [Page 1003] which a man hath vowed, M. Bishop construeth as if he meant it of being at liberty from the performing of his vow. But a man may religiously performe his vow, and yet know that the thing it selfe is of no value with God which he performeth; and therefore M. Perkins wits did not faile in deliuering, but M. Bishops in vnderstanding. Those other conditions that such vowes must be made with consent of superiours, and of things that are in our power to do, and agreeable to our vocation and calling, and with good deliberation, and for a good end, M. Bishop approueth also, and therefore not questioning whence they were taken, and telling him that our vprightnesse appeareth therin, if we be content to take of them what is consonant & agreeable to the truth, we so let them go.
3 W. BISHOP.
Now to the points in difference.
First, the Church of Rome (saith M. Perkins) teacheth, that in the new testament, we are as much bound to make vowes, as was the Church of the Iewes, we say no; Considering that the Ceremoniall Law is now abolished, and we haue only two Ceremonies by commandement to be obserued for parts of Gods worship: Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord.
Answer. What, is not your Holy-day seruice (which you call diuine seruice) any part of Gods worship in your owne opinions? Can a publike assembly instituted to honour God by prayer and thankesgiuing with externall ceremony of time, place, apparell, kneeling, standing, and sitting, be no part of Gods worship in your irreligious Congregations, assembled together against Christ and his catholike Church? be it so. But admitting as you do, your seruice to be good; it could not truly be denied to belong vnto the worship of God. But to the matter of difference, you grow very carelesse in your reports of our doctrine: for we hold that neither in the old nor new law, any man is bound to vow, but that it is and euer was a councell, and no commandement, neuerthelesse, a thing of great deuotion and perfection in both states, intrinsecally belonging and much furthering to the true worship of almightie God, which we proue in this sort. In a vow are two things; the one is the good which is vowed, called the materiall part: for example, Fasting, &c. The other, the promise it selfe made to God, which is the forme; the materiall parts do belong vnto their seuerall vertues: but this promise and performance [Page 1004] of it be substantiall parts of Gods worship. For by promising of any good thing vnto God, we acknowledge and professe that God is the soueraigne goodnesse it selfe, and taketh great pleasure in all good purposes and determinations: therefore to honour and worship him, we make that good promise againe, in performing that good seruice of God, we testifie, that he is most maiesticall, reuerend, and dreadfull. And consequently, that all promises made to him, are to be accomplished most diligently, and without delay, wherein we honour and worship him, as contrariwise they doe much dishonour him who breake with him, as if hee were of no better account then to be so deluded. This thing in it selfe is so certaine and cleare, that he who denies it, must needes either be ignorant in the nature of a vow, or not know wherein the true worship of God consisteth: for according vnto the holy Scriptures it selfe, all good d [...]edes done to the glory of God, be acts of the true worship of God. And Saint AnneLuk. 1. did worship God, by fasting and prayer. And Phil. 4. almes bestowed on Gods prisoners, is called a sacrifice pleasing and acceptable to God: And it is said, Iac. 5. to be a pure religion before God, to visite Orphanes and widdowes: If then all other vertuous duties done to the glory of God, be parts of his true worship; much more vowes, which by speciall promise dedicate a good deede to Gods honour: they then being of their owne nature, speciall parts of his true worship of God, it followeth necessary, that at all times they were and may be vsed to the true worship of God: that they were in practise before Moses Law is euident by that vow which Iacob made, Gen. 28. of setting vp a stone, which should be called the house of God, and of paying the tenthes of all his goods. Out of which vow, we also gather, that God holdeth for agreeable, any kind of good seruice offered vnto him out of our owne deuotion: albeit he hath not commaunded it, for no such thing as Iacob there vowed was commanded him, but he being well assured that it would be well taken by God, which was offered of good will, to his greater honour, he vowed it, and is in holy Scripture commended for it.
Againe, that when Saint PaulColos. 2. seemeth to disalow voluntarie worship, he must be vnderstood to speake either of erronious, or of friuolous and foolish things promised to God, which do not properly serue to the setting forth of his honour.
R. ABBOT.
Our diuine seruice, our praiers and thanksgiuings to God, our hearing of his word, and receiuing of his sacraments are indeede the worship of God, and our publike assemblies are instituted hereby to honour God, but as for the externall ceremonies of time, place, apparell, kneeling, standing, and sitting, if M. Bishops wits stood right, he would know that they are things accidentall to the worship of God, but no parts thereof. God is not honoured by our meeting at such a time, or by being in such a place, or by wearing such or such apparell, or by our kneeling, or standing, or sitting, but by the things which according to his commaundement we do in the vsage of these things. The Church was wont to forbeare kneeling in their praiers from Easter to Whitsontide, and yet we suppose M. Bishop is not so absurd, as to say that therefore they failed to do to God some part of his worship. A number of apish gestures for many hundred yeeres were wanting in the masse, and was there some part of Gods worship wanting all that while? This matter needeth not to be stoode vpon, nor would there haue bene occasion to speake of it at all, but that mens senses commonly faile them most, when they thinke to vse them most acutely against God. He calleth our congregations irreligious, and saith they are assembled against Christ and his Church, but God hath iustified our congregations to thei [...] shame and confusion, and for the maintenance of them hath so shewed his prouidence & power, that as the Aegyptians said,Exod. 14.25. The Lord fighteth for Israel against the Aegyptians, so the Romish idolaters haue bene forced to say, The Lord fighteth for the English congregations against vs. But to come to the matter, he findeth fault with M. Perkins his report of their doctrine, and therefore himselfe reporteth it, that they hold that neither in the old nor new law any man is bound to vow, but that it euer was a counsell and no commandement, yet neuerthelesse a thing of great deuotion and perfection in both states, and intrinsecally belonging to the true worship of God. Where as touching ceremoniall vowes, he saith truly that in the old law no mā was expresly bound to vow, but that those vowes were matters of perfection in the old law, if we will take it vpon his word, we may, but how to proue it he cannot tell; [Page 1006] it is a meere dotage, neither is there any ground whereupon to affirme that euer they were taken so to be. Nay euen then was it true which Origen saith,Origen. in [...]um hom. 24. Se [...]tipsu [...] Deo offètre hoc est perfectius & emine [...]tu [...] omnibus votis: quod qui facit imitator est Christi. To offer a mans selfe to God was a matter of greater perfection and eminencie then all vowes; which he that doth, saith he, is the follower of Christ. But as touching vowes & promises of spirituall duties and seruices which were figured in those ceremoniall deuotions, it is vtterly false which he saith, whether in the old or new law, that we are not bound vnto them, and his owne words do plainly shew the cōtrary. For he telleth vs that vowes do intrinsecally belong to the true worship of God, and who doubteth but that God hath required and commaunded whatsoeuer belongeth intrinsecally to his worship and seruice? For if they be not commaunded, there is no necessity of them. If there be no necessity of them then the religion and worship of God may stand perfect without them. If the worship of God may stand without them, then they do not intrinsecally belong to the true worship of God. But because the true vowes are intrinsecally and essentially belonging to the true worship of God, therefore we must vnderstand and know them to be commaunded of God, and that he hath not left any intrinsecall part of his true worship, to depend vpon our will. And this will yet further appeare by Maister Bishops proofe, who, setting downe the matter and forme of a vow, the matter the good thing which is vowed; the forme the promise it selfe made to God, telleth vs that this promise and the performance of it are substantiall parts of Gods worship. For by promising, saith he, of any good thing to God, we acknowledge and professe that God is the soueraigne goodnesse it selfe. Now if vowes be a substantiall part of Gods worship, and yet not commaunded of God, then some part of the substance of Gods worship hangeth vpon our discretion and choise, whether to yeeld it him or not, and wee may yeeld him a maimed worship wanting some part of the substance of it, and yet commit no trespasse against him. So likewise if vowes be the acknowledging and professing of the soueraigne goodnesse of God, and yet not commaunded of God, we may without sinne forbeare some part of the acknowledgement and profession of the soueraigne goodnesse of God. If thereby wee testifie that he is most maiesticall, reuerend and dreadfull, and yet God haue not commaunded them, we may refuse to giue this testimony without any impeachment of the maiestie of God. [Page 1007] But God is not worshipped in that sort; he hath not left our acknowledgement of him arbitrary to the discretion of our will. He hath commanded vsPsal. 96.8. to giue vnto him the glory of his name, that is, the glory that belongeth & is due vnto him, and if vowes be a part of that glory, as M. Bishop telleth vs they be, they cannot be exempted from that commandement. Christ hath commanded vsMat. 22.21. to giue to God the things that are Gods. If vowes be a substantiall part of the worship of God, we are tied to giue the same vnto him, neither may we thinke our selues bound for one part onely, and at our own liberty for the other. Now all this paines that he taketh, to proue that vowes are a part of the worship of God, is but lost as touching vs, because he fighteth without an aduersary, & proueth that which we deny not; but it giueth vs aduantage against them, to charge them with manifest and abhominable idolatry, in that confessing vowes to be a substantiall part of the worship of God, they communicate this honour to the Saints, and make vowes to them of fastings, praiers, pilgrimages, churches, altars, tapers, and what not? a thing so voide of all testimonie of Scripture, as that Bellarmine is content to say,Bellar. de cultu sanct ca 9. Cum scriberentur scripturae sanctae nondum caeperat vsus vouendi sanctis. that when the holy Scriptures were written, the custome of vowing to Saints was not yet begun. It is nothing therefore against vs that he alledgeth, that Iacob made a vow, thereby to proue that there was vse of vowes before the time of Moses law, but whereas he saith that the things which Iacob vowed, were out of his owne deuotion, and not commanded of God, he speaketh it but at all aduenture, and hath no ground for that that he saith. For if his reason be because we do not read that any thing was commanded to Iacob in that behalfe, we may likewise argue that he did all other deuotions out of his owne heart, and receiued them not by commaundement from God, because we reade nothing of any such commaundement. But it is true which Origen saith, thatOrigen. cont. Cels. lib 7. Nemo qui oculis animae cernit, alio modo Deū colit quàm sicut ipse docuit. no man that seeth with the eies of his soule, worshippeth God otherwise then as he himselfe hath taught, and which Hilary saith, thatHilar. de Trinit. lib. 4. Neu potest ali [...]er de Deo quàm vt ipse est de se testatus intelligi. we may not vnderstand otherwise concerning God, then as he himselfe hath witnessed of himselfe. M. Bishop therefore doth amisse to make Iacob as blind as he himselfe is, that he should go about to worship God with deuotions of his own deuice. He receiued instruction of the will of God from the fathers that were before him, & he had also immediate reuelation & illumination from God himself. We see that God afterwards [Page 1008] in the law giueth commandement of the same things, of building altars and paying tithes, and vndoubtedly God gaue not commaundements of things which he had learned of Iacob, but which Iacob had bene taught by him. Yea, and because the Apostle S. Paul condemnethCol. 2.23. will worship or voluntary religion, that is, all such deuotions as men vndertake of their owne deuice, thereby giuing to vnderstand, that God neuer approueth any such, surely we may wel resolue that Iacob would not be guilty of any such presumption, but would first open his eare to learne of God what to do, before he would put forth the hand to do any thing vnto God. But saith M. Bishop, S. Paul when he seemeth to disallow voluntary worship, must be vnderstood to speake either of erronious or of friuolous and foolish things promised to God, which do not properly serue for the setting forth of his glory. Where we see the very patterne of an erroneous, and friuolous, and foolish answer. The Apostle simply taxeth will worship as erroneous, and friuolous, and foolish, and M. Bishop telleth vs, that he meaneth that will worship that is erroneous, or friuolous and foolish. He must be vnderstood of friuolous and foolish things saith M. Bishop, and the Apostle telleth vs that he speaketh of such things asIbid. haue a shew of wisedome, and therefore not to sight, but onely to spirituall iudgement are friuolous and foolish. And therfore doth the Apostle make them erroneous, and affirme thatVer. 24. they perish in the vsing, because they are after the doctrines and commandements of men, alluding to that which our Sauiour in the Gospel citeth out of the Prophet,Mat. 15.9. In vaine do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the precepts of men; but M. Bishop will haue vs thinke that the Apostles meaning is not to reproue generally the doctrines and commandements of men, but onely some that be erroneous. In a word, set them one against another, and hearken well what they say. The Apostle saith, voluntary religion or worship is erroneous, because it is after the doctrines and commandements of men. Maister Bishop saith, all voluntary worship is not erroneous, but onely that that is erroneous. But here we must thinke, that when he thus tooke exception against promising to God friuolous and foolish things, he was quite out of the remembrance of the vowes of their religious orders. We must in charity be perswaded that he thought not of them, because he would haue considered, that in condemning the vowing of friuolous and foolish things, he should condemne [Page 1009] them, as in which there are so many fantasticall and friuolous toies, as touching their apparell and other vsage, as that we may wonder that euer such drunken deuices could come from sober men, if at least they were sober that were the deuisers of them. And if he had remembred them, or when he doth remember them, I meruaile what qualification or distinction he would haue vsed, or will vse to salue the matter, that so ridiculous fooleries should be thought as properly seruing to the setting foorth of the honour of God. Albeit it may be that though being subtile and wise, hee afterwards pro forma disputeth, in the behalfe of those vowes that hee may not walke too openly, yet carying still a splene to the Iesuites, and for their sakes to all the rest hee would first giue vs to vnderstand, that in his mind he accounteth all those vowes as superstitions, and wholy condemned by the sentence of the Apostle. We are very desirous to construe his meaning the best way.
4. W. BISHOP.
Now that Ʋowes should be frequented in the state of the Gospell, besides the euidence of Saint Paules Ʋowe, Act. 18. and diuerse other such like the Prophet Esay did foretell, in these words: Esa. 19.18. They shall worship him with sacrifice and gifts, and they shall vow vowes vnto our Lord, and performe them. To which Maister Perkins answereth, first, that by such ceremoniall worship as then was in vse, the Prophet doth expresse the spirituall worship of the new Testament. This exposition is voluntarie and nothing proper: For what is more vild and absurd, then (to declare that Christians shall make no Vowes) to say that they shall make Ʋowes, as though one contrarie were fit or would serue to expresse the other. This exposition being very vnmeete, Maister Perkins adioyneth a second, that in the new Testament wee haue vowes of Morall and Euangelicall duties, but such are not any part of Gods worship: so that first you shall haue no vowes at all: Secondly, the winde being changed, you shall haue them, but as no parts of Gods worship, as though Morall and Euangelicall duties vndertaken and performed to Gods greater glory be not the very sinewes and substance of his seruice and worship.
R. ABBOT.
By the euidence of Act. 18.18. S. Pauls vow, it is euident that M. Bishop wanted some discretion, to bring that for an example of proofe, that vowes are to be frequented in the state of the Gospell, the same beingNumb. 6.2. the Naz [...]rites vow, according to the ceremony of Moses law, no more belonging to the state of the Gospell, then did all the Leuiticall priesthood and sacrifices, condescended vnto by the Apostle, as M. Perkins before had told him, and be wisely saith nothing to the contrary only for the infirmity and weakenesse of the Iewes,1 Cor. 9.20. to whom for the time he became as a Iew, Aug epist. 19. Non mentientis astis sed compatientis affectis. not by craft of lying, as S. Austine saith, but by affection of compassion, that he might winne them vnto Christ. As touching the place of Esay, it is to be obserued that M. Perkins bringeth it in as alledged by them, to proue that in externall exercises we haue as much vse of vowes as the Iewes had.Esay. 19.21. The Egyptians (saith the Prophet, importing the like of all the Gentiles) shall know the Lord, and shall do sacrifice and oblation, and shall vow vowes vnto the Lord, and performe them. To this he answereth, that the Prophet according to the vsuall manner of all the Prophets, doth by the ceremonial seruice of the Leuitical priesthood, import the spirituall worship of God, intending that because it is spiritually meant, therefore it is misapplied to the establishing of corporall and outward seruice. Now M. Bishops reply is like himselfe, peruerse and crosse, that the Prophet would not say, They shall vow, to signifie that they should not vow. I answer him, that neither doth M. Perkins so intend, but that the Prophet would signifie, that when those Leuiticall and ceremoniall vowes should cease, yet the Gentiles should performe to God that spirituall worship and seruice that was figured thereby, and because the words are meant of spirituall duties, therefore that they are absurdly wrested to the maintaining of a new kinde of ceremoniall vowes. For as the Prophet saith, thatIbid. they should do sacrifice and oblation, & bringeth in the Lord saying,Cap. 56.7. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices shall be accepted vpon mine altar, and againe,Cap. 60.7. The Rammes of Nebaioth shal come vp to be accepted vpon mine altar, when yet the altar & burnt offerings and sacrifices should be quite abolished, and therefore he saith it onely to signifie that they should do that spirituall seruice of inward and [Page 1011] spirituall sacrifices that were represented and shadowed in those carnall obseruations; so doth he say, that they should vow vowes, whē yet those Leuiticall vowes should haue an end, onely because they should performe to God those spiritual deuotions which were signified by those vowes. Now as touching those spirituall deuotions M. Perkins addeth for another part of his answer, that the Church of the new Testament maketh vowes vnto God of morall & Euangelicall duties, the vow and promise whereof first made in baptisme, we alwayes renew when we come to the Supper of the Lord. But withall he saith, that vowes be also made of things and actions indifferent, which things notwithstanding are not to be accounted anie part of the worship of God. Which words consisting of two parts seuerally applied, M. Bishop confoundeth and most leudly and wretchedly peruerteth, as if M. Perkins had said, that in the new Testament we haue vowes of morall and Euangelicall duties, but such are not any part of Gods worship, and so with a harlots face not fit to blush, passeth ouer the matter, when as it was directly shewed him how that prophecie is fulfilled in the new Testament without anie of the fooleries of Popish vowes. I pray thee gentle Reader, to consider the matter well. M. Perkins saith, that we Christians vowe vowes of morall and Euangelicall duties, & if we make any other vowes of things indifferent, those things must not be taken for anie parts of Gods worship. M. Bishop maketh him to say, that vowes of morall and Euangelicall duties, and the duties themselues, are no part of Gods worship. Thinke with thy selfe what credite thou mayest giue to him, who sticketh not so impudently to peruert so apparent and plaine words. But in those vowes of morall and spirituall duties is the true performance of that prophecie, and we may so much the more rest vpon it, because M. Bishop hath nothing to say against it. What further belongeth to the declaration of those vowes, I put it off to be handled in the next Section.
5. W. BISHOP.
Againe saith M. Perkins, they alledge for Euangelicall vowes: Psal. 75. Vow vnto God and pay it. M. Perkins his answer is, that this bindes the Iewes, he would haue you vnderstand, not the Christians. We say; that it is no commandement to either of them, but an exhortation, aswell to the one as to the other. First, because good vowes do tend to the greater [Page 1012] glory of God in all states: (as hath bene proued before) Secondly, for that the Prophet in the next verse, yeelding the reason why we must pay our vowes, saith, That he vnto whom we haue vowed is terrible vnto the Kings of the earth; And therefore most likely that such vowes he spake of there, may be made of any sort of men inhabiting the earth.
Thirdly, because the ancient Fathers take it to extend vnto vs Christians, as well as vnto the Iewes; let one S. Augustine serue, in his Commentarie vpon the 75. Psalme. Because we haue handled those things (saith he) peraduenture thou who wast willing before, but now wilt not vow: but marke what the Psalme said vnto thee: It saith not, Do not vow, but vow and pay it: wilt thou not vow? Therfore wouldest thou haue vowed, but not haue fulfilled it? nay rather do both: Let the one be of thine owne promise, the other shall be performed by the helpe of God. He then tooke these words to belong vnto his Auditors who were no Iewes.
In the same place he doth highly commend Christians for vowing, some Chastitie, some Hospitalitie, some Pouertie: but because contraries being set together, each do more liuely appeare in his kind, let vs with this Exposition, compare M. Perkins his Comment [...]rie vpon this place: who saith, that the Prophet speaketh of vowes, of Prayer and thankesgiuing: For so (saith Master Perkins) doth he expound himselfe, Psal. 50.12. My vowes are vpon me, I will offer praises vnto God. Well aymed, I warrant you; The sixe and fiftieth Psalme written first, is the Exposition of the seuentie fiue Psalme, which was conceited and vttered after. Again, in the seuentie fiue Psalme Dauid speaketh t [...] others: in the other he speaketh of himselfe. Thirdly, the Prophets words in the sixe and fiftieth Psalme, confirme rather that which he taught before, that all considerate vowes are praises and parts of Gods worship, or as the words do more literally sound, because his vowes, that is, his prayers and desires were by God accomplished, therfore he would praise and thank him.
R. ABBOT.
Psal. 76.11. Vow and performe vnto the Lord your God, saith the Prophet, all ye that be round about him. M. Perkins verie truly saith, that these words whether we call them an exhortation or a commandement, did concerne the Iewes onely as touching ceremoniall vowes, but as touching the spirituall intendment of them of praise and thanksgiuing, [Page 1013] do generally concerne both them and vs. M. Bishop like old True-pennie neuer but like himselfe, runneth away with a peece of this answer, and setteth himselfe to proue that which M. Perkins denieth not, that the words respect both the Iewes and vs. We acknowledge so much M. Bishop: we say they concerne onely them in in those duties or deuotions that were proper to them onely, but in common they concerne both them and vs, in those duties and deuotions that belong to both. We cannot doubt but that the Prophet had reference to the condition of that time, & did inuite both the Priests and the people to that outward seruice of sacrifices and offerings, in the exercise whereof it pleased God in his wisedome then to traine them vp. But because we heare God so often professing, that he respected not their naked and bare sacrifices, and seeming so to reckon of them as if he had neuer giuen commandement of any such, namely when they were destitute of that inward pietie and obedience and deuotion, which God would haue to be exercised thereby, therefore we must conceiue that the Prophet here also looked further then to outward seruice, and in cōmending to them the exercises thereof, did call them to inward affections of praise and thankesgiuing vnto God. Seeing then the outward solemnities and ceremonies which were the externall matter of their vowes, were but instructions and inducements to spirituall offices and duties, which in the right vse of vowes were principally vowed thereby, therefore in the spirituall construction of those ceremonies, we are to learne what is the true and proper matter of Christian vowes. And because God as he is the same God, so as touching spirituall worship, is alike worshipped from the beginning to the ende, we cannot doubt but that in the example and practise of the faithfull in those times we may behold as in a glasse, what the duties are that by their vowes are recommended vnto vs. What we find amongst them, we know the same belongeth to vs: what we find not amōgst them, their vowes giue vs no warrant or example of it. Now what applications & constructions they made of those sacrifices & offerings and other ceremonies which they vowed vnto God, we may see by many phrases & speeches which the Scriptures purposely vse to shew the meaning of them. Many examples thereof we haue in the Psalmes:Psal. 4.5. Offer the sacrifices of righteousnesse: 50.14.23. Offer vnto God thankesgiuing, and he that sacrificeth praise he honoreth me. 51.17. The [Page 1014] sacrifices of God are a contrite spirite, a contrite and broken heart. 107 22. Let them offer sacrifices of praise. 115.17. I will offer to thee a sacrifice of praise. 141.2. Let my prayer be in thy sight for incense, and the lifting vp of my hands an euening sacrifice. Thus saith Ionas, Ion. 2.9. I will sacrifice vnto thee with the voyce of thankesgiuing, and Osee, Osc. 14.13. We will render vnto thee the calues of our lips. The vow of humbling or afflicting themselues by fasting, what it imported appeareth by Gods reprouing of them, for thatEsa. 58.3. in the day of their fast they sought their owne will, as giuing to vnderstand, thas by their fast they were to be instructed to the forbearing of their owne desires, to the renouncing of their owne wils, to the subduing of their owne corrupt and euill affections, to the eschuing of crueltie, oppression and violence, that they might make way to the workes of mercie which God did cō mand them, as in the Prophets words there is shewed,Ver. 6. Is not this the fast that I haue chosen, to loose the bonds of wickednesse, to take off the heauie burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and to breake euery yoke? Is it not to deale thy bread to the hungrie, to bring the poore that wandreth into thy house? &c. In briefe the Prophet Micheas sheweth the signification of this humbling, and of all their sacrifices;Mich 6.8. He hath shewed thee O man what is good, and what the Lord thy God requireth of thee. Surely to do iudgement, and to loue mercy, and to humble thy selfe to walke with thy God. The vow of the Nazarites was the principall vow of all the rest. What the intention thereof was is expressed in the first description of the ceremonie of it,Num. 6.2. to be separated to the Lord. Now this was the common condition of all that people to be separated to the Lord, as God himselfe giueth them to vnderstand,Leuit. 20.24.26. I am the Lord your God, which haue separated you from other people: therefore shall ye be holy vnto me; for I the Lord am holy, and I haue separated you from other people that ye should be mine. But God by a speciall vow of ceremoniall obseruations, whereby in outward things for the time they were diuided from the common conuersation of themselues and their owne people, would giue a spectacle and example to the rest of them, of putting off those carnall and earthly affections by which they should be like to other peoples, for preseruing of spiritual integritie and holinesse towards him. And therein is exemplified the condition of all the faithfull, of whom our Sauiour hath told vs, thatIoh. 15.19. they are not of the world, but he hath chosen them out of the world, and therefore are2. Pet. 1.4. to flie the corruption [Page 1015] that is in the world by lust, and to hearken to the voyce of God,2. Cor. 16.17. Come out from among them, and separate your selues, saith the Lord, and touch no vncleane thing, and I will receiue you. These are then the vowes that belong to vs, vowes of prayer, of praise and thankesgiuing, of denying our selues, of mortifying our owne affections, of mercie and compassion towards our brethren, and in a word, of keeping our selues holy vnto God; euen those vowes whereof we reade many examples in the Psalmes and other Scriptures:Psal. 27.8. Thou saidest, seeke ye my face, and my heart answered thee, O Lord, I will seeke thy face. 79 9.13. Helpe vs O God of our saluation for the glorie of thy name, &c. So we that be thy people and sheepe of thy p [...]sture shall praise thee for euer, and from generation to generation we will set forth thy praise. 80.17. Let thy hand be vpon the man of thy right hand, and vpon the sonne of man whom thou madest so strong for thine owne selfe: so will not we go backe from thee; reuiue thou vs and we will call vpon thy name. 86.11. Teach me thy way O Lord, and I will walke in thy truth. 119.33.34. Teach me the way of thy statutes, and I will keepe it vnto the end; giue me vnderstanding and I will keepe thy law, yea I will keepe it with my whole heart. Ver. 106. I haue sworne and will performe it, that I will keepe thy righteous iudgements. Thus doth Osee the Prophet instruct the people of God,Osc. 14.3. Take you wordes, and turne to the Lord and say vnto him, Take away all our iniquitie, and receiue vs graciously, so will we render the calues of our lips. These vowes are recommended vnto vs in the new Testament, when we are taughtMat. 16.24. to deny our selues, and to take vp the crosse of Christ that we may follow him, Col. 3.5. to mortifie our earthly members, Rom. 6.13. to giue our selues vnto God, & our members as weapons of righteousnesse vnto God: Cap. 12.1. to offer our bodies a holy, liuely and acceptable sacrifice vnto God; 1. Cor. 6.20. to glorifie God both in our bodies and in our spirits, as being both his; 2 Cor. 5.15. to liue vnto him which died for vs and rose againe. These vowes we made to God in our baptisme; and we professe the continuing and renewing of them from time to time in coming to the table of the Lord, as also in our daily prayers and meditations, and in all those promises which the remembrance of our owne waies draweth from vs euery while. Of these the Prophet Esay spake in the section before; of these the Prophet Dauid here saith, Vow vnto the Lord your God and performe the same, all ye that be round about him. Now then it is true that vowes are to the honor & glory of God, and that we are to consider the dreadfull maiestie of [Page 1016] God, that we may be moued carefully to performe the vowes that we haue made vnto him, and that these vowes are such as may be made by all sorts of men inhabiting the earth: and what of all this, either against M. Perkins or against vs? As for S. Austin, he confirmeth all that hath bene here said of the exposition of these vowes, that the things that we are here willed to vow, areSupra sect. 1. ex. August. in Psal. 75. to beleeue in God, to trust in him, to liue a good life, to hope to receiue of him eternall life, and such like as we haue seene before. Now it is true that he saith further, thatIbid. Alius vouet castitatem coniugalem, vt praeter vxorem suam nō nouerit aliam, &c. Alij vouent experti tale contugium nihil tale vltra pati [...]lij virginitatem ab ipsi ineu [...]te aet [...]te vouint: al [...]j vouēt domum suam hosp [...]talem omnibus sanctis: alij vouent relinquere omnia sua, &c. some vow chastitie in mariage by keeping thēselues, the husband to his owne wife onely, or the wife onely to her owne husband; some hauing bene married, vow not to marrie againe, some from the beginning vow virginitie, some to vse their houses for hospitalitie to the Saints, some to distribute all their goods to the poore: some of which vowes we question not, the rest are afterwards to be considered of. But that which M. Bishop citeth, of his exhorting men not to forbeare vowing for the necessitie of the performance thereof, but for that to trust to the helpe of God, to proue that he tooke those words to belong to his auditors and not onely to the Iewes, it is a proofe needlesse, because we acknowledge so much, in such sort as hath bene said before. As for that which he further addeth, of setting contraries together, that each may more liuely appeare in his kind, it is but the liuely setting forth of his owne indiscretion & folly. M. Perkins to shew what may be vnderstood by vowes, in the place here hādled alledgeth a speech of Dauid in a former Psalme.Psal. 56.12: Thy vowes are vpon me, O God; (that is, the vowes which I haue made to thee are lying on me to be performed,) I will render praises vnto thee. In which place we see that the Prophet expoundeth vowes concerning praises to God, whereupon M. Perkins alledgeth, that vowes likewise in the other place may be construed of praises and thankesgiuing vnto God. Against this M. Bishop excepteth ful wisely I warrant you, as not likely that the Psalme fiftie sixe written first, should be the exposition of the Psalme seuenty fiue which was conceited and vttered after. But did not his vnderstanding serue to instruct him, that Dauid though not expounding the latter Psalme in the former, yet in the former expounding vowes to be praises, doth teach vs how to expound vowes, when they are mentioned in a latter Psalme, or in anie other Scripture sounding to like effect? And who but he is ignorant, that Scriptures formerly written [Page 1017] do often giue vs light and helpe for the vnderstanding and expounding of Scriptures that are written later? His second exception is as good as that, namely that Dauid in the latter Psalme speaketh to others, in the former of himself. And what then? What should hinder but that by the name of vowes he should signifie the praises of God in speaking to others, when he himselfe expoundeth vowes to be the praises of God in speaking of himselfe? Albeit he mistaketh in making Dauid the author of the latter Psalme, which is rather thought to be written in the time of Ezechias, but questionlesse after Dauids time. In his third exception his head being wild, he telleth vs, that the Prophets words in Psalme fiftie sixe confirme rather that which he taught before. Where before when as the Psalme fiftie sixe is the former of the two Psalmes? I thinke he cannot well tell what he meant by this speech. But what is the thing confirmed? That all considerate vowes are praises and parts of Gods worship. What he meaneth by considerate vowes we know not, but we take those onely to be considerate vowes wherby we vow those things which God hath warranted vs to vow. Thus are vowes a part of Gods worship, when we vow those things which he hath taught vs to be belonging to his worship. Such were for the time the ceremonies and sacrifices of the Law, not for themselues, but for the spirituall dutie that was implyed in them and acted by them. If they were not put to this vse, God held them not for anie part of his worship. Dauid therefore hauing respect to this, signifieth that the thing which he properly intended by his vowes, was praise and thankes to God. This is all that Dauid sayth, and was by Maister Perkins fitly alledged for that that he had in hand.
6. W. BISHOP.
Let vs now come to the second point, wherein we dissent: They (saith M. Perkins) hold vowes made of things not commanded, as of Fasting, Prayer, &c. to be parts of Gods worship; and that they tend vnto a state of perfection. We say flatly no, holding that lawfull vowes be stayes & props of Gods worship, but not the worship it selfe: this is long since confuted. But here M. P. setteth vp a rotten prop or two, to vphold his ruinous building, saying, S. Paule saith plainly, 1. Tim. 4. Bodily exercise profiteth litle, but godlines profiteth much. Where are you good sir? We treat here of [Page 1018] vowes, which are formally actions of the mind: what do you now about bodily exercises? Vowes are principall parts of that godlinesse, which is so profitable. And if by bodily exercise, fasting, and other corporall paine or labour be vnderstood, then we say, that such things of themselues would profite little; but being directed to the chastising of the rebellious flesh, to the end we may lesse offend, and better serue God, then they may much profite vs. But let vs heare M. Perkins his second reason against such vowes. Gods kingdome standeth not in outward things, and therefore his worship standeth not in outward things.
Answer. Gods kingdome in it self standeth not in outward things, and as it is in vs also, it doth consist chiefly in inward worship, by faith, hope, charitie, and religion, in whose kingdome vowes hold an honorable rank: but a great part of this worship among vs, depends of outward things; for be not the two only parts of Gods worship among Protestants (as M. Perkins saith in this question) Baptisme & our Lords Supper, both which partly consist in outwardly both speaking & doing? And is not faith (which is the roote of all Christian Religion) gotten by outward preaching and hearing?
R. ABBOT.
Here M. Bishop sheweth himselfe againe in his right colour; for whereas M. Perkins mentioning vowes of things not commanded, addeth for example, as of meates, drinkes, attire, &c. he in steede hereof putteth in, as of fasting and prayer, &c. that he might make his Reader beleeue, that M. Perkins affirmed prayer to be no part of Gods worship. Well, he must keepe his wont, and it fitteth well the cause that he hath in hand. The thing that M. Perkins propoundeth is this, that lawfull vowes of things not commanded, are stayes and proppes of the worship of God, but not the worship it selfe. This M. Bishop saith is long since confuted, but where he cannot tell. But for proofe hereof M. Perkins first alledgeth the words of S. Paule, 1. Tim. 4 8. Bodily exercise profiteth little, but godlinesse is profitable for all things. To these words M. Bishop giueth an answer that fully confirmeth what M. Perkins saith. But first he beginneth merily, Where are you good Sir? Here M. Bishop, what would ye? we treate here of vowes, saith he, which are formally actions of the mind; what do you now about bodily exercises? Yea but M. Bishop, you haue told vs before of good vowes, and considerate vowes, and therefore we [Page 1019] presume you allow not of all vowes, as if a man should vow the Esa. 66:3. killing of a man, or the cutting off of a dogges necke. You will tell vs then, that good vowes are such as whereby we vow good things, and then we answer you, that vowes indeed take their condition and qualitie from the things themselues that are vowed, and therefore that those onely vowes are the true worship of God whereby we vow those things that belong to his true worship. Whence it followeth, that where bodily exercises are vowed by which God is not worshipped, the sentence of the Apostle is rightly alledged against the taking of those vowes for anie worship of God, that bodily exercise profiteth little, but godlinesse is profitable for all things. We see the Apostle setteth downe bodily exercise for one thing, and godlinesse for another, and thereby teacheth vs, that bodily exercise by it selfe is no part of godlinesse: and if bodily exercise be no part of godlinesse, then vowes of bodily exercise can be no part thereof. It is but at randon therefore that M. Bishop saith, that vowes are principall parts of that godlinesse that is so profitable, because they are no parts of that godlinesse but when that godlinesse it selfe is the thing which we vow. But now he addeth, If by bodily exercise fasting and other corporall paine or labour be vnderstood, then we say, that such things of themselues would profite little, but being directed to the chastising of the rebellious flesh, to the end we may lesse offend and better serue God, then they may much profit. And what is this but that that M. Perkins saith, that such things are stayes and proppes and helpes of the worship of God, but in themselues they are no part of Gods worship? The mortifying of fleshly lusts, the auoyding of sinne, the yeelding of our obedience to God, these are things wherein God is worshipped. But fasting and such other exercises are onely helpes to these, and no part of them, and therefore the vowes thereof (as M. Perkins saith) are no otherwise to be reckoned, but as props and stayes, and not as partes of the worship of God. Poperie hath wickedly taught men to recken of them as meritorious workes and satisfactions for sinne, yea not onely for a mans owne sinnes, but for other mens sinnes also. These are impious and damnable conceipts, and farre from that which the Scripture hath taught vs to conceiue of all outward things. But against that opinion of vowing such outward and bodily seruice, Maister Perkins further vrgeth, that the kingdome of God standeth not in outward things, as eating, [Page 1020] drinking, and such like, alluding to the words of the Apostle,Rom. 14.17. The kingdome of God is not meate and drinke, but righteousnesse, and peace, and ioy in the holy Ghost, and he that in these things serueth Christ, pleaseth God and is approoued of all men. The Apostle would thereby haue it vnderstood, that we are no whit the nearer to the kingdome of God by eating or not eating, by drinking or not drinking, by wearing or not wearing this or that, or by any such like things belonging to the externall conuersation and life of man. By outward things then we vnderstand not all things that are done outwardly, but onely those things the vse whereof properly belongeth to the outward man. The preaching and hearing of Gods word, the ministring and receiuing of the Sacraments, are things outwardly done, but they are things belonging not to the outward but to the inward man. M. Bishops exception therefore as touching these things is nothing to the purpose, but the argument standeth good, that because the kingdome of God consisteth not in such outward things as belong to the outward man, therefore Popish vowes are to be condemned as superstitious, and as hauing no ranke in anie true religion, whereby men make vowes of such outward things, to become thereby the nearer to the kingdome of God. Nowe marke gentle Reader, that as M. Bishop began this Section with one lye, so he endeth it with another, that M. Perkins saith, that Baptisme and the Lords Supper are the two onely parts of Gods worship amongst the Protestants, whereas M. Perkins saith no other but thus; We haue onely two ceremonies to be obserued by commandement, which are Baptisme and the Lords Supper. It is one thing to say, onely two ceremonies, another thing to say, two onely parts of Gods worship. But let M. Bishop remember what the gaines of a lyer is, that a man knoweth not how to beleeue him when he speaketh truth.
7. W. BISHOP.
But it would wearie a willing man to traile after all M. Perkins his impertinent errors. Let vs then at length come vnto the principall point in controuersie. Catholikes (saith he) maintaine such vowes to be made as are not agreeable to the rules afore-named. The first is, that of Continencie, wherby a man promiseth to God to keepe chastitie in a single life, that is, out of the state of wedlocke. This kind of vow is flat against the [Page 1021] word of God, as he saith, which he proueth first out of S. Paule, If they cannot containe, then let them marrie: True, if they haue not vowed chastitie before, as the common Christians of Corinth (to whom Saint Paule there speaketh) had not. For such, 1. Cor 7. if they cannot liue otherwise chastly, it is better they marrie then be burned, that is, defiled with incontinencie. But to them who had vowed chastitie before, S. Paule writeth in another style, That if they but desire to marrie, they incurre damnation,1. Tim. 5. because they haue made frustrate & broken their former faith and promise made vnto God of their chastitie. So that this first text is a furlong wide at the least from the marke.
R. ABBOT.
It would wearie a man thus to traile after an impudent and wrangling Sophister, who doubteth not as we see, so apparently and wilfully to lye, and neither vnderstandeth what M. Perkins saith, nor what himselfe should say. We must come nowe to the principall point in controuersie, as he termeth it; let vs see how well he carieth himselfe in the debating of it. M. Perkins allegation is, that the Papists maintaine such vowes as are not agreeable to the rules before mentioned, which are necessarie to be obserued in lawfull vowes. The first of these is their vow of Continencie, whereby a man promiseth to God to keepe chastitie alwayes in single life, that is, out of the state of wedlocke. Against this vow he alledgeth first the words of S. Paule, 1. Cor. 7.9. If they cannot containe, let them marrie, for saith he, it is better to marrie then to burne. This is the commaundement of almightie God, to all to whom the gift of continencie is not giuen, that they betake themselues to mariage, as to a safe port and harbor, where they may be free from being tossed and turmoiled with the waues and stormes of incontinencie and raging lust, that so with quiet mind & pure consciēce they may serue God, and without interruption call faithfully vpon him. Now what hath M. Bishop learned out of his many large volumes for answer to this? The holy Ghost saith, let thē marrie: True, saith he, if they haue not vowed chastity before, as the cōmon Christians of Corinth to whō S. Paul there speaketh had not. Where whē he cōstrueth the Apostles words of cō mō Christiās, he putteth me in mind of the Maniches, who wold by [Page 1022] no meanes allowe of marriage in their Elects, their speciall and choise men, but as for their auditours, that is, the common sort,August. cont. Faust. lib. 30. c. 6. Multos vestres auditores in hoc obedire nolentes vel non valentes salua amicitia toleratis. they were content to beare with them if either they would not or could not liue vnmaried. Thus would he make vs beleeue that the Apostle spake but of the common sort, but meant not anie thing of the rest that were more speciall men, when as the Apostle professeth himselfe to write1. Cor. 1.2. to all that call vpon the name of our Lord Iesus Christ, and in the beginning of that Chapter whence this allegation is taken sayeth,Cap. 7.2. for the auoyding of fornication let euerie man haue his owne wife, and euery woman her owne husband, and saith it to themVers 1. that had written vnto him in the name of the Church, who vndoubtedly were not of the common sort. But the exception which he vseth is the verie same as whereby the Scribes and Pharisees of old deluded the commaundement of God, as our Sauiour mentioneth in the Gospell, and made it of no effect by their tradition. God said,Exod. 20.12. Honour thy father and thy mother. True, said they, except he haue vowed or sworne the contrarie. Amongst sundrie wicked othes amongest the Iewes, whereby they vowed the committing of leud and damnable acts, and then hasted to the doing thereof that they might not be forsworne, this (as Philo the Iewe testifieth) was one, thatPhilo de legib. special. Iureiurando suam inhumanitatem confirmant, dum negant se hunc aut illum adiuturos vllo beneficio quoad vixerit. they would not helpe or do good to such a one so long as they liued. Amongst manie other formes or fashions of swearing, Iosephus giueth vs to vnderstand, that one specially wasIoseph contra Apion. li. 1. Iusiurandum quod Corban appellatur. &c. Apud nullos autem inuenitur hoc iuramentū nisi apud Judaeos solos, quod interpretatur ex Hebraica lingua, Donum Dei. Corban, which is as much as to say, By the gift. Concerning which manner of oth it is that our Sauiour Christ reprooueth their absurd superstition, where he bringeth them in saying,Mat. 23.18. Whosoeuer sweareth by the altar, it is nothing, but he that sweareth [...]. by the offering (or the gift) that is vpon it, he is a debtour; that is, as Hierome saith,Hieron. ibid. Hoc studiosissimè repetebant. that they most earnestly required to be kept. So then if by anie occasion the sonne had said to his father,Matth. 15.5. Mark. 7.11. Corban, that is, by the gift, if thou haue anie profite by me, vnderstanding after their maner, then let God destroy me, or such and such euill befall me, he was hereby tied, as they taught, that he should yeeld no succour or reliefe to the necessitie of his father. Whatsoeuer God had commanded, it skilled not; he had now bound himself & must stand to it, not to do that that God had required of him: let his father beg or starue, or do what he would or could for himself, but of him he must haue nothing. The verie like is the tradition of the Pharisees of the [Page 1023] Romish synagogue, who when God hath said, If they cannot containe let them marrie, answereth, Be it so, if they haue not vowed the contrarie; but if they haue vowed single life, whether they containe or not containe, they must not marrie: let them swelter and boyle and burne in filthie lust euen to the very bottome of hel, yet marrie they must not in anie case. And whereas the Apostle saith, It is better to marrie then to burne, M. Bishop telleth vs that for such, that is, for common Christians, if they cannot liue otherwise chastly, it is better to marrie then to be burned, that is, defiled with incontinencie; leauing it to be vnderstood, that for Votaries, for such speciall Christians as he is, it is better to be burned, that is, defiled with incontinencie, then to marrie. And that it may appeare that I do not vniustly force this consequence vpon him, Cardinall Campegius doubted not most impudently to say, thatSleidan. Comment. li. 4. Quòd sacerdotes mariti fiāt multò esse gratitus peccatū quā si plurimas domi meretrices alant. it is a greater sinne for Priests to be maried, then to keepe many harlots at home: and in like sort Costerus the Iesuite, thatCoster. Enchir. cap. 15 Sa [...]erdos si fornicetur aut domi concubinā foueat, tameisi graut sacrileg [...]os se obstringat, multò tamē grauiùs peccat si matrimonium contrahat. a Priest albeit he be guiltie of great sacriledge if he commit fornication or keepe a concubine, yet sinneth more grieuously if he marrie. Yea that we may not thinke that some pettie fellowes onely haue so conceiued, Bellarmine that filthie Friar saith the same:Bellar. de Monach. cap. 30. Vtrunque est mal [...] nubero & vri; immò peius est nubere, &c. Quae nubit post votum simplex tamen aliquo modo magis peccat, quàm quae forni [...]atur. Both are euill, to marrie and to burne, but yet the worse of the two is to marrie: yea, Philo de Leg. special. Quasi nō melius deo (que) gratius sit tale periurium, modò seruentur leges, &c. Addit enim culpae culpam, dum sacramento abutitur, cùm debu [...]sset potiùs abstinere à maleficijs. Abstineat igitur, & supplex Deum exoret vt pro sua clemētia temeritati incō sultae ignoscat qua ad iurādum praeceps actus est: nam duplicare noxam cum te possis exonerare dimidio, maxima est insania vix vnquam curabilis. she that marieth after a simple vow (that is, when she hath but vndertaken to vow, and hath not yet solemnely done it) yet in some sort sinneth more then she that committeth fornication. See these wretched caitifes, whom neither feare of God nor shame of men can hold backe from so diuellish and damnable assertions, whereby they do but set a snare to halter and strangle the consciences of men, as they haue done many thousands, and by whoredome and filthinesse without remorse sent them headlong to hell fire. As though, saith Philo, to forsweare (in such a case) for the keeping of Gods lawes, were not much better and more acceptable to God. For a man addeth sinne to sinne whilest he abuseth his oath, whereas he should rather forbeare from euill doing. Let him therefore forbeare, and humbly intreate God that of his mercie he will pardon the vnaduised rashnesse whereby he was led headlong to sweare: for to double the fault when thou mayest disburden thy selfe of the one halfe, is verie great madnesse, and scarcely possible to be cured. Thus spake Philo of those vowes and othes whereby men binde themselues contrarie to that which God hath commaunded, and [Page 1024] his wordes shall be the iust condemnation of them, who by pretence of a vowe of humane institution and deuice, debarre men from doing that which God hath taught them to do, and tye them to that vncleannesse whereby they are lothsome and hatefull vnto him. Marke it I pray thee gentle Reader, that by their vow of continencie, they professe more to renounce mariage which is the ordinance of God, then fornication and whoredome which is the worke of the diuell. A man hath vowed continencie, but yet cannot containe. What must be the meanes to salue this euill? Not mariage by anie meanes which is the medecine that God hath appointed, but adulterie, and fornication, and vnnaturall Sodomiticall filthinesse and vncleannesse, to which the diuell tempteth. It is a doctrine neuer heard of in the world, vntill by the tyrannie of Antichrist the Church became a stye for these filthie swine, that a man should be taken to vow more against mariage, then against vncleane and filthie lust. But yet this notable hypocrite here beareth vs in hand, that S. Paule was the author of this accursed and desperate paradoxe. To them (saith he) that had vowed chastitie before, Saint Paule writeth in another style, that if they but desire to marrie they incurre damnation, because they haue made frustrate and broken their former faith and promise made vnto God of their chastity. Where we must vnderstand, that they of whom the Apostle there speaketh were poore widowes, who were to liue of the almes of the Church, and were vsed by the Church to looke to poore, sicke and impotent people, and to giue some attendance to trauellers and strangers, who were faithfull Christians comming by occasion to the place where they were, to wash their feet, which was a thing much done in those hote countreyes, and to do such other necessarie vses as might concerne them. Now because they that were maried could not fitly be employed to such seruice, neither was it fitte that the Church should be euery while to seeke by their bestowing themselues in mariage that did vndertake it, therefore they made choise onely of such who would resolue and promise not to marrie againe. And that they might be the more fitte and likely, both to make and keepe this promise, the Apostle giueth this caution;1. Tim. 5.9. Let not a widow be chosen vnder threescore yeares of age, after which there neede be small doubt that she should haue minde or desire of marriage. This is the great vowe of chastitie that M. Bishop [Page 1025] telleth vs of, that a woman of threescore yeares old, being to do some seruice to the Church, and to be relieued therein by the Churches almes, should first promise not to marrie againe. But the Apostle hauing set downe this caution, goeth on further saying, But refuse the younger widowes; for when they haue begun to waxe wanton against Christ they will marrie, hauing damnation because they haue broken the first faith. He will haue no widowes of the younger sort admitted to that companie, for the euident perill and danger thereof ensuing, which by experience then had in some sort appeared. For some young widowes comming by this meanes to liue idle vpon common charge, gaue themselues to wantonnesse, and quite cast off the remembrance and regard of their dutie towards Christ, yea and as Hierome vnderstandeth the word vsed by the Apostle,Hieron. ad Geront. Fornicatae sunt in iniuriam viri sui Christi: hoc enim Graecus sermo significat. They committed fornication to the iniury of Christ, whose they had professed themselues to be. The Apostle afterwards further expresseth what he meaneth by this waxing wanton against Christ, when he saith,Vers. 15. Certaine are alreadie turned after Satan, namely that they proceeded so farre, as that by apostasie and infidelitie they forsooke the faith and religion of Christ, and betooke themselues to follow Satan, whom by their baptisme they had professed to forsake. But of such he saith, that being thus growne wanton against Christ, they will marrie, and addeth, hauing damnation because they haue broken the first faith. Where the question is, to what these latter words are to be referred, whether to that he saith, they are waxen wanton against Christ, or to the other words, they will marrie. M. Bishop saith, that therefore they haue damnation, because they will marrie, but to giue some colour thereof he falsifieth the text, and in the Apostles name setteth downe his owne words. We say, that therefore they haue damnation, not because they will marrie, but because they are waxen wanton against Christ. We proue it to be so out of the text it selfe; for whereas M. Bishop in the Apostles name saith; they haue damnation because they haue made frustrate and broken their former faith, the Apostle himselfe saith not so, but because they haue made frustrate their first faith. Nowe their first faith was that whereby they first beleeued, and gaue themselues to Christ: in which sort it is sayd to the Church of Ephesus,Apoc. 2.4. I haue somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first loue; Remember from whence thou art fallen, and do the first [Page 1026] workes, and this faith was not broken by willing to marrie, but by being become proud and wanton against Christ. M. Bishop then doth amisse, to put in their former faith, which is of doubtfull construction, in steed of their first faith, whereof there is no doubt. If he wil say, that the Fathers commonly vnderstand it of their promise not to marrie, we will answer him, that whatsoeuer any of the Fathers say, yet we will not pull out our owne eyes, and say that we do not see that that indeed we do see. Albeit there want not of the Fathers to iustifie vs in this behalfe, who by plaine allusion to this place, expound the first faith of the faith of baptisme, and that which we haue at first receiued in the profession of Christ. So doth Athanasius, when he saith:Athanas. de vnita Deit. Trin. Vae vobis qui primam fidem baptismi coelitùs institutam irritam facitis. Wo vnto you that make frustrate the first faith of baptisme which was deliuered from heauen. In like sort Vincentius Lyrinensis mentioningVincen. Lyri. Scitum cunctu est quàm vehementer inuehatur in quosdam beatus Apostolus qui mira leuitate, translati fuerant abeo qui eos vocauerat in gratiam Christi, &c Habentes damnationem quòd primam fidem irritam fecissent how earnestly the Apostle inueyeth against the Galathians, who so lightly were remoued from him that had called them in the grace of Christ, applieth to them these words, Hauing damnation for that they had broken or made frustrate their first faith. So Hierome saith,Hieron. praef. epist. ad Titum. Non sunt digni fide qui primam fidem irritam fecerunt, Marcionē [...]oquor & Basilidem & omnes haereticos, &c. They are not worthie of credit who haue broken their first faith, I meane Marcion and Basilides and all heretickes, &c. It is plaine then that the first faith is that according to which we haue first beleeued in Christ, and first plighted our troth to him. But by a second argument also from the text we proue that that we say, where the Apostle addeth;Ver. 14. I will therefore that the yonger (widowes) marrie, and beare children, and gouerne the house, and giue no occasion to the aduersarie to speake euill; for certaine are alreadie turned backe after Satan. Which last words do plainely import, that he meaneth that precept of such young widowes as were alreadie chosen into the companie mentioned before, being apparently to this effect, some are alreadie fallen away and turned after Satan; therefore I would haue the rest that are yet remaining to marrie, least the like euill befall to anie of them. But this he would not haue sayd, if he had meant that it had bene damnation for them to marrie, or their willing to marrie had bene that frustrating of their faith which he there intendeth, and therefore it is plaine that he meant not in that sort. And thus Chrysostome though he seeme there to vnderstand faith of their promise not to marrie, yet plainely determineth that the Apostle in those words speaketh of them of whom he hath said before, they will marrie, though not as hauing yet [Page 1027] runne into those excesses which he setteth downe.Chrysost. in 1. Tim. hom. 15. Volo igitur: quia & ipsae volunt, volo & ego adolescentulas nubere, &c. longè enim praestat haec facere quàm illa. Oportebat quippa solicitè curare quae Dei sunt, fidem (que) seruare: quoniā verò illa non fiunt, melius est ista fieri quàm illa. Ne (que) enim Deus irritatur, ne (que) mala ista discuntur: quippe vid [...]itas illa nihil parit boni; ex nuptijs vero plurima bona prodeunt & illud ante omnia, quòd negligentiae illarū & animo resupino consulitur, dum viris se subditas norunt. I will therefore; because they are willing, I also will that the younger widowes marry; for it is much better that they do so, then that they do those other things (namely to waxe wanton against Christ, to go idle from house to house, being pratlers and busibodies &c.) They should indeede carefully looke to those things that belong to God, and keepe their faith or promise, but because they do not so, it is better they do thus (to marrie) then to do those other things. For by this meanes God is not prouoked, neither are those euils learned. For that widowhood bringeth forth no good, but of mariage many good things proceede, and this specially for that thereby a remedy is prouided against their negligence and carelesse minde, because they know themselues to be subiect to their husbands. Thus doth Theophylact expound the words;Theophyl. in 1. Tim. cap. 5. Maluissem equidem inquit viduas hasce à pactionibus cum Christo initis minime desciuisle; sed cùm nuptias malint et ipse assentio, &c. Est enim satius matresfamilias fieri, &c. quàm per alienas domos circū vagari, & ad nugas cōuerti et otium. I had rather indeede that these widowes had not fallen away from the promise or couenant made with Christ, but seeing they had rather marry, I also assent vnto them; for it is better that they become huswifes, then that they wander vp and downe to other folkes houses, and turne to trifles and idlenesse. Thus Ambrose also saith;Ambros. in 1. Tim. cap. 5. Quoniam quae supra dixit de huiusmodi (viduis) contraria & illicita perducent eas ad mortem, idcirco consilium dat & praecipit ea fieri quae licita sunt, Melius est enim domus suae curam gerere, quàm in aliena domo adulari. Et mulium expedit nubere, quàm sub bona & p [...]ae professione notabiliter ìncedere. Because those contrary and vnlawfull things which he hath spoken of such widowes, shall bring them to death, therefore he giueth counsell, and chargeth that those things be done which are lawfull. For it is better that they take charge of their owne house, then to vse flatterie in the houses of others. More expedient is it to marrie, then vnder a good and godly profession to walke so, as to be subiect to publike note. Now then if M. Bishop will not beleeue vs, yet he will not gainesay the assertion of these auncient fathers, that the Apostle here for auoiding those mischiefes and inconueniences that he speaketh of, giueth liberty of mariage to them who notwithstanding had bene receiued into the number of Church widowes, with profession and promise not to marry any more. Yea, and that it may yet further appeare, how farre the auncient Church was from the beastly and lewd conceipt of Romish hypocrites before expressed, Cyprian speaking of virgins which had vowed virginitie, saith thus:Cyprian lib. 1. epist. 11. Sise ex fide Christo dicauerunt, pudicè & castè sine vlla fabula perseuerent; ita fortes & stabiles praemium virginitatis expectent. Si autem perseuerare nolunt vel non possunt, melius est vt nubant quàm vt mignem suis delicijs cadant. If by their faith they haue dedicated themselues [Page 1028] to Christ, let them continue purely and chastly without any euill report; so let them firmely and stedfastly looke for the reward of virginitie. But if they will not or cannot perseuere, it is better that they marrie, then that by their wantonnesse they fall into the fire. M. Bishops maister Bellarmine, being pitifully distressed with this testimonie, that he might finde a way and meanes to answer it, treacherously suppresseth the first part of the sentence, & faith that Cyprian spake not of those Bellarm. iudic. de lib. concord. Luther. art. 16. Cyprianum non de ijs loqui quae cōtinentiam vouerunt; sed de ijs quae adhuc deliberant quid sint factura. which had vowed continencie, but of them who were yet in deliberation what to do, whereas the very words of Cyprian, as we see, do mention them who by their faith haue dedicated themselues to Christ. Of virgins already vowed, S. Austin also saith:Aug. de sanct. virginit. cap. 34. Hae quae nubere volunt et ideò nō nuhunt quia impunè nō possunt, meliùs nuberent quā vrerētur, id est quàm occulta concupiscentiae flamma in ipsa concupiscentia vastarentur. They which would marrie, and therefore do not marrie, because they cannot freely do it, were better to marrie then to be burned, that is, then by the secret flame of concupiscence to be consumed in lust. S. Hierome in like sort complaining of some by whom Hieron. epist. ad Demetriadem. Sanctum virginum propositum quarundam non benè se agentium nomen infamat: quibus apertè dicendum est vt aut nubant si continere non possunt aut contineant si nalunt nubere. the holy profession of virgins was disgraced, whilest they miscaried themselues, addeth; who are openly to be warned either to marrie if they cannot containe, or else to containe if they will not marrie. To conclude, Epiphanius saith, thatEpiphan haer. 61. Apostolic. Melius est lapsū à cursu palàm sibi vxorē sumere secundum legem & à virginitate multo tē pore paenitentiam agere & sic rursus ad ecclesiam induci, &c. et non quotidiè occultis iaculis sauciari, ab improbitate quae ipsi à diabolo infertur. Sic nouit ecclesia praedicare; haec sunt sanationis medicamenta. better it is for a man that is fallen from his course (of virginitie and single life) openly to take a wife according to the law, and long to be penitent for his fall from virginitie, and so to be brought into the Church againe, and not daily to be wounded with the wickednesse which by the diuell is brought vpon him. Thus, saith he, the Church was learned to teach; these are her medicines wherewith to heale. This was the conceipt of the auncient Church, though too much addicted to that vowing of virginity, yet in the defect therof giuing place to mariage, rather then to vncleane and filthy life. But the Church of Rome now is become a desperate Surgeon; a Surgeon did I say? nay a cruell butcher, and a slaughterer of the consciences of men, not healing wounds, but poisoning them, and forsalues and medicines giuing them cords and halters to hang themselues. Albeit their singular hypocrisie and impudencie in this behalfe notably appeareth, when telling vs that the Apostle denounceth damnation to them that marrie after a vow of single life, they notwithstanding giue to the Pope a power to dispence where he list for the breaking of this [Page 1029] vow, and to giue liberty of mariage. Thus Mathew of Paris mentioneth that he dispenced withMath. Paris [...]n He [...]r. 3. anno. 1237. Elnor the daughter of King Iohn, and sister to King Henry the third, that hauing solemnly vowed widowhood, yet shee might marrie to Simon Mounfort Earle of Leicester. So doth Platina record, thatPlat. de vit. Pontif. in Coel [...] stin. 3. Celestinus the third did by voluntarie dispensation giue Constantia the daughter of Roger King of Sicilia, being professed a virgin to the Emperour Henry the sixt, vpon a condition of a benefit to come to himselfe thereby. Many other examples are there of the like, by which they teach vs lightly to esteeme of that they say as touching this matter, being in their owne account, a thing wholy subiect to the Popes will. As for vs, we are perswaded that if the Pope herein can dispense, wee may much more securely presume of that dispensation which God by his word hath giuen, commaunding them to marrie that cannot containe. Maister Bishop then may see, that the text alledged was not a furlong from the marke, but hee himselfe was gone a furlong, or rather a mile from his owne wits, that would go about to perswade vs that it is better for votaries to burne, that is, to be defiled with incontinencie then to marrie, when the Apostle absolutely saith, It is better to marrie, then to burne, yea that they are all beasts and men of seared consciences, who by a vow intend to tye men more strongly from mariage, then from beastly and filthy lust.
8 W. BISHOP.
The second is much like: 1. Tim. 4. It is a doctrine of diuels, to forbid to marrie: truth, if one should hold mariage in it selfe to be wicked, and therefore condemne it in all sorts of persons, as Montanus, and the Manichees did. But we haue a more reuerend opinion of mariage, than the Protestants themselues. For we with the Apostle Ephes. 3. hold it to be a great Sacrament: they that it is a morall contract only. Notwithstanding, we maintaine, that such persons, who being of ripe yeeres haue aduisedly vowed chastity, may not marrie; not because mariage is not honourable, but for that they haue solemnly promised to God the contrary: which we also hold to be better, than if he had maried. And so to vse S. Austines words, He forbiddeth to marrie, who saith it to be euill, but not he [Page 1030] who before this good thing, preferreth a better. And a little after, you see (saith he) that there is great difference betweene perswasion to virginity, by preferring the greater good before the lesser, & forbidding to marrie, by accusing lying together for issue. The first is, the doctrine of the Apostles, which we teach, the latter only of deuils. Lib. 3. cont. Faust. Manich. cap. 6.
R. ABBOT.
Because the second is like the first, we presume it to carie sufficient waight and strength of argument against M. Bishops answer. The Apostle reckoneth it for one of1. Tim. 4.1.3. the doctrines of diuels to forbid to marrie. M. Bishop answereth, Truth if one should hold mariage in it selfe to be wicked, and therefore condemne it in all sorts of persons as Montanus and the Manichees did. But if he had vnderstood what he had said, he would not here haue named Montanus; for Montanus in this point was outright a Papist, and condemned the Marcionites and Manichees for that opinion, with which M. Bishop here chargeth him. Tertullian being become by his fall the champion of Montanus, and being vrged by the catholike Church with the words of the Apostle, in the place here cited againstIbid. commanding to abstaine from meates, answereth the place cōcerning meates, as Maister Bishop here doth concerning mariage, that the holy Ghost in those wordsTertull. de Ieian. Praedamnant iā haereticos perpetuam abstinentiam praecepturos ad destruenda et despiciēda opera creatoris, quales inueniam apud Marcionē, apud Tatiantum, &c. non apud paraecletum. condemneth heretikes that should commaund perpetuall abstinence, to destroy and disgrace the workes of the Creator, Such, saith he, as we finde with Marcion and Tatian (with whom the Manichees therein consented) not with (Montanus his) paracletus. As therefore in meates, so in mariage Montanus condemned them who dishonoured the worke of Gods creation, and tooke it to be a thing in it selfe vncleane, and wholy to be condemned. Therefore Tertullian writing againe in behalfe of Montanus concerning mariage, setting the Church on the one side vnder the name of Naturalists or Carnalists, and heretikes on the other side saith,Tertull. de Monogam. Haeretici nuptias auferūt, Psychici ingerunttilli nec semel isti nō semel nubūt, &c. Ne (que) continentia eiusmodi laudanda est quia haeretica est, ne (que) licentia defendenda quia Psychica est: illa blasphemat, ista luxuriat: illa destruit nuptiarum Deum, ista confiuidit. Heretikes take away mariage, Carnalists vrge it; they marry not so much as once; these marry more then once; their continency is not to be commended, because it is hereticall, nor the licence of the other to be defended, because it is carnall: the one blasphemeth, the other exceedeth; [Page 1031] the one destroieth God from being the author of mariage; the other shameth him. Anone after he saith, thatJbid. Christum Paracletus contestabitur qualē credimus cū toto ordine creatoris. their Paracletus did testifie Christ according to the faith, with the whole order or ordinance of the Creator. In the same place he alledgeth their soundnesse in the rule of faith, namely that which summarily we professe in the articles of our Creede, as an argument that those things which they taught were not of the euill spirit,Ibid. Aduersarius spiritus ex diuersitate praedicationis apparet primò regulā adulterans fidei; & ita ordinem adulterans disciplinae, &c. Fidem dicit pro eis integritas praedicationis, &c. Ante quis de Deo haereticus sit necesse est, tunc de instituto, &c. Paracletus nouae disciplinae institutor, &c. who would first haue corrupted them in faith, and then haue peruerted them in order of conuersation, whereas now their integrity in preaching (the faith) did giue assurance or warrant for them. A man, saith he, must first be an heretike concerning God, and then as touching institution of behauiour, but Montanus their Paracletus was, as he saith, an instructour or teacher (not of any new faith but) of new order and conuersation, to which purpose he saith in another place, hauing set downe a briefe of the articles of our beliefe,Tertull. de veland. virgin. Hac lege fidei manēte caetera iam disciplinae & conuersationis admittūt nouitatem correctionis, &c. Propterea Paracletū misit vt ad perfectū perduceretur disciplina. This law (or rule) of faith abiding, other matters of discipline and conuersation do admit newnesse of correction, and maketh the end of the sending of their Paracletus to be this, that discipline or conuersation might be brought to perfection. Montanus then denied not mariage according to the rule of faith, to be Gods institution, but professeth of their continencie that it Idem de Monog. Continentia religiosa legem nuptiarum honorat. honoured the law of mariage, and therefore M. Bishop did him great wrong to couple him in that sort with the Manichees, who wholy blasphemed mariage as vncleane, and hauing originall from the diuell and power of darknesse. But yet he will say that Montanus taught somewhat against mariage, and we acknowledge the same, yet not as to condemne mariage, butJbid. Saluo inquis iure nubēdi. Planè saluo, &c. nihilominus tamen ex ea parte destructo qua continentiam praefert. &c. Praelatione continentiae imposita. to preferre continency, as Tertullian saith. It is true that albeit he acknowledged mariage to be Gods institution, yet he held the liberty thereof to be permitted but onely once, and that once to be yeelded onely to the infirmity of the flesh, euen as M. Bishop said before, that to common Christians the Apostle said, If they cannot abstaine let them marry, but it is plaine by Tertullian, that all this was but to commend a state of greater perfection,De veland. virgin. Quae Paracleti administratio nisi haec, &c. quòd ad meliora proficitur. the ministerie of their Paracletus being that men should profit to better things, andDe Monog. Secundum sanctitatem caruis admonuit incedere. should walke according to the holinesse of the flesh, which they deemed one speciall way to consist either in not marying at all or marying but once; in opinion whereof, and some other points of conuersation, [Page 1032] accounting them of the ChurchIbid. Nos quos spirituales meritò dici faciunt spiritualia charismata. naturall and carnall men, as before was said, they called themselues spirituall, and in that respect are brought in by Origen as saying:Origen apud Pamphil. in Apolog. Cataphryges dicentes, Nō accedas ad me quoniam mundus sumi non enim occipio vxorem, nec est sepulchrum pateus guttur meū sed sum Nazareus Dei, non bibens vinum sicut & illi. Come not to me, for I am pure or holy; for I take no wife, neither is my throate an open sepulcher, (as it were to feed and eate freely as those men do) but I am a Nazarite of God, forbearing to drinke wine as the Nazarites did. Thus then howsoeuer they held God to be the author of mariage, and the liberty thereof to haue bene formerly permitted once and more then once, yet now they taught, that they were called to a greater exquisitnesse and perfection of conuersation, and therefore were either partly or wholy to forbeare. Hereby then it appeareth, that the Montanists and the Manichees are to be seuered one frō another, and if the Apostles words do condemne them both, then M. Bishops answer is vnsufficient, because they were not both guiltie of that which he saith the Apostle there intended. Let him tell vs; doth the Apostle by those words condemne them both or not? If he say, yea, as he must, then we inferre, that the Apostle then did not speak onely of them who held mariage to be a thing wicked in it selfe, because the Montanists did not thinke so. M. Bishops answer therfore must haue a supply, & that supply must bring both the Montanists and the Papists within the compasse of the Apostles words. The Apostle himselfe giueth vs that supply when he saith, that those spirits of error of which he speaketh, shall speake lies in hypocrisie. They then of whom the Apostle speaketh, shall in hypocrisie forbid to marie. And what is it to say in hypocrisie? Surely, to forbid mariage in hypocrisie, is to forbid it vnder colour of puritie and holinesse, and more then ordinary perfection. The Manichees did forbid mariage, but they forbad it not in hypocrisie, but by open and professed blasphemy: neither did they so much forbid it, as blaspheme and condemne it. A man may forbid that which notwithstanding in it selfe he thinketh lawfull enough, but they wholy condemned mariage, as of it selfe wicked and damnable, and without any forbidding to be absolutely detested. The Apostles caueat was not so greatly needfull against them or such other as they were, because their abhominable blasphemie did apparently bewray it selfe, and was easily to be discerned: but the greater danger was to come by them who in hypocrisie should teach these doctrines of diuels, that is, with faire shewes and goodly pretences, and insinuations which [Page 1033] might blind the eyes of them that were not iealous and suspitious thereof, and therefore of these specially he giueth admonition to the Church. Thus did the Montanists disallow of mariage, not as of euill institution, but onely as a more prophane and carnall state, fitting for vulgar and cōmon Christians, but not so well sorting, specially second mariage, with that eminency of purity and perfection whereto their Paracletus did instruct them. Now in the same sort as the Montanists did, so do the Papists forbid mariage only in hypocrisie, only as accounting it a more secular and vulgar kind of life, then is fitting to their spirituall and perfect states. M. Bishop telleth vs, that they hold it to be a great sacrament, and some of them absurdly and ridiculously make the carnall coniunction of maried persons the consummation of that sacrament, whē notwithstanding in that sacrament and consummation of the sacrament they affirme that impurity and pollution as cannot stand with their sacrament of orders. Mariage (saith Bellarmine)Bellar. de Clerie. cap. 19. Matrimonium impedit munus sacrificandi quia summa quaedam puritas & sanctitas in eo requiritur: mactis verò coniugij negari nō potest, quin admixtae sit imputitas quaedam & pollutio. hindreth the office of sacrificing, because therein is required an eminent puritie and holinesse, whereas in the act of mariage there is mingled an impuritie & pollution. Thus Costerus saith,Coster. Enchir. cap. 15. Si in veteri lege carnis immunditia pollutis non licebat vel edere panes propositionis vel manibus contrectare res sacras vel templam ipsum intrare: multò manùs his conuenit sacrorum nostrorum administratio, qui vxoribus suis liberis (que) procreandis vacant, &c. & post. Non tantus splender animi, morum (que) grauitas elucet in homine qui mulierculae semper assideat, eidem (que) vacet, quia libido omnis mores compositos dissoluit, minus (que) admirabilem hominem reddit: sacerdotum porrò est sancta castitate grauem quandam praese ferre maiestatem, qua venerationi sint, & admirationi caeteris. If in the old law it were not lawfull for them that were polluted with the vncleannesse of the flesh, either to eate the shew bread, or to handle holy things, or to enter into the temple, much lesse doth the administring of our sacraments belong to them, who giue themselues to wiues and to getting of children. There appeareth not (saith he) so great glorie of mind, and grauity of manners in the man, who is still sitting by a woman, and attending to her, because all lust weakeneth stayed maners, and maketh a man lesse admirable: whereas it is fit for Priests to carry a graue kind of maiesty by holy chastitie, that they may be reuerenced and admired of others. Thus these beastly Friars measure the ordinance of God, by the filth and corruption of their owne wicked hearts, and in hypocrisie depraue that state of life as voide of grauitie, and modestie, and maiestie, and as if there were nothing therein but lust and sitting by a woman, and attending to her, wherein nowithstanding the holy Fathers, the Patriarchs, the Prophets, Priests, Nazarites, and Apostles serued God: yea and when thēselues for the most part [Page 1034] are like the Manichees, detesting mariage, and yetAug. de morib. Mani [...]h cap 19. Vidimus post transeuntes nescre quas faeminac tā petulā [...]i gestu a [...]hinnientes vt omnium triuia lium impudicitiā impudentiam (que) superarent. neighing like fed horses at euery woman that passeth by, with such immodest and wanton behauiour, as passeth the vnchastity and impudencie of base and common rascals; some prety tokens whereof the Reader may find in the storie of Weston and his fellowes, casting out the diuell from Sara Williams and her sister. They vow against mariage as to prophane and vnholy a state, but they vow not against adultery, fornication, incest, Sodomy, against the horrible vncleannesse of vicious burning lust; they vow not against gluttony, drunkennesse, Simony, periurie, robbery; these things being of the diuell hinder not, but that they may sacrifice, because theirTriderit. Concil. sess. 6 cap. 1. Oblatio munda; quae nulla indignitate aut malitia offerentium inquinari potest. sacrifice is so cleane, as that it cannot be defiled with any indignity or euill of them that offer it; only in mariage being the institutiō of God, there is that impurity & pollution as by no means may stād with the grauity & maiesty of their Priestly function. But to them belongeth that of Ignatius: Ignat epist. ad Philadelp. S. quis vnum dicit Deū, & confitetur Iesum Christū, corruptionem & coinquinationem v [...]ca [...] legitimam cōmixtionem & f [...]orum procreationē, huiusmodi habet inhabitaterem draconem apostatam. If any man professe one God, and confesse Iesus Christ, and do call the lawfull coniunction of man and woman, and the procreation of children a corruption or defilement, the same hath the apostaticall dragon dwelling in him. Now then of such spirits the Apostle speaketh, as wherewith the Romish doctrine is now inspired, not directly condemning the institution of mariage, but by obliquity of words impeaching & disgracing it as too base & vnfitting for the eminent purity and holinesse of some sorts of men. And against such spirits was that Canon made, that goeth with other vnder the name of the Apostles;Canon. Apost. cap. 6. Episcopus aut presbyter propriā vxorem nequaquam subobtētu religionis abijciat. Si verò retecerit, excommunicetur; si perseuerauerit, deijciatur. Let not a Bishop or a Priest put away his wife vnder pretence of religion: if he so do, let him be excommunicated; and if he preseuer, let him be deposed. So did the councel of Gangra decree:Concil. Gangrens. ca. 4 Siquis discernit presbyterum cō [...]ugatū tanquam occasione nuptiarum quòd offerre non debeat, & ab eius oblatione ideò se abstinet, anathema sit. If any man make difference of a maried Priest, as if by reason of his mariage he shold not minister, & doth therfore withhold himselfe from his ministration, accursed be he. This did Pope Hildebrand, that firebrand of hell, whoMath. Parisan Williel. Conq. Presbyteros vx [...]ratos à diuino remouit officio & laicis Missas eorum audire inter dixit, nou [...] exemplo, &c. put away maried Priests from doing diuine seruice, and forbad to be present at their seruice, & in those steps the Church of Rome still walketh, & hath the same curse still lying vpō her till this day. By this it appeareth how farre it is from truth, which M. Bishop saith, that they haue a reuerend opinion of mariage, when in effect they iudge no otherwise thereof thē the Montanists did, nor any otherwise at all, but onely that they appropriate their opinion to some sorts of men, whereas the Montanists [Page 1035] deemed alike concerning all. As for that which he saith, that the Protestants hold mariage to be a moral contract only, he speaketh it but according to the skil that he hath in the Protestāts doctrine, which is very little or none at all, but what his maisters haue reported of them. The Protestants teach as God himselfe hath taught, that mariage isProu. 2.17. the couenant of God, and that they who are ioyned in lawful mariage,Mat. 19.6. are ioyned by God, and therefore that it is more then a morall, that is, a ciuil and humane contract. He goeth on, and telleth vs what the cause is why their votaries may not marry, not because mariage is not honorable, saith he, but because they haue solemnly promised to God the contrary. But therein he lieth vnto God, and talketh dissemblingly, because albeit they are content to say indefinitely that mariage is honorable, yet denie it to be honorable in some states of men, and do therefore bind them from it by vow, because they hold it dishonorable for them. It is not as he fraudulently saith, that therefore they may not marry because they haue vowed the contrary, but therefore they make them vow, because they hold that in that state of life they may not marry, yea do hold it for a pollution and vncleannesse in them. Whereas he saith, that in vowing against mariage a man doth better then if he had maried; how true it is, appeareth commonly by the effects. To vow against the ordinance of God which he hath appointed for an infirmitie which cannot be auoided, what is it but to bid battell to God, and madly to fight against him. God hath said, If they cannot abstaine, let them marry: to vow against that that God hath said, that though he cannot containe, yet he will not marry, is to sinne desperately against God. As for that which he alledgeth for his purpose out of Austin, it belongeth not thereto. Austine speaketh nothing there of vowing, neither doth he so fully and perfectly there tell vs the meaning of the Apostles words, because he examineth not the circumstances of them. He accounteth virginitie and continencie of single life, a superiour good to mariage, and we denie it not, as hath beneAnswer to the Epistle. sect. 8. before said as touching preferment and priority of gift; but excellency of gifts is a matter of externall preheminence and preferment with men, not of internall righteousnesse towards God, neither is a man the better for the hauing, but only for the well vsing of them. Saint Austin neuer thought that either virginitie or the vow of virginity was acceptable to God for it selfe, and howsoeuer we accord not [Page 1036] with him as touching the vowing thereof, yet vnderstanding virginitie and single life with that implication as he doth, as hauing more commodiousnesse and oportunitie to serue God, and being vsed accordingly, there shal be small difference betwixt him and vs, and this will be nothing for M. Bishops turne, because this preferment is onely accidentall by consequence and vse, not essentially belonging to virginitie for it selfe.
9. W. BISHOP.
M. Perkins his third and last text is, Heb. 13.4. Mariage is honorable among all, and the bed vndefiled. The strength of this place lieth in a double corruption of the text: for this verbe (is) is not in the text, nor cannot be the course of the Apostles speech, requiring a verbe of the Imperatiue Mood, as both the sentences before and after do conuince.
Againe, if you will haue the Apostle say, that mariage is honorable among all men, we must also needs take him to say, that the bed is also vndefiled among all, which was not true. Also that their conuersation was without couetousnesse, &c. For there is no reason why this word (is) should be ioyned with the one more then with the other. And nothing but passion doth cause them to make the middle sentence an affirmatiue, when they turne both the other into exhortations.
[...]. The second corruption is in these words (among all) when they should translate (in all,) and the Adiectiue being put without a Substantiue must in true construction haue this word (things) ioyned with it, and not (men:) wherefore the text being sincerely put into English, it would carry no colour of their error. For the Apostles saying is, Let mariage be honorable in all things, and the bed vndefiled. Here is no willing of any man to marry, but onely a commaundement to them that be married to liue honestly in marriage, to keepe (as elsewhere he saith) their vessels in sanctification, and not in dishonor, and then shall their mariage be honorable in all things, that is, in all points appertaining to matrimonie: so that now you see that M. Perkins is not able to bring any one place out of Scripture to disproue the vow of chastitie.
R. ABBOT.
A double corruption, saith M. Bishop, and yet there is neither of [Page 1037] them to be seene, and vnlesse we wil take his simple word, he is able to proue none. First he blameth vs for saying, Mariage is honorable, telling vs that we should rather say, Let mariage be honorable, and seeth not in the meane time that our translation is implied in his owne: for why should the Apostle say, Let mariage be honorable, but because it is so; as if he should say, let it be so reckoned of as it is, a thing honorable amongst all. But without any implicatiō, the latter part of the sentence being affirmatiue, sheweth that the Apostle meant to speake affirmatiuely in the former also. In this sort S. Austine conceiued the Apostles meaning, who mentioning the good things that are in mariage, due order of generation, fidelity of chastity, and the sacred bond of mariage it selfe, addeth,August. cont. Pelag. & Celest. lib. 2. cap. 34. Propter haec omnia honorabiles nuptiae in omnibus & thorus immaculatus. In all these respects mariage is honorable in all, and the bed is vndefiled. So also Chrysostom vnderstandeth it as we translate it, that the ApostleChrysostom. ad Heb. hom. 33. Cùm posuisset honorabile coniugium & thorū immaculatum, ostendat quod meritò inferat quae sequuntur. setteth downe that mariage is honorable in all. So likewise Theophylact rendereth the words affirmatiuely,Theoph. in Heb. 13. Connubium honorabile est, honore dignum est. Mariage is honorable, mariage is worthy of honor: and in the very same sortSocrat. hist. lib. 1. cap. 8. Paphnutius in the Councel of Nice, and theSext. Synod. can. 13. Fathers and Bishops of the sixt Synod in Trullo cite it as an affirmatiue speech, Mariage is honorable in all, and therfore we reiect M. Bishops assertion as childish and vaine, that this cannot be the course of the Apostles speech. The sentences before and after, are vttered according as the matter requireth, but it more fitteth here for the inferring of the latter part of the verse that the Apostle say affirmatiuely, Mariage is honorable, then Let it so be, that fornicators and adulterers may vnderstand themselues to be without excuse, in that mariage is appointed as an honorable state, and remedy for the auoiding of such sinne. And thus doth Chrysostome tie the two parts of the verse together:Chrys. vt supra. Si enim connubium concessum est, iustè scortator supplicijs afficitur. For if mariage be granted, then the fornicator is iustly punished. So Oecumenius: Oecumen. in Heb. cap. 13. Nā si coniugium permissum est & sine peccato licet ad explendae concupiscentiam, quis erit excusationis praetextus scortatoribus & adulteris? For if mariage be permitted, and be lawfull without sin to satisfie concupiscence, what pretence of excuse shall there be for fornicators and adulterers? The former part of the sentence then is an assertiō that mariage is permitted, & is lawful without sin. Yea but then saith M. Bishop, we must take him to say that the bed also is vndefiled amongst all, which (saith he) is not true. But he should haue told vs why it is not true; where if he had answered, that the bed of mariage is not vndefiled amōgst all, because some pollute it by adultery and whoredom, it would haue appeared that his vnderstanding was very short, that could not conceiue that the Apostle telleth vs [Page 1038] what the mariage bed is of it selfe, not what it becometh by the vsage of it. He saith elsewhere,1. Cor. 3 17. The temple of God is holy which ye are: and yet withall he saith, If any man destroy the temple of God, him will God destroy, as giuing to vnderstand, that the vncleannesse of men may defile that which God hath made holy. So is it in this case, the bed of mariage is holy and vndefiled, God reputeth no vncleannes or pollution to it, It is lawfull without sinne, as Oecumenius hath before expounded it:Primaes. in Heb. 13. Immaculatus lectustimmaculati & illi inde surgentes, hoc est, maculam peccati i [...]de non trahentes. They that rise from it are vndefiled, saith Primasius, not drawing from thence any spot of sinne, but the vncleannesse is when the bed of mariage is made the bed of adultery, and mans filthinesse polluteth that which God hath sanctified. In a word, that which the Apostle saith of all the creatures of God, is to be applied to the mariage bed, it isTit. 1.15. cleane to them that are cleane, that is, to them who by chast conuersation preserue in it that holinesse and honour that God hath attributed vnto it. Now by that that hath bene said, appeareth the vanitie of his second cauill, where he saith, that in steed of in all things, we say amongst all or amongst al men. The greek words are [...], that is, in all, and the sentence being so read, Mariage is honorable in all, what else doth it sound but mariage is honorable in all men? And this is indeed the true and proper translating of the words; for we in reading amongst all, do disaduantage our selues by not expressing literally the words of the Apostle. For we know that that may be honorable amongst all, which yet all are not capable of. The calling of the minister and of the magistrate is honorable amongst all, but yet all cannot be ministers and magistrates. But the Apostle saith that mariage is honorable in all, to signifie that it is a state of life which God hath instituted to be free for al men. And that this is the true meaning of the Apostle, appeareth by that that hath bin before said. For if these words do serue to bereaue fornicators and adulterers of all pretence of excuse, then they must be so taken as that fornicators and adulterers must vnderstand that they appertaine to them. And how shall they vnderstand that the words do appertain to them, vnles we take them in this sort, that mariage is honorable in all men? for otherwise they may haply say, Mariage indeed is honorable, but it did not belong to vs. For suppose that Popes and Popish Priests be fornicators, as their Canon law telleth vs, thatDist. 81. Maximianes in glos Cōmuniter dicum quòd Clericus pro simplici fornicatione deponi non debet, quia pauci sine illo vitio inueniuntur. few of them are found without that fault, [Page 1039] how shall they be depriued here of the excuse of their filthinesse, if they may say, We held marriage to be honorable, but it was not lawful for vs to marry? But the words do serue to take away from all adulterers and fornicators all excuse of such vncleannes. They must therefore be taken to affirme indeed that which they seeme to do, that mariage is honorable in all men. And so doth Theophylact apparently expound it,Theoph. in Heb. 13. Non quia nuptiae aetate prouectioribus minùs conueniant, adolescentulos ver [...] admocū deccant sed cunctis art honori sunt. He saith not that mariage is vnfitting for the elder, and fit onely for yong men, but honorable for all, though withall he expound those words in all, as importingVel in omnibus hoc est, quibusuit modis, & quouis tempore. euery way and at all times. But M. Bishop bringeth vs to the Grammar, and telleth vs, that the adiectiue being put without a substantiue, must in true construction haue this word (things) ioyned with it. Full wisely, I warrant you, and with great skill; as though where the Apostle saith,1. Cor. 8.7. [...], we are not to translate, there is not knowledge in all men, or all men haue not knowledge, but rather there is not knowledge in all things, because the adiectiue is there put without a substantiue: and where the Apostle saith,2. Thess. 3.2. [...], we should not say all men, but all things haue not saith; and where he saith,1. Tim. 2.9. [...], we should not translate who gaue himselfe a redemption for all men, but for all things, because in these places the adiectiue is put without the substantiue, as in infinite other places it is, where notwithstanding it must necessarily be vnderstood not of all things but of all men. It is not passion then, as he obiecteth to vs, but plaine frenzie, as it seemeth, that maketh him to vse these blind and ignorant cauillations, and the places of Scripture which M. Perkins hath alledged against their vow of continencie, stand still firme and sure for ought that he hath bene able to say against them.
10. W. BISHOP.
The Scripture being so barren for him, he shall belike recompence it with the abundant testimonie of antiquitie in fauour of his cause: but oh vnhappie chance, he hath cleane forgotten in this question the record of the auncient Church: what, was there not one Father, who with some one broken fragment of a sentence or other, would releeue you in this your combat against the Vow of Chastitie? I will helpe you to one, but I feare me, you will scarce thanke me for my paines: it is such a one, as is [Page 1040] neither holy nor father, but the auncient Christian Epicure Iouinian, who, as S. Augustine hath recorded Haeres. 82. ad Qued vult. and S. Ierome,Lib. 1. contra Iouin., did hold that virginitie of professed persons, men and women, was no better then the continencie of the married. So that many professed virgins beleeuing him did marry, yet himselfe did not marry, as Frier Luther did; not because he thought chastitie should be rewarded in the life to come, with a greater crowne of glory; but because it was fit for the present necessitie, to auoyd the troubles of marriage: see iust the very opinion of M. Perkins and our Protestants. But this heresy, saith S. Augustin in the same place, was quickly suppressed and extinguished, it was not able to deceiue any one of the Priests. And in another place thus Lib. 2. re [...]rec. 22 he speaketh of Iouinian, Holy Church most faithfully and valiantly resisted this monster. So that no maruell if that M. Perkins could find small releefe in antiquitie for this his assertion, which the best of them esteemed no better then a monstrous sacrilegious heresie.
R. ABBOT.
How simply M. Bishop hath dealt in the answering of the Scriptures alledged against him, we haue very well seene already, and it hath bene made appeare to him that we want not testimony of antiquitie for the applying thereof in such sort as we do. Albeit we freely say to him, that our faith resteth entirely vpon the word of God; and where God hath spoken plainly to vs, we wil not suspend our assent vpon question, whether men thinke the same that God hath told vs. If men haue giuen testimony thereof, we take their witnesse and vse it; if not, we say as in another case Cyprian doth:Cypr. lib. 2. ep. 5. Non sunt expectāda testi [...]onia humana, cùm praecedunt diuina suffragia. We are not to looke for the testimonies of men, where we haue warrant already from God himselfe, and with the Apostle Saint Paul, Rom. 3.4. Let God be true, and euery man a liar. In the meane time we do but suffer M. Bishop here toProu. 7.22. go like a foole to the stockes for correction, not imagining whither he goeth, and like the poore fish to dally & play with the baite wherein he receiueth his owne bane. He sporteth himselfe with Iouinian, and in the cause of Iouinian we bring not a broken fragment of a sentence of some father, but in a manner a whole Church, and no meane Church, but euen the Church of Rome, defending and maintaining that virginitie, of professed persons is no better (with God) then the continencie of the married. The old Church of [Page 1041] Rome condemned the doctrine of Montanus, which was the same in effect as before I haue said, that the Church of Rome now maintaineth. The old Church of Rome vpheld the doctrine of Iouinian, which was the same that we now defend against the Church of Rome. This matter (gentle Reader) hath bene declared before at largeSect 8. in the answer to M. Bishops Epistle, and thither I refer thee for the full vnderstanding of it. Here I will onely briefly remember thee, that the doctrine of Hierome against Iouinian found generall opposition in the Romane Church, and how scandalously and offensiuely it was taken, his owne words may giue vs to vnderstand, when in his apologie he saith,Hieron. apolog. pro lib. aduer. Iouin. Grande piaculū, euersae sum ecclesiae, orbis audire non potest, si virginitatem diximus esse mū diorem quàm nuptias. A great offence, the Churches are ouerthrowne, the world cannot abide to heare it that I haue said, that virginitie is more pure (or holy) then marriage. It was no small matter that made him thus to speake: to hold that virginitie is more holy then marriage, was then taken to be a doctrine pernicious to the Church, and the world could not brook the hearing of it. Some priuate persons were intangled with the conceit of it, but it was most hainously taken when it came publikly to be defended. And albeit Siricius then Bishop of Rome, a superstitious & vnlearned man, the first for ought appeareth that sought to giue way in the Church of Rome to the dregs and filth of Montanus, which that Church had before condemned, albeit I say this Siricius with some few of his owne packe had giuen sentence against Iouinian, yet so little did his sentence auaile with the rest of the Cleargie, as that Hierome found himselfe much aggrieued at their taking part against him. His words are plaine,Ibid. sub initio. Si seculi homines indignantur in minori gradu se esse quàm virgines, miror clericos & monachos & continentesid nō laudare quod faciunt. Castrant se ab v [...]ribus suis vt imitentia virginum castitatem, et idipsum volunt esse maritatas quod virgines? Though secular men thinke much that they are put in lower place then virgins, yet I maruell that Priests and Monkes and continent persons do not commend that which they do. They containe themselues frō their wiues that they may imitate the chastitie of virgins, and wil they haue it that married women are the same that virgins are? Hereby it plainly appeareth, that howsoeuer in practise they had yeelded to the decree of Stricius, and to those fancies which then were somewhat growne as touching single life, yet they retained still the same iudgement and opinion of doctrine, that virginitie and mariage for themselues made no difference at all with God, howsoeuer the one be more conueniēt then the other for auoiding the distractions and troubles of our present life. For the rest look to the place before mentioned, which I hope wil giue thee satisfactiō [Page 1042] as touching this whole matter. As for Luthers mariage, he had grounds sufficient whereupon to satisfie himselfe in that behalf, and better were it for a great number of M. Bishops copesmates to do as Luther did, then to practise that filthinesse which vnder colour of continencie they now do.
11. W. BISHOP.
But M. Perkins hath an argument that shall neuerthelesse demonstrate the vow of perpetuall chastitie to be intollerable. For (saith he) this vow is not in the power of him that voweth: for continencie is the gift of God, who giueth it not vnto all, but vnto whom he will, when he will, and as long as he will. And if we obiect, that by prayer and fasting the gift of continencie may be obtained of God: he answereth, that it cannot, because it is not necessary to saluation. We reply, that it is necessarie for all them that haue vowed chastitie. And be it so, that God giueth it not vnto all, yet doth he certainly giue it to some, for otherwise they cannot keepe their vowes, but to the dishonor of God, and to their owne damnation should breake them.
And we onely teach, that some such who haue vowed chastitie, could keepe it: so that the argument is very childish, and too too weake to leade any wise man away from the holy and auncient doctrine of the Church.
R. ABBOT.
A very simple remonstrance doth M. Bishop here giue vs to M. Perkins his demonstration. The ground of the argument is this, that to make a vow of that which by ordinary prouidence of God is not in our power, and wherein we haue no assurance of the extraordinary gift of God, is an intollerable presumption, a wilful tempting of God, and a seeking to bind his gifts to the headlong rashnes of our fancies. What is he but a mad man that wil make a vow to go vpon his head, or to flie in the aire, orIosu. 10.12. to stay the Sun as Iosuah did, orExod. 14.21. to deuide the sea as did Moses, or1. King. 17.1. to stay the raine as Elias did, or2. King. 6.6. to make iron swim as Elizeus did? Now of continencie we are taught that it is a speciall gift of God. Our Sauiour Christ expresly telleth vs,Mat. 19.11. All men cannot receiue this thing, but they to whom it is giuē. ThereforeAugust. de lib. arb. ca. 4. Quibus non est datum, aut nolunt, aut non implent quod volunt. they to whom it is not giuen, either haue no wil to it, or fulfill [Page 1043] not that which they are willing to. Saint Paul saith,1. Cor. 7.7. Euery man hath his proper gift of God, one thus, and another thus: and shal he that hath receiued his gift one way, vow the performance of that which belongeth to another gift which he hath not receiued? But say they, the gift is to be obtained by fasting & praier. Yea but seeing praier also is the gift of God, how can he presume that God wil giue him grace to pray for the obtaining of that other gift who hath wilfullyvowed without God, and hauing receiued no gift wherupō to vow? Surely they to whom it is not giuen, sometimes haue no will to it, as we see before in S. Austins words, and how can they faithfully pray for that whereto they haue no will? But it is true here which Solomon saith,Prou. 20.25. It is a snare for a man after the vowes to make inquirie; first to vow, and then to be to seeke and to learne for the keeping of it. And what? doth fasting and prayer obtaine of God whatsoeuer we list to aske? Shall we vow to do as Moses, and Iosuah, and Elias did, as I said before, and then think by fasting and prayer to obtaine it? Saint Austin rightly saith,Augus. de verb. Dom ser. 53. Aliquando Deus propitius negat quod petis. God in mercy somtimes denieth that which we ask, because he thinketh it not conuenient for vs, or he hath determined otherwise.Idem epist. 34. Bonus Dominus qui non tribuit saepè quod volumus, vtquod malimus attribuat. God is gracious (saith he) who oftentimes giueth not what we desire, that he may giue vs that which we will like better when he hath giuen it. Thus Saint Paul, though2. Cor. 12.8. he besought to be eased of that sting of the flesh, the messenger of Satan which buffetted him, yet obtained not what he desired. Therefore M. Perkins very wel obserueth that there are two sorts of the gifts of God, some common to all, and therefore necessary because he hath determined not to bring vs to saluation without them, as are repentance, faith, forgiuenesse of sins, sanctification of the spirit, which as God first giueth, so to our faithfull prayers he yeeldeth the increase thereof. Other gifts there are which God hath intended to be proper and peculiar to some, and whereof he maketh not others partakers, because the want therof is no hinderance to their saluation, as are the gifts of toongs, of healing, of knowledge, of wisedome, of vtterance, and such like. Of this sort is the gift of continencie, which because it is not necessary for saluation, we can no more presume to obtaine by fasting and prayer, then we can any of those other, or health, wealth, preferment, or any such outward and temporall benefite. We may assay and vse the means to see what God wil do, but we haue no promise whereupon we may certainly resolue our selues for successe therein. [Page 1044] As therefore to vow the vse of those other gifts when a man hath them not, onely vpon presumption by prayer and fasting to obtain them, is the part of a brainsicke and distempered man, euen so is it for a man to vow continencie, not hauing receiued but presuming afterwards by fasting and prayer to obtaine the gift whereby he should containe. But where M. Perkins answereth that the gift of continencie cannot be presumed of by prayer and fasting because it is not necessary to saluation, M. Bishop replieth, that it is necessary for all them that haue vowed chastitie. And why so? For otherwise they can not keepe their vowes, but to the dishonour of God and their owne damnation should breake them. Where we see that M. Perkins vnderstandeth necessary in one respect, and M. Bishop in another. Master Perkins intendeth, that prayer and fasting do not certainly obtaine any thing, but what in it selfe and simply is necessary to saluation. M. Bishop will haue vs thinke that it obtaineth certainly whatsoeuer is necessary in respect of a vow for the performance thereof. But because that which M. Perkins saith is true, therefore that which M. Bishop saith is false, neither may we imagine by prayer & fasting to subiect the gifts of God to the madnesse of our vowes. What? because a man voweth to be a prophet or to speake strange toongs, shall it therefore be necessary for his saluation, that God bestow vpon him the gift of prophecy or the gift of toongs, because otherwise he shall breake his vow? If we will thinke this absurd, we must say in the vow of continencie as we wil in this, that the gift of continencie is not necessary to saluation, but it is necessary for a man to repent him of his rash and headlong vow, to aske God mercie for abusing his sacred name in so vnlawfull sort, and to vse the meanes ordained by God for auoiding the mischieues of that vow wherein he findeth not himself seconded and confirmed by the gift of God. Because I say the gift of continencie is not in it selfe necessary to saluation, therfore God doth not alwayes yeeld it to the prayers of men, howsoeuer they haue vowed it, but leaueth them to the repentance of their errour, and to the remedy which he hath appointed for them; and they who hauing vowed against mariage, and not hauing the gift of continency do perseuere therin, they do no other but rebell against God, and not further their saluation by keeping their vow as they call it, but increase their owne damnation by the pollution and vncleannesse of filthy lust. Whereas he faith, that they [Page 1045] only teach that such as haue vowed chastitie can keepe it: I answer him as Austin did to Iulian the Pelagian, that where August. cont. Julian. lib. 5. ca. 10. Non omnes capiunt, &c. cū posses dicere, Nō omnes capiunt verbum hoc, sed qui voluerit si verū esset quod dicitu vos. Christ saith, All receiue not this saying, but they to whom it is giuen: he might haue said, All receiue not this saying, but they that will, if it be true which they say. For if they that haue vowed chastity can consequently keep it, then whosoeuer wil vow it, is presently thereby put in state for the keeping of it, and that is whosoeuer will, because whosoeuer will, may vow. Which because it is apparently absurd, therefore our argument is strong enough to satisfie a wise man against so vaine and childish answers.
12. W. BISHOP.
But to the further confirmation of this point, let vs heare what the holy Fathers teach touching the possibilitie of this vow.
Tertullian neare the end expounding these words, Lib. de monog. He that can take, let him take.Mat. 19. Chuse (saith he) that which is good, if thou say thou canst not, it is because thou wilt not, for that thou mightest if thou wouldest, hee doth declare who hath left both to thy choise.
Origen vpon the same place, Mat. 19. He that will take this word that is set downe of chastitie, let him pray for it, beleeuing him that sayd, Aske and it shall be giuen you, and he shall receiue it: which doth plainly confute M. Perkins, who saith, that although we aske neuer so much, we cannot obtaine this gift. With Origen agreeth Saint Ierome vpon the same place, who saith, It is giuen vnto them who haue requested it, who haue desired it, and trauelled that they might receiue it.
The same song chaunteth Gregory Nazianzene, which is of three kinds of Eunuchs Orat. 31..
Saint Chrysostome saith, It is possible to all them who make choise of it: and further addeth, that our Sauiour Christ himselfe doth proue it there after this sort: Thinke with thy selfe if thou hadst bene by nature an Eunuch, or by the malice of men made one, what wouldest thou then haue done, when thou shouldest both haue bene depriued of that pleasure, and yet not haue had any recompence for thy paine. Therefore thanke God, because thou shalt haue a great reward, and a glittering crowne, if thou liue so as they must [Page 1046] do without any reward: yet (saith he) thou mayst do it more easily, safely and pleasantly, both because thou art fortified with hope of recompence, and also comforted with a vertuous conscience.
We will wrap vp this point with Saint Augustine, who directly confuteth Master Perkins by many reasons and examples: Lib. 2. De adulterinis coning. cap. 12. Et de bono viduit. cap. 20. And vpon the Psalme, an hundreth thirtie seuen, hee yeeldeth another reason, why God will more really assist them, saying, He that exhorteth thee to vow, will helpe thee to fulfill it. All which heauenly doctrine, because it is spiritually iudged (as the Apostle speaketh) the carnall man cannot vnderstand: and therefore Master Perkins being perswaded that few can liue chastly except they marrie, auoucheth that this Ʋow doth bring forth innumerable abhominations in the world; not the hundreth part so many as the fleshly heretickes imagine, and out of flying and lying tales report and bruite abroade. Nay I dare affirme, that let the authenticall Records of our Realme be well perused, and you shall find more lewd filthie lecherie to haue bene practised by Ministers and their wiues this last age, then was in a thousand yeares before by all the Catholike Priests and religious persons of the Land.
This may serue for a reproofe of all that M. Perkins obiecteth against the Ʋow of chastitie: afterward the man would somewhat reason the matter by shewing how he condemneth not chastitie, yet saith, that marriage is better then it, in two respects. If Iouinian was reputed by the learnedst and holiest fathers, a Christian Epicure and a monster, because he durst make marriage equall with virginitie: what shal this man be, who sayth it is better? His reasons are so childish, that by the like you may proue durt to be better then gold: wherefore I will not stand vpon them.
He neuerthelesse afterward concludeth, that one may purpose constantly with himselfe to leade a single life, but so, as he may change vpon occasion, and this to be a counsell of expedience, but not of perfection.
Lastly, that if any hauing the gift of continencie do vow, and afterward marrie (the gift remaining) they haue sinned; which is flat against his owne second rule, which prohibites vs to leese our libertie, and to make any thing vnlawfull in conscience, which Christian religion leaueth at libertie.
R. ABBOT.
Holy fathers, saith M. Bishop, and beginneth first of all with an hereticke, citing Tertullians booke de Monogamia, which as Hierom testifieth, wasHieron in Catalog. Tertul. Specialiter aduersus Ecclesiam texuit volumina de pudicitia, de persecutione, de ieiunijs, de Monogamia, &c. written purposely against the Church. He manifestly abuseth the words of Christ; and whereas Christ saith,Mat. 19.12. He that can receiue this, let him receiue it, to note that euery one cānot receiue it, as before he hath said,Ver. 11. All men receiue not this saying, but they to whō it is giuen: he forceth him euen against the haire to say that euery man can receiue it if he will. Saint Hierome saith well concerning those words,Hieron aduer. Iouin. lib. 1. Si [...] omnes virgines esse possent, nunquam Dominus diceret, Qui potest capere, capiat. If all could be virgins, our Lord Christ would neuer haue said, He that can receiue it, let him receiue it. Now the truth is, that the heresie of Montanus was so plausible, as that it did wonderfully insinuate it self into the minds of men, and the Fathers and Bishops of the Church grew afterwards somtimes to speake in the same sort as Tertullian in behalf thereof had spoken against the Church. The Church then pleaded a necessitie of mariage and second mariage,Tertul. de Monog. Quousque infirmitas ista impudentissima perseuerabit? &c: Rideo cùm infirmitas carnis opponitur, &c. because of the infirmity of the flesh. This Tertullian exagitateth in the place cited by M. Bishop, and derideth the allegation of it. For answer hereto he said thatIbid. Jā nemini competit portare nō posse quia per quem datur portare per se non deest. Quàmdiu causabimur carnem. quia dixit Dominus, Caro infirma? Sed praemisit, Et spiritus promptus, vt vin cat spiritus carnē vt cedat quod infirmum est fortiori. it was not now for any man to say he could not beare it, because he by whom it is giuen to beare, will not be wanting for his part. How long (saith he) shall we pretend the flesh, for that Christ saith, The flesh is weake? But he set before it, The spirit is ready, that the spirit may ouercome the flesh, and that which is weake may yeeld to the stronger. This presumption he builded vpon, that God would not be wanting to them to giue ablenesse to containe who did endeuor themselues for the obtaining of it. Which being then presumed & disputed against the Church, may giue vs light what to iudge of such speeches afterwards vsed in the doctrine of the Church. For this conceit much preuailed, that albeit Christ had said, All receiue not this saying, but they to whom it is giuen, yet the receiuing thereof is giuen to them who by prayer aske and seeke it at Gods hands. And thus Origen for answer to some that said, that they were willing to containe, but could not, saith as M. Bishop alledgeth,Origen. in Mat. trac. 7. Qui vult capax esse verbi quod de castitate positū est, petat, &c. nō dubitans de illo quod dictū est, Omnis quipetit, accipit. He that will receiue this word that is set downe of chastity, let him aske not doubting of that which is said, Euery one that asketh, receiueth. But Origen well knew, if he had remembred it, that though euery one that asketh [Page 1048] receiueth, yet euery one receiueth not the thing which he asketh, because weRom. 8.16. not knowing what to pray as we ought, do sometimes ask those things which are either vnprofitable or vnnecessary for vs. It is true that the prayer of the faithfull neuer returneth emptie; but yet therefore are we taught in our prayers to submit our selues to the will of God, and to say with our Sauiour,Mat. 26.39. Neuerthelesse not as I will, but as thou wilt be done, because God, thoughAugust. Exaudit D [...]us etsi non semper ad voluntatem, semper tamen ad vtilitatem. he heare vs alwayes for our good, yet doth not heare vs alwayes according to our will. Because therfore the gift of continencie is a specall gift which God hath not left indifferent to euery man, we may not vpon our praiers resolue to receiue in particular that gift, because we haue no warrāt in particular for the obtaining of it. And this could Origen himselfe vpon occasion well discerne, when hee sayth that our SauiourOrigen in Mat. tract 24. Reprehendit hu [...]usmodi praeceptores qui crudelitèr et sine misericordia non secundum existimationem vtriū vniuscuiusque cudientis, sed maiora virtute ipsorū iniungunt, vtputa qui prohibent nubere, & ab eo quod expedit ad immoderatam munditiam compellunt: qui etiam docent abstinere à cibis, & alia huiusmodi ad quae non omninò oportet cogere, fideles alligant per verbū expositionis suae onera grauia citra voluntatē Christi dicentis, Iugum meum suaue est, et onus meum leue est, & imponunt ea quātum ad verbum suum super humeros homi [...]um curuantes eos & cadere facientes sub pondere grauiū mandatorum eos qui [...]tulare ea non sufferunt. reproueth such masters as cruelly and vnmercifully, without weighing the strength of their hearers, do enioyne them things beyond their power, as they (saith he) who forbid to marry, and from that which is expedient do force men to a puritie or cleannesse more then needeth, who also teach them to abstaine from meates, and by the word of their exposition do bind other such burdens to which they should not at all compel faithfull men, being beside the will of Christ, saying, My yoke is sweet and my burden light; and do lay them by their word and doctrine vpon mens shoulders, bowing them downe, and causing them that are not able to beare them, to fall vnder the waight of their heauy cōmandements. Thus spake Origen against them, who notwithstanding alledged for themselues, as we haue seen, the same that he saith in the other place, that God for his part will not be wanting, and they that aske shall receiue of him. And if it be true which he saith in those former words, then there was no cause for him here to blame those teachers for laying too heauie burdens vpon men, because they might iustly answer as he doth, that the burdens were not to be accounted too heauie, for that euery one that asketh may receiue strength for the bearing of them. But because he iustly reprooueth those teachers, therefore he giueth to vnderstand that M. Perkins iustly sayth, that though it cannot be doubted, that some by prayer obtaine the gift of continencie, yet it is not yeelded to the prayers of euery man, and many though they pray neuer so much, yet receiue it not. As for Hieromes words, they shew which is the way to obtaine it, but do not say that that way will bring euery man vnto it. [Page 1049] Hieron. in Math. 19. His datum est qui petierunt, qui voluerunt, qui vt acciperent laborauerunt. It is giuen to them that haue asked it, that haue desired it, that haue laboured to receiue it, but it followeth not that it is giuen to all that do so. He expresly directeth his speech against them who thought that eitherIbid. Nem [...] putet sub hoc verbo fatum vel fertunant introduci by fatall destinie or by fortune and chance men receiued this gift, and sheweth, that not so, but by prayer and labor they that haue it do attaine it. But if all might so obtaine it, there were no reason of that aduertisement which he giueth presently after,Jbid. Infert. Qui potest capere capiat vt vnusquisque consideret vires suas vtrum possit virginalia & pudicitiae implere praecepta. Per se erim castitas blanda est, & quemlibet ad se alliciens, sed considerandae sunt vires vt qui potest capere, capiat. Christ saith, He that can receiue it, let him receiue it, that euery man may consider his owne strength whether he be able to fulfil the precepts of virginitie and continencie: for continencie is of it selfe a flattring thing, and allureth euery one to it; but men are to consider their strength, that he may receiue it who is able to receiue it. What needeth this consideration of our strength, and the doubt of our being able, if we may resolue that euery one that asketh and seeketh, receiueth strength to be able. Yea and that the obtaining of this ablenesse requireth greater labour then euery mans strength can beare, appeareth by Hierome himselfe, who of himselfe confesseth, howHieron. Vix eremi duritia refroenaui. hardly by the hardnesse of the wildernesse he attained to the bridling of incontinent desire. Ad Rust. de viuendi forma. Incentiua vttiorum ardorem (que) naturae ferre non poteram, quē cum crebris ieiunijs frangerent mens tamen cogitationibus aestuabat. I was not able (saith he) to beare the prouocations of vicious desires and heate of nature, which when I repressed by often fasting, yet my mind was stil raging with thoughts. Ad Eustoch. de custod. virginit. Jn eremo constitutus, &c. Putabam me Romanis interesse delicijs, &c. Horrebant sacco membra deformia, & squalula cutis sitū Aethiopicae carms obduxerat. Quotidiè lachrymae, quotidiè gemitus, & siquando repugnantem somnus imminens oppressisset, nuda humo ossa vix haerentia collidebam. De cibis & potu taceo cùm etiam languentes monachi aqua frigida vtantur & coctum aliquid accepisse luxuria sit. Jlle igitur ego, &c. scorpionum tantùm socius & ferarum saepè choris intereram puellarum. Pallebant orae ieiunijs & mens desiderijs aest nabat in frigide corpore, & an [...]e hominē suū tam carne praemoriua sola libidinū incendia bulliebant. I thought my selfe to be amidst the pleasures of Rome. My body was rough with sackcloth, and my skin and flesh was become black; stil I was weeping and mourning; I slept not but as sleepe oppressed me, and then I laid my bones scarcely hanging together vpon the bare ground. My drinke was cold water, and it was too daintie for me to haue any thing boiled. Yet I who was thus the companion of Scorpions and wild beasts, yet (in my mind) was many times present among the companies of maidens. My face was pale with fasting, and my mind was still raging with desires in my cold body, and my flesh being now dead before my selfe, onely the fires and heates of lusts were still boiling within me. This he acknowledgeth as touching himselfe, and if he in that inuincible obstinacie against himselfe, yea in the wildernesse, where his companie was but Scorpions & wild beasts, yet found so great difficultie to attaine to that that he sought for: what shall we expect of them who are tied to liue there [Page 1050] where there is still casting of oile into the fire, and occasions mightily to prouoke that desire which so mightily prouoketh it selfe where there is no occasion. Yea wheresoeuer men liue, there is not one of a thousand that can yeeld himselfe to the doing or suffering of that which Hierome describeth in himselfe, and therefore the vowing of continencie is no other but euen as the casting of a mans self into the sea, where though somtimes men find meanes to scape, yet there is certaine and apparent danger and likelihood of being drowned. Now the words of Hierom seeme to be but the imitation of Gregory Nazianzene, who as he chanteth the same song, to vse M. Bishops phrase, so is to haue the same answer. Hauing reiected those fancies of destiny and fortune, as also the opinions of mens free wil for making themselues chast, he saith it is giuen. Gre. Naz. orat. 36. Cū audieris, Quibus datū est, adde, Volentibus datum est & ijs qui animi melinatione ita feruntur. But adde, saith he, it is giuen to them that are willing to it, and by inclination of mind are thereto caried. He saith that there must be in a man a will and inclination for the obtaining of it, but doth not say that euery man that hath a will to it, doth obtaine it, which is the matter here in questiō. Yea he maketh thatIbid. Propositū quoque ipsū at (que) electio diuinum quoddā beneficiū est, &c. Ipsum quoque velle à Deo est, &c. will whereby it is obtained a speciall gift of God, and wholly his gift, so that they who haue not this speciall wil inspired of God, though they haue vowed a thousand times, yet can neuer pray or labour effectually for the obtaining of that which they haue vowed. Chrysostomes exposition we reiect, being very manifestly contrary to the drift of our Sauiour in that place. He maketh this gift commonChrys. in Mat. hom. 63 Hisdatū est qui sponte id eligunt. Ostendit superiore auxilio nobu opus esse quod quidem omnibus paratū est si volumus in hac lactatione superiores euadere. to all that will, whereas by Hierome before we learne that Christ therefore said, He that can receiue it, let him receiue it, because all cannot so do. As for S. Austin in the first place he saith somewhat again M. Bishop, but for him nothing at all.August. de adulier. coning. lib. 2. cap. 12. Nunc rectissimè dicitur, Qui potest capere, capiat; qui autem se non continet, nubat. It is now rightly said, He that can receiue it, let him receiue it, but he that containeth not, let him marry: thereby plainly signifying that the words of Christ do import that euery one is not capable of that precept of containing, and therefore that those expositions are not true which M. Bishop hath brought to proue that they are so. The second testimonie is taken out of a booke which isErasm. censur. in lib. de bono vtduit. Mira dictionisfacili as & cander cla [...] tat non esse Augustini. none of Austins, and the reason which he vseth of husbands long absence from their wiues by trauelling or like occasions, that if in such cases they can containe, then they may also for keeping their vow, is vnsufficient. For we haue promise of Gods helpe in the necessities and temptations which his wisedome & prouidence imposeth vpon vs, [Page 1051] but we haue no promise of his helpe in those temptations which we procure vnto our selues, and wherein we tempt him by presuming vpon his helpe, to go one way when he hath directed vs to go another. The last words which he citeth, are spoken in general of vowing, and we doubt not but that in those things which we vow lawfully according to the will and word of God, the help of God who hath giuen vs a heart to promise our seruice to him, will mercifully assist vs accordingly, as we call vpon him for the performance therof, but so to secure euery man who wilfully voweth that which God requireth not of him, is a spice and tast of those dregs wherewith Montanius as I said before corrupted the doctrine of the Church. He that exhorteth thee to vow, will helpe thee to fulfill it, but he exhorteth none in this case, but them that are able; He that is able, let him receiue it, and let him receiue it, saith he, but saith not, let him vow it, and what is that to moue thee to vow, and to presume that afterwards he will make thee able? Yea, and what we are to conceiue in this case, we are somewhat to esteeme by Austine himselfe, who in his confessions to God acknowledgeth thoseAug. Confess. li. 10 cap 30. Vt anima mea nō sit rebellis sibi at (que) vt in somnis etiā non solum non perpretret istas corruptelarum turpitudines per imagines animales vs (que) ad carnis fluxū sed ne consentiat quidem, &c. Quid adhuc (in hac aetate) si [...] in hoc genere mali mei dixi Domino bono meo. &c. night illusions and pollutions of the flesh, which in defect of mariage, carnall concupiscence is wont to cause, which are so vnnaturall and lothsome, as that no man should doubt but that chast mariage is a thousand times rather to be chosen, then to endure the custome thereof. And if Austine at those yeares as he speaketh of, & in so great deuotion, could not be free from such pollution, what shall we thinke of so many who in strength of body and heate of bloud, with ease and full diet do vndertake that Popish vow of single life, but that euen in them it is true which S. Bernard saith,Bern. in Cant: ser. 66. T [...]lle ex ecclesia honorabile connubiū & thorum immaculatū, nōnè reple [...] eā concubinarijs, incestuosis, seminifluu, mollibus, masculorum concubitoribus, & omni deni (que) genere immundorum. Take from the Church honourable mariage and the vndefiled bed, and thou fillest all with keepers of concubines incestuous persons, seed-loosers, wantons, Sodomites, and all manner of vncleane persons. And this to haue bene the fruit and effect of that vow of virginity and single life, all ages by experience haue found. It hath bene alwaies the trap wherein Satan hath taken men & women to hold them bond and captiues to filthinesse & vncleannesse. When they had vowed they might not marry, & yet not being able to containe, they haue fallen to whoredome; whence they grew to damnable practises, asTertull. de veland. virginib. Scit Deus quot tam infantes & perfici et perduci ad partum integros duxerit, debellatos aliquandiu à matribus, &c. Haec admittit slagitia coacta & inuita virginitas. Tertullian in part sheweth, either to hinder conception, or to marre that which they had conceiued, or if they could not preuent the birth, yet thē to strangle & murther the child that was borne. Of the last whereof a notable example was seene in [Page 1052] the time of Gregory Bishop of Rome the first, asP [...]r [...]l tō a [...]d [...] V [...]g [...] [...]ū qu [...]a [...]ie in [...]is triū suum propter pisces [...]sset et allata [...]de plus [...]uā six [...]ll 1 infanium capita videret, [...]ut [...]m 1 mox ductas paenne [...]tia [...]genitur, & factū [...] se de abstinentia de re [...]m tat [...] cedis causa confesses co [...]g [...]o illūd paenitentiae fructu purgauit. Hulderichus the Bishop of Augusta mentioneth, when out of a poole which the said Gregory caused to be drawne, there were taken aboue sixe thousand infants skuls or heads, to his great griefe at the sight therof, & great repentance of the decree that he had made against mariage. So Cyprian maketh mention of a notable abuse of such as professing to be virgins, yetCypt. lib. 1. ep. 11. Detectae sunt in eodem lecto pariter mansisse cum masculis. would lye in bed and sleepe with men, stil taking vpon thē, that they were not defiled by thē, yea he hath writtenJdē de singular. cler. Eunuchi nostri dubitant sine faeminae sodalitate dormire. a treatise of purpose against thē, who hauing vowed single life, yet would not be without the company and conuersation of women, euen in their beds, and were not ashamed by abusing examples of Scripture, to colour their lewd course. He alledgethQuāti & quales episiopi et clerici noscuntur naufragasse cū volunt in naui fragile nauigare. Bishops and Priests, many, and men of great worth, falling in that sort and by that occasion. Chrysostome also hath written a Sermon of purpose, complainingChrysost. ser. Quòd regulares faeminae viris cohabitēt. Deridēt & sales in nos iactant, &c. vt posthac me [...]us sit ne virgi [...]es quidem esse quae sit praeuar [...]ari attentent. that women professing rule of continencie, had men dwelling with them, and affirmeth, that the behauiour of virgins did cause such iests and scornes amongst the Pagans, as that it were better there should be no virgins any more to attempt to sinne in the like sort. How often do wee reade Hierome taxing the exceeding lightnesse & licentiousnesse of the Monkes and professed virgins of Rome, noting and reprouing Monkes for being in such sort with women, as thatHiero [...]. a [...] Rust [...] videas [...]onnullos à mulieribus non posse disce l [...]re, &c. et praeter vocabulū nupti trū omnia effe matrimonij. saue onely the name of mariage all things were like as if they were maried; reprouing virgins for becommingIdē ad Eustoch. vnde sinc nuptijs aliudnocten vxe [...]ū? Vnde no [...]ū concubinarū genus? Vnde meretrices vniuirae? Eidē domo, vno cubiculo, saepe vno tenentur & sectulo & suspiciosos nos vocant si aliquid existimamus. wiues in name without any wedding, yea terming them plainly concubines and harlots. They will be (with men) saith he, in the same house, in the same chamber, yea oftentimes in the same bed, and they say we are too suspicious if we thinke any thing therof. So doth Bernard report amongst the Clergie of his time,Bern. de conuer. ad Cler cap. 29. Post fornicationes, post adulteria, post incestus nec ipsae quidem apud aliquos ignomin [...] passiones desint. fornications, adulteries, incests, yea and the passions of reproch, as he calleth their acts of Sodomiticall filthinesse. Of the persons guilty he saith,J [...]d Nec latere queunt prae mulitu [...]ine nec prae impudencia quaerunt. They cannot be hid they are so many, nor care to be hid they are so impudent. Yea, the glosse of their Canon law before hath told vs, that few of them were found free from fornication. Such were euen of old the fruits of the vnmaried Clergie, as that some Bishops, as Hierome reporteth, though after his manner he speaketh of thē with reproch, wouldHieron. aduer vigil. Non [...] dia [...]onos nisi prius vxores duxerint. admit none into holy orders, vnlesse they were first maried. By the fruits therefore it appeareth, that the vow of single life is no heauenly doctrine, as M. Bishop calleth it, but that it came first frō hell, & tendeth wholy thither, and that the defenders therof [Page 1053] after so great experience, are such as S. Paul speaketh of, who haue their consciences burned with a hot iron, & are thereby past feeling, and therfore far from spirituall discerning. As for that which he saith, that more filthy lechery would be found by authentical records in ministers & their wiues in this last age, then in their Priests in a thousand yeares before, we must take thē but as the words of an impudent & shameles harlot, who being notorious & infamous to the world for her abhominable filthines, yet doubteth not to vaunt her selfe to a chast and well reputed matrone to be honester then she. Now M. Bishop perswading himself that he hath said much, whē indeed to the purpose he hath said little, groweth angry here that M. Perkins should say, that in two respects mariage is better then virginity; yet only storming at it, he letteth it passe, because he hath nothing to say against it. But to anger him a little more, I wil say this to him, that simply & absolutely to speake of the things thēselues, mariage is better thē virginity. I proue it for that God in the state of mans innocency & perfection said,Gen. 2.18. It is not good that the man should be himselfe alone. That which in the state of righteousnes & innocēcy was good, is vndoubtedly better of it self, thē that that in that state was not good. Mariage was good in the state of innocency, single life was not good. Mariage therfore is better thē single life. That virginity is become better thē mariage, it is casual & accidental, by reason of those euils, & distractions, & troubles, which came into the world by sin, which should not haue bin if there had bin no sin. Let him take my words as they are, & not crosse me with speeches of the cōparison of mariage & single life in the now corrupted state of mā. As touching Iouinian enough hath bin said before. Those fathers who accounted Iouinian for an Epicure & a monster, as M. Bishop saith, for making mariage equall to virginity, whē he himselfe liued an vnmaried & a chast life, if they had seen the things that haue befallen since, would haue changed their mind, & haue learned by further experience to reforme their error, and to giue the name of Epicures & monsters to them whose doings by the witnesse of their owne stories haue shewed them so to be. Who vnder colour of taking part with those fathers in condemning Iouinian for an heretike, and carying some semblance of following them in that behalfe, haue from the highest of their votaries to the lowest, made the earth to stink euen as high as heauen, with the abhominable corruption & filthinesse of their vnmaried life. Whereas M. Perkins saith, that if any hauing [Page 1054] the gift of continencie do vow single life, & the same gift remaining doth marry, he therin sinneth, M. Bishop saith that this is flat contrary to his own second rule, which prohibites vs to leese our liberty, & to make that vnlawfull in conscience, which Christian religion leaueth at liberty. But the contrariety is not in M. Perkins words, but in M. Bishops vnderstanding. Christian liberty importeth not a being free from performing that which a man hath vowed in things indifferent, but only a freedome frō any holy opinion of the thing it selfe which he hath vowed. A man knoweth in this case that to marry or not to marry is all one to God, but yet he will not marry because he hath vowed, & God maketh him able to performe his vow. To be short, he might haue taken his answer frō M. Perkins own words, that a mā is to know, that if he marry, he sinneth not in marying, but in causles and vnnecessary breaking his vow, when he may keepe the same. Which if he would not haue taken frō M. Perkins, he might haue taken it frō S. Austin, whō M. Perkins citeth to that effect, or whosoeuer is the author of that book:Aug de hono viduita. cap. 9. Non ipsa vel talium nuptia dā nandae iudicātur sed dānatur fracta voti fides. The mariages of such are not to be iudged damnable, but the breaking of their vow. Their mariage therefore standeth good, as he there disputeth, though they remaine culpable for their former vow.
13. W. BISHOP.
Now to supply M. Perkins his default, who was accustomed to rehearse, although many times vntowardly, yet lightly alwaies some reasons for the Catholike party; which in this question he hath wholy omitted, I will briefely proue by an argument or two, that it is both lawfull and very commendable for men and women of ripe yeares and consideration, hauing well tried their owne aptnesse, to vow virginity, if by good inspirations they be therunto inwardly called. My first reason is this, that which is more pleasant and gratefull vnto God, may very well be vowed to him, but virginity is more acceptable to God than mariage. The first proposition is manifest, and hath no other exception against it, but that which before is confuted, to wit, if we be able to performe it. The second is denied by them, which we prooue in expresse termes out of Saint Paul,1. Cor. 7. He that ioyneth his virgin doth well, but he that ioyneth her not, doth better: and againe of widowes: They shall be more happy by Saint Pauls iudgement, if they remaine vnmarried: This may be confirmed out of Esay,Isa. 56. Where God promiseth the Eunuch that holdeth greatly of the thing that pleaseth him, that hee will giue him in his houshold and within his walles a better heritage and name, [Page 1055] then if they had bene called sons and daughters. I will (saith God) giue them an euerlasting name. And also out of the booke of Wisedom, Cap. 3. Blessed is the Eunuch which hath wrought no vnrighteousnesse, &c. for vnto him shall be giuen the speciall gift of faith, & the most acceptable portion in our Lords temple, for glorious is the fruite of God. Which is also plainely taught in the Reuelations, Reu. 14. where it is said, that no mā could sing that song but 144000. and the cause is set downe, These be they which haue not bene defiled with women, for they are Virgins. To these latter places, M. P. answereth, pag. 241. that to the Eunuch is promised a greater reward: but, not because of his chastitie, but because he keepeth the Lords Sabboth and couenant. But this is said vnaduisedly; for to all others that keepe Gods commandements, shall be giuen a heauenly reward: but why shall they haue a better heritage, and more acceptable portion then others, but because of their speciall prerogatiue of chastitie?
M. P. then answereth otherwise here: that the single life is better & more happie, because it is freer from common cares of this life, and yeeldeth vs more bodily ease and liberty to serue God. But 1200. yeares ago S. Augustine of set purpose confuted this error in sundry places of his learned Works, specially in his treatise, De Virginitate, in these Chapters 13. 23. 24. 25. where he accounteth him no Christian that doth cō tradict Christ promising the kingdome of heauen to Eunuchs. Mat. 19. And in the 25. Chapter more vehemently exclaiming: O impious blindnesse, why dost thou cauill and seeke shifts? why dost thou promise temporall commoditie only to the chast and continent: when God saith,Esa. 16. I will giue them an euerlasting name. And if thou wouldest perhaps take this euerlasting for a thing of long cōtinuance, I adde, inculcate, & often repeate, that it shal neuer haue end. What wouldest thou more? This eternall name, whatsoeuer it be, signifieth a certaine peculiar and excellent glorie, which shall not be common to many, albeit they be placed in the same kingdome, &c. Which in the 29. Chapter he confirmeth out of that place of the Apocalypse, cited aboue in these words: The rest of the faithfull shall see you, and not enuie your state, but ioy in it, & so be partaker of that in you, which they haue not in themselues: for the new song which is proper vnto you they cannot sing, but shall heare it, and be delighted with your so excellent a blessednesse: but you, because you shal both sing and heare it, shal more happily reioyce and raigne more pleasantly. [Page 1056] Which may be also confirmed out of the Apostle in the same place: where he assureth that the single life is better for the seruice of God, saying; that a woman vnmarried and a virgin, think of the things which belong vnto our Lord; how she may please God, and be holy both in body and spirit. And our blessed Sauiour teacheth, Math 19. That some become Eunuches for the kingdome of heauen: which, to be taken there properly for the reward in heauen. S. Augustine (with the rest of the Fathers) teacheth: De virginit. cap. 23. What could be spoken more truly or more perspicuously? Christ saith, The truth saith, the wisedome of God affirmeth them to geld thēselues for the kingdome of heauen, who do of a godly determination refraine from mariage: And contrarily, humane vanity doth contend by impious temerity, that they who do so, do it to auoid the necessary troubles of matrimony, and that in the kingdome of heauen they shall haue no more then other men.
R. ABBOT.
M. Bishop here taketh vpon him to proue the vow of virginity to be lawfull, but yet we see it is with certaine cautions & conditions to be therein obserued. First he wil haue them to be of ripe yeares & consideration, and well to try their owne aptnesse. Secondly, it is lawfull, if by good inspirations they be thereunto inwardly called. But put the case that these cautions be not obserued, that some vow rashly and vnaduisedly, without triall of their own aptnesse, & without any good inspirations calling them to it, or hauing vpon some triall iudged themselues apt, yet afterwards finde it otherwise, what shall they do, not being now able to keep that which they haue vowed? Marrie let them sinke or swim, let them burne till they be consumed, let them be brothels and harlots, and what they wil, they haue vowed, and they must stand to it, but marry they must not. As for that which he saith of good inspirations inwardly calling them, it is a meere begging of the question. We deny that there are any good inspirations inwardly calling to that which we are not outwardly taught by the inspired word of God. The spirit & word of God go iointly together, and where the word giueth vs not warrant and direction for that we do, they are illusions and not inspirations, by which we are led. Now of vowing virginity or single life, the word of God hath neither precept nor example. All exercises of true righteousnesse we find amongst the people of the Iewes; we find amongst them all the spirituall intendments & significations of their ceremoniall vowes; [Page 1057] but of this vow of single life & virginity we find nothing, saue only amongst their sectaries in the corruption of their state & religion, as namely the Pharisees, who for one of their exercises of great holinesse,Epiphan. haer. 16. Quidā eorū cùm se exercebant, praescribehant sibi decennium aut octennium aut quadriennium virginitatis & continentiae. vowed continencie and virginitie, sometimes for ten yeeres, sometimes for sixe or for foure yeeres, as Epiphanius reporteth of them. But yet M. Bishops argument will put the matter wholy out of doubt. That, saith he, which is more pleasant and gratefull to God may be vowed vnto God, but virginity is more acceptable to God then mariage; therefore it may be vowed. He nameth an exception to the first proposition, if we be able to performe it, and saith that it is before confuted, but his confutation commeth too short, and it still standeth good, that continency is a thing whereof we cannot promise the ability to our selues, and therfore cannot make any lawfull vow thereof. But letting that passe, let vs examine the proofes of his minor proposition, that virginity is more acceptable to God then mariage. He bringeth first the words of S. Paul, 1. Cor. 7.38. He that ioineth his virgin in mariage, doth well, but he that ioineth her not, doth better, and concerning the widow:Ver. 40. she shall be more blessed if she so abide in my iudgment. We heare the words, but yet we see not any proofe therein of that which M. Bishop would proue by them. We know that liberty is better and more blessed then bondage, and yet liberty is not more acceptable to God then bondage, or the free-man then the bondman.Act. 20.35. It is a more blessed thing, as our Sauiour saith, to giue then to receiue, and yet it followeth not, that he that giueth is more acceptable to God, or more blessed with God then he that receiueth. S. Paul himselfe giueth vs to vnderstand in what respects he meaneth better and more blessed. First when he saith,Ver. 26. It is good for the present necessity, that mariage be forborne by them that can forbeare.Hieron cont. Heluid. sub finē. Quae est ista necessitas? Vae praegnantibus & lactentibus in die illa. Jdeò sylua succressit vt postea recidatur. Ideò ager seritur vt metatur. Iam plenus est orbis, terra nos non capit. Quotidie bella nos secant, morbi subtrahunt, naufragia absorbent, &c. What is this necessitie, saith Hierome? Woe, saith he, to them that be with child, and to them that giue sucke in that day. Therfore the wood groweth that it may afterwards be cut downe. Therefore is the field sowed that it may afterwards be reaped. The world is full, the earth containeth vs not, warres are still hewing vs downe, diseases take vs away, shipwrackes swallow vs vp. He giueth hereby to vnderstand, that the Apostle meaneth this necessitie of the troubles that are incident to the faithfull, by persecutions & other temporal calamities, the bearing wherof is so much the more easie, by how much the lesse a man is distressed and distracted with care of wife & children, & hath therby no hinderance, but [Page 1058] that either by life or by death he may freely do that that shall be according to God. Againe, to signifie his meaning the Apostle further saith:Ver. 28. The maried shall haue tribulation in the flesh, but I spare you. Ver. 32. I would haue you to be without care. The vnmaried careth for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord: but the maried careth for the things of the world how he may please his wife. Ver. 35. I speake for your commoditie, that ye may cleaue to the Lord without separation. By all which words the Apostle importeth that there are many cares and distractions incident to mariage, whereby a man is holden to the respect of the things of this life and of the world, that he cannot so wholy addict himselfe to God. From these distractions single life, if a man will so vse it, is more free, and giueth a man full liberty of applying himselfe entirely to those things wherin consisteth the seeking of the kingdome of heauen. Thus therefore single life is better and more blessed, because there is in it greater oportunity of following those good things wherein consisteth the attainment of eternall blisse. Thus the father doth better, that continueth his daughter being so willing vnmarried, because he leaueth her at full liberty to bestow her self to the Lords vse. Thus the widow is more blessed if she so abide, because she is more free to serue the Lord. But M. Bishop telleth vs, that twelue hundred yeares ago, S. Austine of set purpose confuted this error, and specially in his Treatise de Ʋirginitate, whence he nameth sundry chapters 13. 23. 24 25. Where it appeareth that M. Bishop neither vnderstandeth what we say, nor what it is that S. Austin confuteth: S. Austines speech his against theAug. de sanct. Virgiuit. cap. 13. Qui putant continentiae bonum non esse necessarium propter regnum coelorū, sed propter praesens seculum, quod scilicet ceniugid terrenis curis pluribus at (que) arctioribus distenduntur, qua molestia virgines & continentes carent. who thinke that the benefite of continencie is not needfull for the kingdome of heauen, but onely for this present world, because mariage is distracted with many earthly and troublesome cares, the incumbrance whereof virgins and continent persons do auoide: in a word, as afterwards he expresseth it, thatIbid. cap. 24. Praesenti vitae v [...]le esse, non futurae. it is profitable for this life, not for the life to come. Now when we say that single life where the gift of continency is, is more helpfull and yeeldeth greater oportunity to the seruice of God, do we make it profitable for this life only, and not for the life to come? Hath the seruice of God a reference onely to this world, and do we follow Ch [...]ist onely for a benefit in this life? Indeed we should be far wide if we thought that the end to which the Apostle driueth, shold be an idie, & voluptuous life, but we determin that the preferment of continency & single life so cōcerneth [Page 1059] this present life, as that it specially respecteth eternal life. We recken not of the preferment thereof in respect of this life, but all the account that we make of it is in respect of the life to come, knowing that by how much the more industriously and incessantly we apply our selues to the worke of God, so much the greater reward of glorie we shall haue with him, not by reason of anie merite or desert, but by the heauenly disposition of that voluntarie grace and mercy which hath promised, that1. Cor. 15.58. our labour shall not be in vaine in the Lord, becauseCap. 3.8. euery man shall haue his wages according to his worke. S. Austin therefore in confuting them that say, that the benefite of continencie is onely for this life, saith nothing against vs. He accoū teth him no Christian, saith M. Bishop, that doth contradict Christ, promising the kingdom of heauen to Eunuches. Though those be no words of Austin, yet we will aske him, for what Christ doth promise them the kingdome of heauen? Doth he promise it to them for being Eunuches? Surely then many should come to the kingdome of heauen who neuer had anie beliefe thereof. It is not then their being Eunuches that Christ respecteth, but their more earnest seeking the kingdome of heauen. And thus the other sentences which he alledgeth out of Austin, in the maine drift of thē contrarie nothing that we say: onely in two respects we differ from him and he from vs. First, we hold the texts of Scripture which he bringeth to be verie vnsufficient for the proofe of that which he intēdeth. For the words of the Prophet Esay are not spoken of Eunuches, as for following some speciall kind of life in the Church, but for imbracing the common faith and religion of the Church, and are properly referred to them who properly & truly are called Eunuches. M. Bishop to make them serue his turne, falsifieth and corrupteth them, the text being in this sort,Esa. 56:3. Let not the sonne of the stranger which is ioyned to the Lord speake and say, The Lord hath surely separated me from his people, neither let the Eunuch say, Behold I am a drie tree: for thus saith the Lord vnto the Eunuches that keepe my Sabboths, and chuse the thing that pleaseth me, and take hold of my couenant, euen vnto them I will giue in mine house and within my wals, a place and a name better then of sonnes and daughters (or otherwise, better then to the sons and daughters:) I will giue them an euerlasting name that shall not be put out. Which words and the rest that follow, do manifestly tend to take away frō them of whom he speaketh, all opinion of separation [Page 1060] from the people of God, or of being excluded from hauing name and portion in his house. The Gentiles wereEph. 2.12. aliens and strangers from the commonwealth of Israel, and thereby strangers from the couenants of promise, but God giueth to vnderstand, that in Christ this difference shall be taken away, and whosoeuer of the Gentils shall cleaue to the Lord and embrace his couenant, their prayers shall be acceptable vnto him, and they shall haue like place in the house of God. Againe, God gaue it as one part of his blessing vnto Abraham, thatGen. 22.17. his seede should be multiplied, and as one branch of that blessing, he promised vnto the seed of Abraham, Deut. 7.12.14 If they should hearken vnto his lawes and obserue them, they should be blessed aboue all people, and there should be neither male nor female barren amongst thē. Wherefore to be barren and without children, was with them a matter of much sorow and shame, and as a token of not being beloued of God, butCyril. in Esa. lib. 5. com. 3. Gloria eorum in par [...]ubus & parturitionibus & conceptionibus. their glory, as Cyril citeth, was in birthes and bringing forth and conceiuing. Now vpon the Eunuch or gelded man the law of Moses had layd it as a matter of curse and reproach, thatDeut 23.1. he should not come into the congregation of the Lord, he should haue no place amongst them in their assemblies which were sacred and holy to the Lord. This therefore might seeme to stand still as a bar against such, frō being reckened amōngst the people of God; but God signifieth, that in Christ this barre also should be taken away. Cyril expoundeth the words thus,Cyril vt supra. Siquis sit Eu [...]uchus, id est, careus liberis & sobole, ne dicat apud seipsum, ego sum lignum aridum, id est, ne molestè ferat orbitatem. Apud Deū enim nihil est, nec eum veijciet. If any man be an Eunuch, that is, wanting children and issue, let him not say with himselfe, I am a drie tree, that is, let him not take grieuously his being depriued thereof. For with God this is nothing, neither will he for that cause reiect him. He saith indeed afterwards,Jbid. Nihil etiam nocet imò necesse esse dico, vt mentionem faciamus nunc eorum qui se propter regnum coel [...]rum Eunuchos reddiderun [...], quibus cratio ae Deo hoc loco habita non abire accōmodari potest. It is not hurtfull, yea it is necessarie, I say, that we here make mention of thē who haue made themselues Eunuches for the kingdome of heauen, to whom the speech here vsed by God may, not impertinently, be applied, but he plainely enough importeth, that the proper construction of the wordes is that that he hath before deliuered. God therefore willeth the Eunuch, not to account himselfe a drie tree, as notPsal. 91.12. to be planted in the house of God, and as being depriued of the blessing of the people of God, but to know, that howsoeuer there lay vpon him a note of exclusion by the Law, yet now if he would ioyne himselfe in faith & religion to the people of God, he shold be altogether as one of thē, and howsoeuer his name might seeme to die for want of sons & daughters, yet he should haue [Page 1061] a name better then the name of sons and daughters, euen an euerlasting name, which shal neuer be put out, but be glorious with God for euer. Men ioy much in the continuance of their name by their issue and posterity, by sonnes & daughters, but to be named amōgst the people of God and called one of his, is a farre greater name then the name of many sonnes and daughters. Otherwise if we reade it a better name then to the sonnes and daughter, it hath reference to the people of the Iewes, who for being of the seede of Abraham, were peculiarly reckoned for the children, for sonnes and daughters. Thus is it said of them by our Sauiour Christ:Mat. 8.12. The children of the kingdome shall be cast out: and againe:Cap. 15.26. It is not meete to take the childrens bread, and to cast it to dogs. Therfore he giueth to vnderstand, that the Eunuch by being the child of God, through the faith of Iesus Christ hath a more glorious name, then if he were named of Abrahams seede, in the title whereof the Iewes so proudly & vainely reioyced. In a word, the maine drift of the Prophets words generally of strangers, and particularly of Eunuchs, is to signifie in Christ the pulling downe of the wholeEph. 2.14. partition wall of all legall separations, that we should know there is an end of those differences and vncleannesses which the law imputed, and that nowGal. 3.28. there is neither Iew nor Greeke, bond nor free, male or female, (no difference of maimed or whole) but all are one in Christ Iesus, andAct. 10.35. in euery nation (and of euery sort of men) he that feareth God and worketh righteousnesse is accepted with him. This is the true and proper effect and meaning of that place, neither can it without wresting and violence be expounded of Eunuchs in that sence as S. Austin speaketh of thē. And wheras S. Austin so taketh the words, as that God should giue to these Eunuchs a better name then to sonnes and daughters, which to expresse M. Bishop translateth very falsly and corruptly a better name then if they had bene called sonnes or daughters, as making the name of sons and daughters an inferior name to that that should be giuen to Eunuchs, it is altogether improbable and vnlikely which he conceiueth. The name of sons and daughters is the cōmon name of all the faithfull, and not a name of meaner quality belonging onely to some inferiour sort. Thus saith God concerning all his people:2. Cor. 6.17. Come out from amongst them, and separate your selues, and touch no vncleane thing, saith the Lord, and I will receiue you, and I will be a father vnto you, and ye shall be my sonnes and daughters, [Page 1062] saith the Lord almightie. S. Austin then might not say, that the Eunuches should receiue a better name then the name of sonnes and daughters, because the highest honour that God giueth to thē who touch no vncleane thing, is to receiue them for sonnes and daughters. Therefore Clemens Alexandrinus not vnderstanding the words of any speciall place aboue the sonnes and daughters, but of a preheminence aboue them, who for not doing the things there specified, are reiected from being sonnes and daughters, saith;Clem. Alexan. Serom. lib. 3. Si verbo obedierit Eunuchus, et sab bata custodierit per abstinentiam à peccatis, & fecerit mandata, honorabilior erit ijs qui absquerecta vitae institutione solo verbo erudiuntur. If the Eunuch obey the word, and keepe the Sabboths by abstaining from sinne, and fulfill the commandements, he shall be more honorable then they who without ordering their life and conuersation aright, are onely taught and instructed by the word. Another place S. Austine alledgeth to his purpose out of the Reuelation of S. Iohn, where he setteth downe his vision ofReuel. 14.1. a Lambe standing vpon mount Sion, and with him an hundred fortie and foure thousand, hauing his Fathers name written in their foreheads. Of them it is said anone after,Vers. 4. These are they which are not defiled with women, for they are virgins: these follow the Lambe whither so euer he goeth; these are bought from men, being the first fruites vnto God and to the Lambe. In the applying of which place to virgins according to the flesh, we cannot but find a great want of that circumspection and iudgement which S. Austin is wont to vse, and take him to haue bene much blinded & caried away with preiudicate and partiall affection, that could not discerne his owne error therein. Surely it is no light token of vnheedinesse, that he reckeneth all to be defiled with women that are not corporally virgins. What, shall we hold the Patriarkes, the Prophets, the Apostles to be defiled with women because they were maried men? Would he account that a defilement which the holy Ghost pronounceth to beHeb. 13.4. an vndefiled bed? Againe, it is to be noted that of these hundred fortie and foure thousand, it is said before that they wereReuel. 7.4. sealed of all the tribes of the children of Israel. The numbers accord, and soOrigen. in Exo. hom. 1. Ex singulis tribubus duodexa milliae, &c. qui se cum multeribus non comquinauerint, sed virgines permanserint. Origen referreth them both to one, and if Origen will not serue, M. Bishops maisters ofRhem. Test. Annot. Reuel. 14.1. Rhemes acknowledge as much, giuing a marginall note thus: Christ and the same number of elect that were signed Chapt. 7. Now how could Austine vnderstand virgins according to the flesh amongst the tribes of Israel, amongst whom there neuer was anie such profession of virginitie? Therefore as touching this place we will oppose Ambrose against Austixe, who expounding [Page 1063] the words of S. Paul: 2. Cor. 11.2. I haue prepared you for one husband to present you a pure virgin to Christ, saith thus:Ambr. in 2. Co. cap. 11. Virgines vult eos esse in fide, vnde & corruptores fidei zelatur ab his vt in die iudicij incontaminatos eos assignet iudici Christo. Hinc est vnde in Apocalypsi Ioannis legitur, Hi sunt, inquit, qui cum mulieribus non sunt coinquina [...]: virgines enim pernianserunt. Hi sequuntur agnum quocun (que) [...]erit. In mulieribus errorem significauit, quia error per mulierem coepit, sicut & Iezabel mulurem dicit propter vxorem Achab quae zelo Baal Dei Prophetas occidit: cùm intelligatur idololatria qua corrumpuntur mores & fidei veritas. Nam si mulieres mulieres intelligas, vt ideò putes virgines dictas quia corpora sua intaminata seruauerunt, excludis ab hac gloria sanctos, quia omnes Apostoli exceptis Ioanne & Paulo vxores habuerūt He will haue them to be virgins in the faith; by reason wherof he is iealous in their behalfe of corrupters of the faith, that he may at the day of iudgement present them vndefiled vnto Christ the Iudge. Hence is it that we reade in the Reuelation of S. Iohn, These are they that haue not defiled themselues with women, for they are virgins, &c. By women he signifieth error, because error began by the woman, euen as he nameth the woman Iezabel (chap. 2.20.) because of Ahabs wife, who in zeale of Baal slue the Prophets of the Lord: whereas he meaneth idolatrie wherewith the manners of men and true faith are corrupted. For if we vnderstand women of women indeed, so that therfore we thinke them to be called virgins, because they kept their bodies vntouched, we exclude the Saints from this glorie, because all the Apostles except Paul and Iohn had wiues. Thus S. Ambrose expresly and by good reason reiecteth that exposition of S. Austine, and sheweth that virginitie in that place is not corporally to be vnderstood, but spiritually, of being free from the corruption of heresie & idolatrie, the entisements whereof are like the entisements and allurements of harlots, in which respect the city of Antichrist is calledReu. 17.1.2. the whore of Babylon with whom the kings and nations of the earth cō mit whoredome and fornication, and therefore they that hearken to such entisements, and breake their faith to God, they are said to be defiled with women, according to the phrase that Moses often vseth ofLeuit. 20.5. going a whoring after other Gods. As on the other sideOrig. in Leuit. hom. 12. Anima fidei simplicitate & puritate actuum incorrupta probatur & virgo. by synceritie of faith and puritie of conuersation, the soule (saith Origen) is approued for a virgin and vncorrupt. So the author of the Commentaries vpon the Reuelation which go vnder S. Austins name, expoundeth the name of Virgins in the same place to importAug. in Apoc. hom. 11. Virgines hoc loco non solùm corpore castos intelligamus, sed maximè omnem Ecclesiam quae fidem puram tenet, sicut dicit Apost [...]lus: Desponsaui vos, &c. nulla haeriticorum adulterina commixtio [...]e pollutam, nec in malè blandi [...] & mortiferis huius mundi voluptatibus vsque ad exitum vitae suae abs (que) remedio poenitentiae infoelici perseuerantia colligatam. not such only as are chast in body, but rather or specially euery Church which keepeth or holdeth pure faith, not polluted with the adulterous commixtion of heretickes, nor vnhappily continuing to the end without repentance in the dangerously flattering and deadly pleasures of this world, and citeth the place before mentioned to the Corinthians for declaration therof. Thus we dissent then frō Austin as touching the application of those places of Scripture which he alledgeth to his purpose, & the reader [Page 1064] may perceiue, that it is not without cause that we so do. Another thing wherein we cannot accord with him is, that he assigneth vnto virgins a speciall glory peculiar to themselues, and eminent aboue all others, which vnder correction of so learned a father, we hold to be a very fabulous and vaine conceipt. For although virginitie and single life do yeeld the oportunitie of greater reward by giuing liberty of greater worke, yet it followeth not, that they haue any thing so appropriated vnto thē, but that in married estate they that do the like worke may rest in expectation of the like reward. The portion of all thatGal. 3.9. are of the faith, is to be blessed with faithfull Abraham, Luk 16.22. to be caried by the Angels into Abrahams bosome, Mat. 8.11. to sit downe with Abraham, and Isaac, and Iacob in the kingdome of God. Abraham, and Isaac, and Iacob were maried men, and therefore virgins shall haue their place all one with those that haue bene married. Our Sauiour Christ told his Apostles, who all saue Iohn were married, thatMat. 19.28. they should sit vpon twelue seates to iudge the twelue tribes of Israel. He gaue them seates indifferently; he gaue not Iohn a speciall seate higher then all the rest, and shall we thinke that other virgins shall haue seates aboue all them? They are mentioned as hauingRe [...]. 21.14. their names written alike vpon the twelue foundations of the Church, and shall we say, that one of their names was written in letters of gold, and all the rest with inke? Moses a married man, and Elias a virginLuk. 9.31. appeared with Christ not in any diuerse, but both in the same glorie. Therfore Ignatius a virgin also saith of himselfe,Ignat. ad Philadelph. Opio dignus Deo inuē tus ad vestigia eorum (qui nuptijs operam dederunt) in regno mutuirit stiut Abraham, & Jsaac, & Iacob, & Ioseph, & Esatae, & aliorū Prophetarum: si [...]ut Petri & Pauli, & alicrū Apostolorum qui nuptijs operā dederunt. I wish being found worthy of God, to be found in Gods kingdome at the feet of them that were maried, as of Abraham, Isaac, Iacob, Ioseph, Esay and the other Prophets, as of Peter and Paul (marke that he reckoneth Paul for a married man) and other the Apostles who were maried men. In a word, it was but S. Austins too great opinion of virginitie in the flesh, that made him without any good grounds to entertaine that conceipt of some different and speciall glory in name thereof to be assigned vnto virgins. Truth saith, the wisedome of God saith, that they who of religious purpose do forbeare mariage, and vse the gift of continencie, do make themselues chast for the kingdom of heauen, but truth doth not say, neither doth the wisdome of God say, that in name of virginity or continency they haue greater reward then others, but only as they vse the same more earnestly to seeke the kingdome of heauen, which if the married do alike [Page 1065] as they, they shall haue reward alike. But saith M. Bishop, the Apostle assureth that single life is better for the seruice of God. And what? had not M. Perkins said so much to him, & do not we say the same? but we adde, that it is better and more commodious where the gift of continencie is, but where the gift of continencie is not, there marriage is much better for the seruice of God. Againe we say, it is most commonly, not alwaies so, forChrysost. in 1. Tim. hom. 10. Ita assum possunt nuptiae vt perfectiori vitae impedimento non sint. mariage (saith Chrysostome) may be so taken, as that it shall be no hinderance to perfect life; euen as the Ecclesiasticall historie saith of Spiridion a bishop, thatSoz omen. li 1. cap. 11. Ʋxorem habebat, & liberos, non tamen propterea res diuinas negligē tiùs obijt. [...]. he had wife and children, and was thereby no whit the worse about things pertaining to God. As for the words which he citeth out of the book of Wisdom, beside that they are no canonical Scripture they make nothing for him. They are an allusion to the words of Esay, & only signifie that to the Eunuch that worketh righteousnes, shal be giuen that excellent gift that belongeth vnto faith, & a portiō or state in the Lords temple, which is a thing acceptable and blessed aboue all things, and thatPsal. 27.4. one thing aboue all things to be desired, but as touching comparison of portions in the house of God, it intendeth nothing.
14. W. BISHOP.
Secondly, all the Protestants doctrine for mariage, & against vowes, is notably confuted by S. Paul,1. Tim. 5. where he saith: That there were then certaine widowes, who when they waxed wanton against Christ, would marrie, hauing damnation (saith he) because they made void and cast away their first faith: which was as S. AugustinDe sanct. vir. cap. 23. and the rest of the Fathers expound it, they had vowed continencie, but would not performe it.
Now these young widowes (if the Protestants doctrine were true) not hauing the gift of continencie, did very well to marry, and were in no sort bound to keepe their vowes, which was not in their power: but the Apostle doth not acquit them of their vow, but teacheth that they were bound to keepe it in that he pronounceth damnation to them if they marrie.
R. ABBOT.
To all that is here said I haue fully answered before in the 7. Sectiō. The Protestāts indeed say, & they make it good, that those yōg [Page 1066] widowes not hauing the gift of continency, did well to marry, and were by the Apostle willed to marrie, lest haply any of them should by waxing wanton against Christ, fall into the like damnation as some other had done. An impious and diuellish tyrannie it is, when any haue vowed rashly that that is not in their power, to tye them to their vow, and so to cause them by filthy lust and vncleannesse to runne into damnation, who by repentance of their vnaduised rashnesse and vsing the remedy ordained by God, should keepe themselues in purenesse and peace of conscience to saluation.
15. W. BISHOP.
Thirdly, the example of our heauenly Sauior, who would neuer marrie: and of the blessed Ʋirgin Saint Mary, who Aug cap. 44. de virg. Bed. 1. Luc. vowed perpetuall virginitie: and of the glorious Apostles, who as S. Hierome witnesseth, Clem. Alex: lib. 3. Strom. lib. 1. contra Iouin. In Apol. 2. ad Aut. Tertul. apol. 2. cap. 9. were in part Virgins; and all after their following of Christ, abstained from the company of their wiues. And of the best Christians in the purest antiquitie, who, as Iustinus one of the auncientest Greeke Authors among Christians; and Tertullian his peere among the Latines, do testifie, * did liue perpetuall virgins.
Out of these examples, we frame this argument.
Our Captaines and ring-leaders, who knew well which was the best way, and whose examples we are to follow as neare as we can, vowing Virginitie, we must needes esteeme that state for more perfect specially, when as the single man careth onely how to please God, and to be holy in body and mind (as the Apostle writes) when as the married are choaked with cares of this world. And vnlesse a man had made a league with hell, or were as blind as a beetle, how can he euer perswade himselfe, that to wallow in fleshly pleasure, and satisfying of the beastly appetites, is as gratefull to God, as to conquer and subdue them by Fasting and Prayer?
Finally, if Saint Paule giue counsell to the married, to containe during the time of Prayer 1. Cor. 7. Priests and religious (that must alwaies be in a readinesse to minister the Sacraments, and to thinke vpon such things as belong vnto our Lord) are therefore vpon a great consideration bound to perpetuall chastitie.
R. ABBOT.
To the first of these instances Clemens Alexandrinus answered long since, when by heretickes it was vsed as M. Bishop now vseth it against mariage.Clem. Alexan. Strom lib. 3. Dicunt gloriosi isti iactatores se Dominum imitari, qui neque vxorē duxit, &c. Nesciūt causam cur Dominus vxorē non duxerit. Primum quidem sponsam habuit Ecclesiā Deind [...] verò nec homo erat communis vt opus haberet etiam adiutore aliquo secundum carnem. Neque erat ei necesse procreare filios qui manet in aeternū, & natus est solus Dei filius. These glorious braggers (saith he concerning those heretickes) tell vs that they follow the Lord who maried no wife, nor possessed any thing in the world. He answereth: They know not the cause why Christ married not. First he was to haue the Church to be his proper spouse. Secondly, he was no common man that he should need a helper according to the flesh. Againe, it was not needfull for him to beget children who abideth himselfe for euer, and is borne the onely Sonne of God. If M. Bishops wits had not greatly failed him, he would not haue brought the name of our Sauior Christ into this questiō. We know that the incarnation of the Son of God was a matter of diuine dispensation, and directed to speciall and certaine ends & vses, and the mariage of a wife came not within any compasse thereof. Yet he would honour mariage by vouchsafing to be borne in married estate, by chusing his Apostles almost all married men, by being present at a mariage, and gracing the same with a speciall miracle, by affirming the coniunction of mariage to be of God, and the bond thereof to be inuiolable. His second instance is of the Virgin Mary, who he saith, vowed perpetuall virginity: but that is false, neither is there any ground or any probabilitie that she did so. He alledgeth S. Austin for proofe therof, but S. Austins name is not sufficient, vnlesse we haue somewhat else to build vpon. The Angell declared vnto Mary, that Christ should be borne of her: she asketh,Luk. 1.34. How shall this be seeing I knew not a man? This he saith imported, that she had vowed virginity,Aug. de sanct. Virg. cap 4. Non quaesisset promissum sibi filium, quomodo foemina paritura esset si concubitura nupsisset. because she would not haue asked how she being a woman, shold bring foorth a sonne being promised vnto her, if she had intended by mariage to haue company with Ioseph? But S. Austin here preiudicateth himselfe, in that he acknowledgeth, thatIbid. Hoc Israelitarū mores adhuc recusabāt the manner or custome of the Iewes did not then beare this vow: which being true, how should we thinke that she should before hand grow into the opinion or conceipt of such a vow. Againe, how improbable is it, that hauing vowed virginity, she would betroth her selfe in mariage, when as amongst that people it was accounted a matter of so great reproch to faithfull women, to die without issue, which [Page 1068] she knew not then should in virginitie befall her? Moreouer how vnlikely is it, that hauing vowed virginitie she would put her selfe vnder1. Cor. 7.4. the power of a husband, vnlesse it could be proued, which cā not, that Ioseph had vowed continency as wel as she? Surely it cannot be doubted, but that in sooth and simplicity at the first they intended their mariage according to the vsual manner of other faithfull and godly persons. As for the reason that S. Austine giueth it is vnsufficient, because there might be cause of asking that question without any intedement of such a vow. Thereof let M. Bishop be informed by S. Ambrose who maketh this the cause,Ambr. in Luc. 1. A [...]cipe inquit signum tibi, E ce virg [...]t [...] vt [...]s, &c. Legerat hoc M ria [...]dco credidit suturum: sed qu [...] modo si [...] ret ante no [...] legerat Non enim quemaedmodum fi [...]ret velianto Prophetae fuerat reuel [...]um. The Prophet saith, Take vnto thee a signe: Behold a virgin shall conceiue, and shall bring foorth a child. This Mary had read, and therefore she beleeued that it should come to passe, but how it should be she had not read. For to so great a Prophet it was not reueiled how it should be. Mary then knew wel that she was not to conceiue him of whom the Angell spake by the knowledge of man, and therfore asketh how it should be otherwise, seeing it should not be that way? but as touching vowing virginitie there is nothing here meant. M. Bishops third example is of the Apostles, of which he saith, part were virgins: but knowing well that that part was a very small part, for there are none of them said to haue bene virgins, but onely Paul and Iohn. And yet concerning Paul albeit some say, that he was neuer maried, as I alledged before out of Ambrose, yet some of the more auncient affirme, that he was maried, as namely we haue seene Ignatius Sect. 13. before reckoning him amongst maried men. So doth also Clemens Alexandrinus say, thatClem Alexan. Sirom lib. 3. Paulus certè non veretur in quadain Epist [...]la suam appellare coniugem, quam non circumserebat quòd no magno eiopus esset ministerio. Paul is not abashed in one of his Epistles to speake to his wife, which he did not lead about with him, because he needed not much to be ministred vnto. The words which he meaneth are to the Philippians:Phil. 4.3. I beseech thee faithfull yoke-fellow helpe those women which laboured with me in the Gospell. It is true, that in respect of that power that he had of himselfe for containing, he saith:1 Cor. 7.7. I would that all men were euen as I my selfe am, but these authors (as we see) haue holden that for no necessary proofe, but that Paul might be married also as the rest were. Yea but all of them (saith M. Bishop) after their following of Christ abstained from the company of their wiues. But that is more then Master Bishop can proue, yea Clemens Alexandrinus against those Heretickes before mentioned condemning mariage, asketh thus:Clem. Alex. vt supra. An etiam Apostolos reprobāi? Petrusenim & Philippus filio [...] procrearūt: Philiopus autem filias quo (que) suas viris tradidit. Do they also reiect the Apostles? For Peter and Philip [Page 1069] begat children, and Philip bestowed his daughters to husbands. And this of Peter is confirmed by the legend of the Romane Church, which amongst many notable lyes & counterfeit stories lighted no doubt vpon some truth. The Legend recordeth that Peter had a daughter named from his owne name giuen him in his Apostleship, Petronella, which in the time of the persecution by Domitian the Emperour, was much desired by Flaccus a noble man, and thereby appeareth to haue bene then but young, whereas if she were not born after the time that Peter was an Apostle, she must needes be aboue threescore yeares old, it being no lesse from the time that Peter was called, to the time of that persecution. And to giue the more likelihood hereof, we find it certaine that Peter led his wife with him from place to place where he preached, as did also other of the Apostles, whereof the Apostle S. Paul speaketh manifestly:1. Cor. 9.5. Haue we not power to leade about a sister being a wife, as well as the rest of the Apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord and Cephas? M. Bishop will say he meant it not of wiues, but of other deuout women: as though it were not more likely, that the Apostles hauing wiues should lead about their owne wiues rather then strange women. Yea and the words of the Apostle conuict it so to be vnderstood, who would not be absurd in speech, to say a sister being a woman, and therefore must needs be taken to say a sister being a wife: & therfore they that take it otherwise are faine to falsifie & misplace the Apostles words as the vulgar Latin doth. And whereas they are wont to say that those deuout women shold go about with the Apostles to minister vnto thē of their substance, as some did to our Sauior Christ, it cannot be the meaning of the Apostle here, because he speaketh here of a power whereby he might burden the Church with himself and his: but the going about of such women with thē had bene the disburdening of the Church. Yea & such women should haue bin said to haue followed them, not to be led about by thē, neither would the Apostle haue spoken singly as of one, because it could not but haue caused suspitiō & obloquy, to go one with one, saue only with their owne wiues. And thus Clemens Alexandrinus in the place before cited vnderstādeth it of the Apostles wiues, & sheweth the cause why the Apostles tooke thē with them,Clem. Strom. lib 3 Ministraturae apud mulieres quae [...]mos custo [...]tebant. per quas etiam in gynaecaeum als (que) reprehensione malauè suspitione ingredi posset doctrina Domini to minister to women which kept the houses, & that by them the doctrine of the Lord without reproofe or euill suspition might enter into the closets of women. This was the speciall [Page 1070] cause of their leading thē about, & in that respect Clement saith, thatJbid. Non vt vxores, sed vt soreres circumducebant. they led them not as wiues but as sisters, not in regard that they were wiues onely, but for that they were also sisters in the faith of Christ, & in the hope of the Gospell, and thereby meet for that vse, which was the thing properly intended in the leading of them. But hereby he sheweth, that certaine it is, that the Apostles led their wiues about with thē, & so namely the Apostle S. Peter, of whom he hath before said as we haue heard, that he also begat children: and when afterward his wife was put to death for the faith of Christ, he was there present, as the same Clement also testifieth in another place, & didIdem Sirom. lib. 7. Cum vides. sei vxorem su [...]a duci ad mortem, &c. exhortanis & consolando proprio nomine eam compellans dixit: Heus tu, memento Domini. Tale erat beatorum matrimonium, & vsque adamiciss [...]ma perfecta affectio. Vide Euseb. hist. lib [...]. cap. 27. exhort and comfort her, and calling to her, said: O wife remember the Lord Iesus. Such (saith he) was the mariage of such blessed persons, and their perfect affection, euen to the greatest amitie. Now last of all M. Bishop for example nameth the best Christians in the purest antiquitie liuing perpetuall virgins: he citeth for it Iustin Martyr and Tertullian, when he taketh it indeed from the fantastical dream of his owne idle head. Of the best Christians neither of them saith a word, onely they say that some did liue virgins and vnmarried amongst thē, to shew how far they were from the fornications & incests, which were vsually practised amongst the Pagans. Iustin hauing said, that by the doctrine of Christ he that looketh vpon a womā to lust after her, hath committed adulterie with her in his heart, & that not onely the committing of adulterie, but also the will and desire thereof maketh a man reiected of him, inferreth these words:Iust. Apol. 2. [...]. Surely many with vs both men and women of threescore or seuenty yeares, who from their childhood haue learned the doctrine of Christ, do continue vncorrupt, and I glory that in all sorts of our men I can shew such. The Translator to vncorrupt, hath added coelibes, vnmaried, but there is no reason by the words of Iustin to vnderstād any thing else, but that they kept themselues vncorrupt frō fornication & vncleannes, which it was hard to find, that any amongst the Pagans to such yeares had done. But yet of that I will not contend: onely I say, that taking the words of vnmaried persons, here is nothing said that either they were the best, or better thē any other. No more is there in the words of Tertullian, who taxing the fornications & incestuous filthines of the Pagans, saith:Tertul. Apolo. cap. 8. cap. 9. Nos ab ifto euentu diligentissima & fidelissima castitas sepsit. quantumcun [...] à flupris & omni post matrimoniū excessu, tantum & ab incesti casu iutisumus. Quidam multò securiores totam vim huius erroris virginea continentia depellūt, senes, pu [...]ri. Most diligent & faithfull chastity hath hedged vs in frō such euent, & as far as we are frō fornication, & al excesse beyōd mariage, so far are we from the case of incest. Yea some both old & yong do [Page 1071] put away the whole force of this error by continencie of virginitie. Now what is there here whereupon M. Bishop should say, that the best Christians liued in perpetuall Virginitie? But we must not stand vpon such matters: either we must giue hime leaue to doe thus, or else he must write no more. Well, we see now that his examples are farre from seruing his turne, and therefore in steade of his blind argument gathered of selfe-conceipts we will argue thus: that seeing none of our captains and ring-leaders whom God hath set before vs as examples to be followed, haue giuen vs any example of the vow of virginity, therfore we must condemne it as a blind, a wilfull, and superstitious vow. Nay we will argue further: Abraham our Father, Rom. 4.12. in the steps of whose faith we are to walke, & into whose bosome we shall be gathered, was a married man, not once onely, but twise married. So were the rest of the Patriarchs married men; and so the Priests, the Prophets, the Apostles, and almost all that the Scripture setteth before vs as examples of perfection. Therfore they are lewd hypocrites and no true teachers, that beare vs in hand that Christian perfection cannot stand with mariage. Yea but the single man, saith M. Bishop, careth onely how to please God, and to be holy in body and mind, as the Apostle writes, when as the married are choked with the cares of this world. But the Apostle only telleth vs, what may be by the condition of single life, and the right vse thereof, not what alwaies and necessarily is. For we know that the maried many times lesse careth for the things of the world thē the vnmaried, and the vnmaried many times lesse careth to please God then the maried doth. What, did M. Bishop and his fellowes care onely how to please God in that heate of spirit, whereby they were caried against the Iesuites? or do the Iesuits, yea their Popes and Cardinals and Bishops, care onely to please God? Good men, they haue all quite giuen ouer the world, and they breath nothing but onely heauen. A man may wonder at the impudency of this man, who doubteth not to speake so contrarie to his own knowledge both in himselfe and the rest of them. It is true, that single life hath ordinarily more oportunity and liberty to the seruice of God then mariage, which is the thing that the Apostle meaneth, but seldome is it so vsed or neuer, but that mariage in some attaineth to as great holines and perfection as single life. But M. B. in great anger goeth forward [Page 1072] saying: Vnlesse a man had made a league with hell, or were as blind as a beetle, how can he euer perswade himselfe, that to wallow in fleshly pleasure and satisfying of the beastly appetites is as gratefull to God as to conquer and subdue them by fasting and prayer. Where we see a beastly filth out of a prophane mouth and stinking breath, so speake of sacred & holy matrimony, as if there were nothing therin but wallowing in fleshly pleasure, and satisfying of beastly appetites. What, is it a matter of sacrament with thē to wallow in fleshly pleasure and satisfying of beastly appetites? Doth he teach their maried Catholike disciples that they wallow in fleshly pleasure, and sati [...]fying of beastly appetites? Surely the auncient Church of Rome heldTertul. de pud. E [...]us (que) tame [...]o [...]uit vt moderatio libidinum pudicitia credatur. the moderation of lusts (by mariage) to be chastity, as Tertullian in behalfe of Montanus vpbraideth them, and Paphnutius informed the Councel of Nice & they receiued it, that the Socrat. hist. lib 1. cap. 8. Viri cum legitima vxore concubitū castimoniam appellatut. company of a man with his owne wife is chastitie, & what then shal we thinke of a filthy carion, that accounteth nothing to be in mariage but wallowing in fleshly pleasure, & satisfying of beastly appetites, thereby blaspheming the sacred institution of God, & traducing all those holy men of God, of whom before was spoken, that liued in maried state. Now further he telleth vs, that S. Paul giueth counsell to the maried, to containe during the time of prayer, where I leaue it to thee, gentle Reader, to esteeme whether the man were sober in so reciting the words of the Apostle. S. Paule saith:1. Cor. 7.5. Defraud not one another except it be with consent for a time, that ye may attend to fasting and prayer. Which words haue manifest referēce to extraordinary occasions of humbling our selues to God, and of testifying vnto him the griefe and sorrow of our hearts, by depriuing our selues of the vse of all those things whereof we take any ioy or delight according to the flesh, or to any speciall occasions of gathering our spirits and soules more nearely vnto God, whereby it concerneth vs to depart as I may say, so much the further from our selues. In this sort God when he was to giue the law to prepare the people to due reuerence and attention, commanded them three daies beforeExod. 19.15. to be sanctified, to wash their clothes, and not to come at their wiues. Another time being greatly offended with them, he commandeth themCap. 33.5. to lay aside their costly raiment, that they might shew the sorow of their hearts by a neglect and carelesnes of the attiring of their bodies. And thus we know, that fasting in such cases is vsually adioyned to prayer, that the afflicting of the body may [Page 1073] sharpen and giue edge to the affection of the soule. Vpon such occasions the Apostle permitteth some withdrawing of the husband from the wife, but yet with this exception, that it be by consent, and but onely for a time, and then come together againe, saith he, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinencie. Where when he requireth consent, he giueth to vnderstand, that where there is necessitie of fasting & prayer, and yet consent of defrauding cannot be obtained, there fasting and prayer is to be vsed without defrauding, because defrauding may not be without consenting. Now these words belonging to speciall occasions, and being only conditionall, the Romish hypocrites wil haue to concerne all times, and to be absolutely so meant, as if ordinarily there could be no prayer where there is the company of man and wife. As if the Apostle would say, Let the husband giue to the wife due beneuolence, and likewise the wife to the husband, and yet tell them withall, that if they do so they cannot pray. But the Apostle S. Peter in this and all other respects willeth1. Pet. 3.7. husbands to dwell with their wiues as men of knowledge, giuing honor to the wife as to the weaker vessell, that (saith he) your prayers be not interrupted. So farre was he from thinking the societie of the faithfull husband and wife to be the interrupting of their prayers, as that he instructeth carefully to preserue it, that their prayers may not be interrupted. And who doubteth but that those lessons of holy Scripture wherby we are taughtLuk. 18.1. to pray alwaies, and not to waxe wearie, 1. Thes. 5.17. to pray continually, 1. Tim. 2.8. to pray euery where, do concerne the married as well as the vnmarried, and therefore do import that mariage hindreth not but that we may so do. Surely it concerneth the holy men of God to pray as much as it concerneth vs, euen the Patriarchs & Prophets, and other iust and righteous men, neither can we doubt but that religiously and holily they performed that deuotion vnto God, and yet they liued in mariage, and their wiues were partakers with them in this godly seruice. How is it come to passe, that mariage is a blot and hinderance to our prayers, seeing it was none to theirs? or if mariage be no bar against the prayers and deuotions of other faithfull people, what ayle Priests and religious persons, that they cannot pray & performe other seruice to God if they be married? Vntill the time of Salomon who first ordered the attendance of the Priests by turnes, the high Priest of the Iewes whō it concerned to be most pure & holy of any creature vnder heauē, yet in maried [Page 1074] estate, & performing the offices therof presented himself daily vnto God, bearing the figure and person of Iesus Christ our high Priest the Sonne of God, and wearing a frontlet wherein it was engrauen,Exod. 28.36. Holinesse to the Lord. Moreouer, after the diuiding of their courses, it is not found that euer the Priests in the time of their ministration were forbidden the company of their wiues. What then is it but superstitious hypocrisie, that maketh Romish Priests to say they cannot holily doe their seruice vnto God, if they be maried as they were? It is well obserued by Clemens Alexandrinus, thatClem Serom. lib. 3. Apostoli epistolae cum de matrimonio & liberorum procreatione innumerabilia praecepta contineant nusquā honestū moderatum (que) matrimonium prohibuerunt sed legis cum Euangelio seruantes conuenientiam vtrun (que) admittunt, &c. the Apostles Epistles though giuing innumerable precepts of marriage, and procreation of children, and gouerning the house, yet do no where forbid or abrogate honest and modest mariage, but keeping an accord betwixt the law and the Gospell, do admit both of the maried and the vnmarried. Now if there be an accord to be kept in this behalfe betwixt the law and the Gospell, and that the Apostle did keepe, then it is manifest that he determined not mariage to be any hinderance to sacred ministrations in the Gospell, because in the law it was not so. In a word, both Priests and religious, if they haue not the gift of continencie, are by mariage to be fitted to the seruice of God, which in the pollutions of incontinencie they cannot do as they ought to do. Master Bishop saith, they are bound to chastitie, but that is not true. They are bound from mariage, but to chastitie they cannot be bound. If they haue not the gift of continencie, they cannot be chast, but are polluted and defiled both in body and soule, with vnchast and lewd affections. But such pollution and vncleannesse is no let with them to the seruice of God, onely mariage is a let: polluted and defiled let them be, but maried they may not be.
16. W. BISHOP.
We will close vp this point with some sentences taken out of the auncient Fathers, in prayse of Ʋirginitie, which M. P. in all this question vouchsafeth scarce once to name, as though Virgins and Virginity were no English words, or not as plaine as continencie.
S. Cyprian, De habitu Virginum, intitleth Virgins to be the most noble and glorious persons of Christs flocke: and addeth, that they shall receiue of God the highest reward and greatest recompence.
S. ChrysostomeLib. 3. cont. vitup. vit. neces. citeth, Virginitie to be the top of perfection, and the highest tippe of vertue.
And Athanasius, De Virginitate, in the end bursteth out into these wordes: O Ʋirginitie, a treasure that wasteth not, a garland that withereth not; the Temple of God, the Pallace of the holy Ghost, a precious stone, whose price is not knowne to the vulgar, the ioy of the Prophets, the glorie of the Apostles, the life of Angels, the Crowne of Saints.
S. Ambrose Lib. 1. de Virginibus paulò post init. Virginity is a principall vertue, and not therfore commendable that it is found in Martyrs, but because it maketh Martyrs: Who can with humane wit comprehend it, which nature doth not hold within her lawes? it hath fetched out of heauen that it might imitate on earth: neither vnfitly hath it sought a manner of life in heauen, which hath found a spouse for her in heauen.
This surmounting the clouds, the starres and Angels hath found the word of God in the bosome of his Father, &c. See who list to read more to this purpose the rest of the Fathers in their workes of virginity; of which most of them haue written. And S. Ierome, who is behind none of the rest in his bookes against Iouinian and Heluidius, all which do most diligently exhort to vow virginity, do teach how to keepe it, and most vehemently inueigh against all them that do breake it. And if any be so mad as to credit rather our fleshly ministers, than all that honorable and holy Senate of the auncient Fathers, he deserueth to liue and die in perpetuall darknesse.
In this matter I haue stayed somewhat longer, because our carnall teachers, with the lewd example of their dissolute Disciples, haue corrupted our age with fleshly and beastly liberty: In the other points, I will recompence it with breuity.
R. ABBOT.
M. Perkins rather nameth continency then virginity, because virginity noteth properly the state of the body, but continencie is the vertue of the minde, which gouerneth and preserueth the integritie of the body. As for those great commendations which the fathers by him mentioned, and other of them do giue to virginity, [Page 1076] we so much the lesse respect them, by how much the more the same fathers haue made it appeare vnto vs, asSect. 12. before we haue seene, that those commendations were but snares and aduantages taken and vsed by Satan for the intangling of many thousand soules to sin, & to their owne damnation. Their immoderate and excessiue opinion and extolling thereof, drew many thousands to vndertake the profession of single life, who when they neither could performe what they had vndertaken, nor might without reproch and infamy leaue their course, were content euen to cast themselues into the diuels mouth, and by practise of lewd and vncleane life, to worke their owne confusion and ouerthrow. Albeit we would aske M. Bishop what it is, for which they commended virginity in so high measure and degree? If they respected the integrity of the flesh, what was it more then was to be found amongst heathen idolaters, as in the vestall virgins and others, or then is now to be found amongst the Turkes? If he will say that they respected it as dedicated to God, why should they make that a seruice to God, wherein they that knew not God, might glory as well as they, and wherein for it selfe there was nothing that concerneth the seruice of God? If he will say that they conceiued it not as in it self to be a seruice of God, but onely regarded the imploying of it to those things whereby God is serued, they meant nothing against vs, because we also conceiue the power of virginity to be an excellent gift, and worthy to be admired and honoured, where according to the freedome and libertie that it giueth, it is faithfully bestowed to the seruice of Iesus Christ. An excellent gift I say, as the gift of learning, the gift of eloquence, the gift of tongues & such like, which may be in the euil as wel as in the good, & therfore are no otherwise acceptable to God, but only in their vse. Now as excellent gifts are very seldome and rare, so is it in this; many may be willing, but few attaine vnto it; and therfore it was the great ouersight of many of the fathers, so promiscuously to entertaine multitudes, and by such bonds to tye them to that kinde of life, whereto so many were vnable, and whereof they found that to be true which Hierome confesseth, thatHieron. adu. Iouin. lib. 1. Jn [...]pere plurimorum est, perseuerare paucorum. it was in verie many to begin, but in few to perseuere. As touching their sayings which M. Bishop alledgeth, they neede not much to be stood vpon. If they speake of virginity in the two former sorts now mentioned, [Page 1077] they fall of themselues. If in the last meaning I answer, let virgins be according to the patterne which they describe,Cyprian. de hab. virg. Quibus desideria tā carnis & corporis nullae sunt. Sola in vobis quae sunt virtutis & spiritus ad gloriam remanscrunt. that there be in them no desires of the flesh and of the body, and there remaine in them onely the things of vertue and of the spirit for the receiuing of heauenly glory, and wee will honour them as the more excellent portion of the Lords flock, and the top of Christian perfection, not for their virginity but for their piety, wherof notwithstanding they haue the better opportunity by virginity; and only so as that if maried persons shall equall them in pietie, they shall stand as high as they. The saying of Athanasius as he alledgeth it is a counterfeit, neither was Athanasius the Author of any so base a worke. The words here cited do shew the singular vndiscretion both of the Author that wrote them, & M. Bishop that cited them, in that he calleth virginitie the ioy of the Prophets, and the glory of the Apostles, when in a manner all, both the Prophets & Apostles were maried men and not virgins; and the life of Angels, when it is a thing nothing concerning Angels. These are but flourishes of vaine wits which respect not how substantiall, but how glorious their words be. And to such Rhetoricall amplifications, Ambrose as touching that matter of virginitie is too much affected, and appropriateth those things to the deuotion of virgins, which nothing hindereth, but that they should be common to the faith and deuotion of maried estate. He so speaketh, as if heauenly life were onely to be found in virgins, whereas in maried persons the Scripture setteth before vs the speciall examples and patternes thereof. As for Hierome, he needeth no censure of ours, being of old sufficiently censured by the Church of Rome, as before hath bene shewed. We reuerence his learning, but yet wee cannot but acknowledge in him some want both of modestie and pietie, where in a proposterous humour of extolling virginitie, he speaketh basely and rudely concerning mariage, and doubteth not to transcribe into his workes those sentences and arguments, which Tertullian in his heresie vsed to the same purpose against the Church, as to him that compareth his epistle ad Gerontiam de Monogamia, and first booke against Iouinian to Tertullians booke de Monogamia, will easily appeare. To be short, all the exhortations & rules that they could vse for the keeping of virginity, could not auaile, but that the stinke thereof hath [Page 1078] alwaies bene lothsome to the world. They set bankes against a streame that could not be staied, and thereby caused a deluge and ouerflowing of great vncleannesse. Which if Chrysostome saw to be such, as that he held it better there should be no more virgins, as before was shewed, what shall we but take them wilfully to dwell in darknesse, who after so much further experience, continue to maintaine that damnable vow, which all Christian ages from the time that it first began, haue had cause to rue. As for the ministers, they liue in chast and lawfull mariage, as the Prophets and Apostles haue done, and can for that be no more accounted carnall and fleshly then they were, yea and they thinke that the wals of the stewes and Surgeons instruments beyond the seas, and the confession closets of many female Recusants at home will beare witnesse at that day, that they haue not bene so carnall and fleshly as Romish Priests.
17 W. BISHOP.
Concerning the vow of pouertie and monasticall life, in which, as M. Perkins acknowledgeth, men bestow all they haue vpon the poore, and giue themselues to Prayer and Fasting: yet hee is not ashamed to auouch that this vow is against the will of God, and assayeth to prooue it: Acts cap. 20. verse. 35. It is a more blessed thing to giue, than to receiue.
Answer. As the very proposition (that it is displeasing to God to cut off all cares of the world, and to betake our selues wholy to his holy seruice and contemplation of heauenly matters) is in it selfe prophane and vngodly, so the proofe thereof is deuoid of naturall wit and sence. Marke the Argument: It is against Gods will to giue away all, because it is more blessed to giue than to receiue: Why, if it be a more blessed thing to giue; than they please God better that giue. So that this his proofe, improoues flatly his owne assertion: But the dreamer meanes perhaps, that if you giue all at once, you shall not be able to giue afterward, but rather stand in neede to receiue.
Reply. But no such humane prudence can be drawne out of that sentence, which encourageth rather to giue for the present, then to prouide for hereafter.
The true meaning of the place, is to exhort Christians to labour and [Page 1079] trauaile, at vacant times to get their owne liuing, and to prouide something also to bestow vpon them who stand in neede rather then to be idle, and to stand in neede of almes, as S. Paul himselfe did: which they did best performe, who had sold all they had, and distributed it to the poore, as the example of Paul himselfe, and the first Christians doth sufficiently declare, who sold all, and laid the price at the Apostles feete. Act. 4.
R. ABBOT.
He hath promised vs here to be short, and I will promise him not to be very long, because of this matter sufficient hath bene said before, inSect. 18. answer of the epistle to the King. This vow of pouerty, as was there said, is but a branch of the heresie of the Euchites or Messalian heretikes, who in like sort as Popish Monkes did professeEpiphan. haer. 80. Videntur vt qui renunciauerint mundo et de proprijs bonis secesserint, &c. Nō habent possessionē, vt inquiunt, in terra, &c. Extendunt manus & petunt velut victu carentes et nihil possidentes, &c. Orationibus va [...]antes. &c. to renounce the world, and to depart from their goods, hauing any thing of their owne, nor any possession vpon earth, and therefore stretching forth the hand, and begging as hauing nothing whereof to liue, otherwise giuing themselues wholy to praier, andAug. de haeres. Tantū orant vt e [...] qui hoc de illis audiunt incredibile videatur, praying so much, saith S. Austin, as might seeme incredible to thē that heare of it. They caried as goodly a shew as that is that M. Bishop here alledgeth, but their renouncing of the world and praying was adiudged heretical, and so is that that he defendeth, and so much the more damnable for the superstitions and blasphemies that are added to it, as touching heauenly perfection, satisfaction for sinnes, merit of supererogation, whereby they are able to giue spirituall help towards the sauing of the soules of other men. He talketh of cutting of worldly cares, & betaking mens selues wholy to the seruice of God, and cōtemplation of heauenly matters, but he knoweth that their vow of pouerty hath not cut off worldly cares, but hath sent their begging Friars vp & down the country, & hath set them a worke to be scraping & crauing, that they haue had smal leisure to the contemplation of heauenly matters. The contemplation of heauenly matters is a goodly speech, but alas it is a matter that they for the most part are little acquainted with; their rising was the fall of all learning, & it was grown to a by-word,Vide. Hospin. de Orig. Monachat. lib. 6. ca. 18: More vnlearned thē a Monke, & therfore very vnfit were they for the contēplation of heauenly matters. In a word, it is wel knowne that without the vow of pouerty, men haue more fruitfully giuen themselues to the contemplation of heauenly things, then euer they haue done in the profession of that vow. They haue lewdly abused the world, and [Page 1080] vnder pretence of pouertie, haue bestirred and busied themselues by begging, to engrosse and claspe into their hands the riches and pleasures of the world, and whilest they had nothing in proprietie, they had in communitie whereof to liue like Epicures and belly-gods, and were nothing lesse then that they would seeme to be. But to come to the point, Maister Perkins against the vow of pouertie or beggerie, alledgeth the words of Christ,Act. 20.35. It is a more blessed thing to giue then to receiue. Maister Bishop saith, that this proofe is deuoide of naturall wit and sence, and calleth him dreamer for the alledging of it. But would not a man thinke Maister Bishop himselfe to be out of his wits, that would giue this answer, and by and by confesse that Maister Perkins cited the place in other meaning? He well knoweth that the vow of pouertie importeth a condition and state of life for the time to come, and implieth giuing but onely accidentally, because a man that hath something, must needes giue that away before he can be in state to haue nothing, but if he haue nothing, he can giue nothing, and yet that is no impeachment to his vow. The argument then standeth good, that because it is a blessing of God to be in state to giue rather then to receiue, therefore for a man to renounce that state, wherein God hath made him able to giue, and by a vow of pouerty to bind himself to a state wherin he must begge and receiue of others, is wilfully to renounce the blessing of God, and witlesly to vndertake that which God threatneth to the wicked for a curse,Psal. 109.10. Let his children be vagabonds and begge their bread. The words of Christ do plainly instruct vs to take such course, and to maintaine so farre as we can that condition of life, wherin we may haue to shew our charity & loue, as occasion serueth, to our brethren that stand in need. But this M. Bishop calleth humane prudence; and telleth vs that the sentence rather encourageth to giue for the present, then to prouide for hereafter. The sentence indeede encourageth to giue, but it teacheth a man so to giue, as remembring alwaies, that it is a blessed thing to giue rather then to receiue, and therefore so to giue, as that still he may giue, and not wilfully to put himselfe in case to receiue onely or beg, and not to giue. And this is not to be carefull of prouiding for hereafter, but onely not to tempt God by carelesnes, and by wilfull vnprouiding & depriuing himselfe of that which God hath prouided for him whereof to do good, and to shew mercy both for the present & for hereafter. [Page 1081] Now he that vpbraided M. Perkins euen now to be deuoid of naturall wit and sence, is himselfe here so witlesse & sencelesse, as that he seeth not his owne answer to make directly against himselfe. For if the place do teach men to labour and trauell, that they may haue to bestow vpon others that need, then surely it condemneth them who make a vow, that they neuer will haue any thing to giue to thē that stand in need. S. Paul laboured that he might haue of his owne to supply his owne necessity, and to help others. So did they, saith M. Bishop, that sold their lands, and laid the price down at the Apostles feet. So doth S. Paul teach all men:Ephe. 4.28. Let him that stole, steale no more, but let him rather labour & work with his hands the thing that is good, that he may haue to giue vnto him that needeth. But the vow of pouerty and beggery, disableth a man for euer from being capable of any thing of his owne, whereof he may minister to them that neede. This vow therefore is contrary to those rules and precepts which the Apostle gaue for the direction of Christian life.
18. W. BISHOP.
The next place is, Pro. 30.8. Giue me neither riches nor pouerty.
Answer. The Prayer is good, and fitteth the persons of honest men who liue in the world, and was of some perfection too in the state of Moses law, in which it was made, as disswading from couetousnesse of great riches, but it commeth too short of the perfection of the Gospell, wherein we are counselled to esteeme as dung all worldly riches.
R. ABBOT.
He blamed M. Perkins answer in the former Section, as deuoid of natural wit and sence, but I pray thee, gentle Reader, if thou light vpon him to aske him, where his wits were when he gaue this answer. To the one part he answereth,Pro. 30.8. Giue me not riches, but to the other part, Giue me not pouerty, which is the thing vrged against him, he answereth nothing. We are counselled in the Gospel, he saith, to esteem as dung all worldly riches. True, & therfore we say, Giue me not riches. But yet in the Gospell we are taught to pray for that that is conuenient according to our place and condition, when we say, Giue vs this day our daily bread, and therefore we say, Giue me not pouertie, whereupon it is added; Feede me with foode conuenient for me. The praier, saith he, fitteth the persons of honest men that liue in the world. Hypocrite who taught thee this distinction of praiers? Hath the [Page 1082] spirit of God set it down as a praier of the wisest man, and is it now come to be posted ouer to I know not what honest men? It was of some perfection, he saith, in the state of Moses law, but commeth too short of the perfection of the Gospell. Hypocrite, the Apostle hath taught vs, thatRom. 15.4. whatsoeuer things were written before time, were written for our learning, and must we vpon the word of an idle Sophister be perswaded, that that praier is too base for vs to learn? And what? were not men taught in the state of Moses law, to esteeme as dung all worldly riches? Did not Dauid say:Psal. 62.10. If riches increase set not your heart vpon them. Did not Solomon say of riches,Prou. 23.5. Wilt thou cast thine eies vpon that that is nothing? Did not Esay say,Esa. 40.6. All flesh is grasse, and all the glory thereof as the flower of the field? Were they not as fully taught to despise the world, and to ioy in God as we are? But the man so dreameth of perfection, perfection, as that we may very well thinke, that there is some very great imperfection in his head. In a word therefore, God hath taught a man to say, Giue me not pouerty, but they teach a man to say, I will vow pouerty, and what do they then but teach a man to contrary that which God hath taught?
19. W. BISHOP.
M. Perkins his third reason is taken out of Deut. 28.22. where pouerty is numbred among the curses of the law, none of which are to be vowed.
Answer. It is one thing to be punished with pouerty for transgressing of Gods law, and another (I trow) for the loue of God to giue away all we haue to the poore: The former was a curse in the law of Moses, the latter is a blessing, and the first blessing in the Gospell: Luc. 6. Blessed are the poore, for theirs is the kingdome of heauen: Which sentence, albeit it may be applied very well vnto humility, yet more literally signifieth voluntary pouerty, as by the sentence opposed against it is manifest: Ver. 23. Woe be to you rich men, &c.
R. ABBOT.
The words of Moses are,Deut. 28.44. The stranger shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not (haue to) lend to him. Ver. 48. Thou shalt serue thine enemies in hunger and thirst, and in nakednes, and in need of all things. Christ hath taught vs before, that it is a blessing to haue wherof to giue; and Moses teacheth vs that it is a curse to be in want, & not to haue wherof to lend; & what is then the vow of pouerty but the renouncing of a blessing and the voluntary vndergoing of a curse? M. Bishop answereth, that [Page 1083] it is one thing to be punished with pouerty for trāsgressing the law of God, another for the loue of God to giue all to the poore. But then is it done for the loue of God, when God calleth vs to the doing of it; otherwise it is no matter of the loue of God, but of humane presumption and selfwil. Therfore his answer here is al one, as if he shold say, It is one thing for a man to be accursed of God, another thing voluntarily to lay Gods curse vpon himself; and how wel that serueth his turne, let himselfe iudge. Yet he will proue that it is a blessing, yea the first blessing in the Gospel. And how? forsooth because Christ saith,Luke 6.20. Blessed are the poore, for theirs is the kingdom of heauē. We may see the poore man was driuē to poore shifts, when he was faine to vse this text for the making good of his vow of pouerty. If his leisure had serued him he would haue turned to the fift of Mathew, and there haue seen our Sauior expounding himself,Mat. 5.2. Blessed are the poore in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heauen. Now a man would think that M. Bishops learning should haue taught him long before this, that a man may be rich in worldly goods, and yet poore in spirit; and that vndoubtedly Abraham the father of all beleeuers was such a one. Yea saith he, it may wel be applied to humilitie, yet more literally it signifieth voluntary pouerty. And how may that appeare? forsooth by the sentence opposed against it, it is manifest, Wo be to you rich men. But I maruel what strings M. Bishop hath to tie this argument together: Christ saith, Wo be to you rich men: therfore that which he saith before, Blessed are ye poore, must necessarily be vnderstood of volūtary pouerty. What, doth Christ absolutely meane wo to all that be rich? When he expoundeth the poore to be poore in spirit, doth he not teach vs proportionably to vnderstand the rich? This childish collection is reproued by our Sauior Christ, whē his disciples being astonished at that which he said,Mark 10.23: How hardly do they that haue riches enter into the kingdome of God: he answerethVer. 24. Children (therby reprouing their weaknes of vnderstanding) how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God? The wo then is not to all that are rich, but to such as trust in riches; but there are men who1. Tim. 6.17 are rich in this world, who yet are not high minded, and trust not in vncertaine riches, but in the liuing God. Christ hauing shewed the end of the man that trusted in riches, addeth,Luk. 12 21. So is euery one that gathereth riches to himselfe, and is not rich in God. Wo be to them that are rich in this world and are not rich in God, but a man may be rich in this world, & yet [Page 1084] rich in God also by acknowledging spiritually his owne pouerty in himself, and receiuing all things of Gods mercy. Seeing therefore a man may be rich according to this world, and yet none of them to whom Christ saith, Wo be to rich men, surely nothing hindereth but that a man may be rich, and yet may be one of those poore whom Christ pronounceth to be blessed, and therfore M. Bishops argument is idle, and proueth nothing lesse, then that Christs sentence is to be vnderstood of voluntary pouertie, so that still it remaineth good, that the vow of pouerty and beggery is the voluntary casting away of the blessing of God, and the vndertaking of his curse.
20. W. BISHOP.
Thus M. Perkins his texts of Scripture against pouertie failing him, he fetcheth about another way, saying that it is a rule of the holy Ghost: He that will not labour (namely in some speciall and warrantable calling) must not eateThess. 2..
Ans. I allow both the text and the glosse, and find nothing there against religious persons, whose calling is speciall perfect, and therefore best warrantable: not so (saith he) because they giue thēselues to prayer & fasting. What a profane stupiditie is this? Is not a life giuen to prayer and fasting agreeable to the wil of God and lawes of his church? albeit many religious men do ouer and besides very great seruices to Gods church, in preaching, teaching and writing of most learned books. But suppose they did nothing else but fast and pray, did they not very well deserue their sustenance? yes much better then they which trauell all the yeare about the prouiding of it. For in vaine do men labor if God blesse not their worke with seasonable weather, which he doth rather at the prayer and instance of such good innocent soules that are to be fed with it, then for the Plough-mans owne labors sake. And if by their fasting, watching and such like afflictions of their bodies, they do partly satisfie for our superfluous pampering of the flesh, and teach vs by their good example to bridle and correct it: do they not deserue at our hands bodily sustenance? And who better performes all duties of the second table then they, being most obedient to all their superiours, and not hurting their neighbour in life, person, or any maner of their goods? And so in their seuerall callings offend no honest men, and do much good both vnto the Church and Common-wealth.
R. ABBOT.
If S. Paul whē he said,2. Thess. 3.10. He that wil not labor, let him not eate, did take [Page 1085] praying to be laboring, then the Messalians had as wel to answer for themselues as the begging Friers, because they took as great paines in praying as the begging Friers cā do; yea those idle loiterers, concerning whō the Apostle speaketh, had sufficient to answer for them selues, that there was reason for them to eate because they did pray. Surely M. Bishop is a good proctor for such thriftles drones, who wil be content to pray apace, & as much as the Friers do, if that may be reckned a labor for which to require their meate. But praier is a cō mon duty & seruice of all callings, & not a distinct labor of any one. Till M. Bish. blotted this paper, I think it was neuer read, that praier & fasting was a calling, saue only in the conceit of those Euchites or Messalians, of whō I spake, albeit they indeed fasted not. But wheras M. Perkins saith, that men liuing apart, & giuing themselues only to praier and fasting, do liue in no calling, M. Bishop because he cannot proue the contrary, beggeth it. What a profane stupiditie is this, saith he? Is not a life giuen to prayer and fasting (put in as it should be, only to prayer and fasting) agreeable to the wil of God and lawes of his Church? You should not haue asked the question M. Bishop, but haue proued it so to be, because therin stood the question, which it was your stupidity not to see. The argument propoundeth to you, that it is necessary for euery man to labor in some calling, that he may haue according to Gods ordināce wherof to eate. It alledgeth that to liue apart & to be giuen only to praier & fasting, is not to labor in a calling; and do you answer al with, Is it not so? To make vp the matter, he addeth that many religious men do ouer and beside very great seruices to Gods church, in preaching, teaching and writing of most learned books. Ye say wel M. Bishop, such mē because they labor, may iustly eate, but these matters are accidental, and their vow & religion may stand without them, and therfore the matter is not answered by them. I admit that which he saith, but there might here worthy stories be told of the preachings of their Friers of all sorts. But M. Bishop himselfe knowing that this is but impertinent goeth on; Suppose they did nothing else but fast and pray, did they not very well deserue their sustenance? If they did nothing but fast & pray, it should be with them according to the Apostles rule, because then they should eate nothing. But now beside fasting and praying they eate also, which the Apostle sayth they should not do, because they do not worke. They fast a little, that they may eate enough, and there is no idle lozell [Page 1086] but would be content with their fasting, so that he may haue their diet otherwise. In a word, M. Bishop may keepe his opinion to him selfe, but the Apostle sufficiently teacheth vs, that because they labour not, therefore they do not so well deserue sustenance as they who labour all the yeare for the prouiding of it. As for the blessing of God, it dependeth not vpon the prayers of such who haue no warrant for the state of life wherein they pray; and the ploughmans prayer is more acceptable to God then theirs, because he followeth that rule of life which God hath taught, who neuer prescribed any rule of Monkish trade. Good innocent soules, saith he, whereas by all stories it appeareth that there hath not bene a more stinking vermine vpon the earth: euen some of their owne men haue discouered them so to be. But M. Bishop is not satisfied, vnlesse to folly he adde blasphemie, saying, that they satisfie for our superfluous pampering of the flesh. Impious man, Christ is the satisfaction for our sins; what haue we to do with the satisfactions of wretched men, who damnably sinne in those things wherein they take vpon them to satisfie for others sins? And what, M. Bishop, is there any superfluous pampering of the flesh to be found amongst you? Alas how haue ye deceiued vs all this while? We thought that you had bene nothing but spirit, and that superfluous pampering of the flesh had bene onely amongst vs. But your teeth would haue bit your tongue, if ye had not somewhat told vs truth. Take it to ye M. Bishop, for it belongeth to none more rightly then it doth to you, and the example that ye lay before ye fitteth accordingly. But to shut vp all this matter, he telleth vs that none performe all duties of the second table better then they. As how? They are most obedient to their superiours. God hath commaunded them to obey and honour their parents, their princes and gouerners, and they leaue these at sixe and seuen as they say, to performe obedience to other superiours superstitiously deuised of their owne. They many times impiously with the Iews cast off the respect of their parents by pretence of their vows; they withdraw themselues into lurking dens from seruice to their princes and publike state, yea many times they nourish rebellion and treason against them, and yet they are most obedient of all other, being not at all obedient to them whom God hath cōmanded them to obey. Againe he saith, they hurt not their neighbour in life, person or any manner of goods. Yea but the life of a Christian man [Page 1087] consisteth not in doing no hurt onely, vnlesse he also do good, and what good do they? It is doing good that Christ shall commend at the last day,Mat. 25.35. I was hungry and ye gaue me meate, and thirstie and ye gaue me drinke. On the other side, he shall obiect the want of doing good,Ver. 42. I was hungry and ye gaue me no meate, and thirstie and ye gaue me no drinke. And what shall the Monkes then say? O Lord, though we did thee no good, yet we did thee no hurt. We had wherewith to feed thee and to clothe thee, and to harbour thee, but we gaue all away at once, and made a vow that we would neuer haue any thing againe to do thee good: thou shouldest therefore starue and perish for hunger and cold, but looke for nothing further at our hands. We were content to fast and pray according to our rule, and to spend our time in such witlesse obseruations as our founders directed vs for matters of great perfection; but as for those things which thou hast required, we left them to men of more base and vnperfect state, as nothing at all concerning vs. This is their begging Friers condition of life, and this is that performing of the duties of the second table which M. Bishop speaketh of. They fast and pray, but do no good at all, neither to Church nor commonwealth, neither hath any kind of men be [...]e generally more offensiue and pernicious then they haue bene.
21. W. BISHOP.
After all this waste wind, M. Perkins confesseth, that a man may vpon a speciall calling sell all his goods, as the Apostles did. What then (good Sir) shall become of your former arguments? May one then vow a curse of the Law, and leaue off prayer for neither pouertie nor riches, and say that it is not a blesseder thing to giue then to receiue?
All these arguments which were whilome of great force, must now be nothing worth, because it pleaseth M. Perkins, the wind now sits in an other corner, such weathercocks surely are to be much respected.
He saith further, in time of persecution a man may also leaue all: he should rather haue said, he must leaue all, or else lose al, for the persecutor will not spare him. Lastly, he doth not condemne old auncient Monks, who liued by the sweate of their browes, and were married many of them, as he saith; but his authors cited say not so, neither shall he be able to cite one auncient allowed and approoued writer, who sayth [Page 1088] that the auncient Monkes liued with their wiues, if perhaps they had bene married before. But no maruell if fleshly Ministers thinke it no life without their fleshly mates. As for labouring at vacant times, it was alwayes, and is to this day in practise among many religions. If other do in good studies, writing or teaching, imploy that time of labour, no doubt but they do farre better.
R. ABBOT.
There is no man but easily conceiueth, that those things many times which of themselues are vnlawfull and wicked in vs, yet arelawfull and necessary when God commaundeth them. It had bin a wicked thing in Abraham of his owne head to attempt the killing of his son, but it was an act of religious and godly obedience when God required it. It is desperate wickednesse for a man wilfully to cast away his owne life; but at Gods commaundement to offer and yeeld his life, it is right and iust. It was vncleannes in Moses law to touch any excrement or dung; yet when God appointedEzech. 4.12. Ezechiel so to do, it was no vncleannesse. The Iewes did sin grieuously in binding themselues by vow not to honour their parents; and yet when Christ calleth, no man may sayMat. 8.21. Let me first go and burie my father: yeaLuke 14 26. he that hateth not father and mother, saith Christ, he cannot be my disciple. Euen so albeit it be superstitious and sinfull of our owne heads to relinquish the state of life whereunto God hath called vs, vnder pretence and colour of giuing our selues idlely to prayer and fasting, yet it is sacred and holy obedience to leaue all when God calleth from all, who yet neuer calleth vs in the leauing of all things to vow the neuer hauing of any thing againe. These cases are sensible and manifest, neither was there cause for M. Bishop to talke of wind and wethercocke in M. Perkins, but rather to wish better discretion and vnderstanding to himselfe. As for the auncient Monkes, albeit many of them were very absurd and senslesse hypocrites, yet we denie not but many that went vnder that name were iust and holy men, trained vp as in our vniuersities to vertue and learning, that they might afterwards serue for the ministery of the Church. M. Bishop would gladly attribute to their Monks some imitation of them, but it sticketh betwixt his teeth, and he knoweth not well how to bring it out. They are so vnlike them, that they are [Page 1089] scant worthy to be accounted as apes in comparison of men. That which M. Perkins saith of maried Monks, is taken out of S. Austin, though he cite not the place, who setting down the heresie of them that were calledAugust. haer. 40. Apostolici qui se isto nomina arrogantissimè vocauerunt quòd in communionem suā nō reciperent vtentes cōiugibus & res proprias possidentes quales habet Catholicae Ecclesia & Monachos & Clerecos plurimos. Apostolici, saith, that arrogantly they so called themselues, for that they receiued not into their communion, VTENTES CONIVGIBVS, such as had company with their wiues, and possessed any thing of their owne, such (saith he) as the Catholicke Church hath many, both Monks and Clergie men. Let M. Bishop tell vs the English of vtentes coniugibus, and then tell vs whether those Monkes liued with their wiues. As for the Ministers, they haue no fleshly mates, but lawfull wiues, as they had of whom S. Austine speaketh; but M. Bishops former acknowledgement concerning themselues of their superfluous pampering of the flesh, doth fully assure vs, that for lawfull wiues they betake themselues to fleshly mates, and that it is true of them now which in the Parliament of England vpon the complaint of the filthy Sodomie that was found amongst them, was said of their vnmaried Clergie, thatChemni. de coelib sacerd. Delicata [...]ibaria virorū Ecclesi isticorū vel naturalem purgationē, quaerere vel petorem. the daintie fare of the Clergie men did require either a naturall purgation or a worse.
22. W. BISHOP.
In defence of the Catholike partie, M. Perkins hath not a word, wherfore I wil briefly supply his want, and proue it to be very gratefull to God to sell all and giue it to the poore.
I omit the example of our B. Sauiour (who would not haue any poore cottage of his owne, so much as to rest his head in, but would wholy liue of almes) and come vnto this heauenly doctrine. Mat. 19. He teacheth a yong man whom he loued, in flat words, That if he wold be perfect, he should go and sel all he had, and giue it to the poore, and come & follow him, and then should haue a treasure in heauē. These words are so expresse and euident, that there can be but one way to shift from them, which M. Per. flieth vnto, pag. 244. to wit, that these words were onely meant vnto that yong man, and not to be applied vnto any others, no more then those words to Abraham of sacrificing his son Isaac. But this silly shift of our poore Protestāts is confuted manifestly in the same chapter of S. Mathew, where a litle after S. Peter saith, Lord, behold we haue left all things and haue followed thee, what reward shall we therefore haue? We haue done (as S. Hierom expoundeth it, and the very sequel of the text doth plainly require) that which thou commaundedst in the words before [Page 1090] to that yong man What answer made our Sauiour? That his commandement was only meant vnto that yong man, and that they had done foolishly in so doing? nothing lesse, but promiseth that they shall therefore sit with him in twelue seates, iudging the twelue tribes of Israel. And that whosoeuer would forsake father, mother, lands, goods, &c. for his sake, should receiue an hundred fold, and possesse life euerlasting. Can any thing be more plaine out of the word of God it self, then that not this or that man, but whosoeuer shal forsake all for Christ doth very blessedly. And if need were, I could cite most of the auncient Fathers teaching those words of Christ, Go and sell all, to be an heauenly counsell giuen generally to all. S. Antonie tooke them spoken to him, In vita eius apud Athanas. Saint Augustine to him ad HilariumEpist. 89.: to omit later religious men, I will only cite S. Hierom, who doth briefly both declare our Catholik doctrine, and shews also who was the author of the Protestants opinion, Lib. cont. Vigil. saying thus, To that which thou affirmest, that they doe better, who vse their goods, and do by little and little distribute to the poore the profits of their possessions, then others who selling them giue all at once, not I, but our Lord shall answer, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all that thou hast, and giue it to the poore. Christ speaketh to him that will be perfect (not to the yong man only) who with the Apostles forsooke both father, shippe and nets. That which thou Vigilantius commendest, obtaineth the second and third degree: so that the first (which is to sell all at once) be preferred before the second and third: which is, to giue by little and little the fruite of our reuenues to the poore.
R. ABBOT.
M. Bishop here propoundeth to proue, that it is a gratefull thing to God to sell all and giue it to the poore; but that commeth too short of the vow of pouertie, which is, that a man neuer more shall haue any thing of his owne. A man may by occasion forgo all that he hath for Christs sake, and yet not bind himselfe neuer to be owner of any thing more. But this is the thing that M. Bishop shold proue, that it is gratefull to God to vow neuer to haue any thing of his owne. A thing that troubled the Friers, but specially the Franciscans, who vowed pouertie in the highest degree, because by this meanes they were proued theeues, and could not deuise how to shift it off. For what is he butVide Hospiniā. de Orig. Monac. lib. 6. cap. 16. a theefe, that eateth, and drinketh, [Page 1091] and clotheth himselfe with that that is none of his owne, nor can be by any right? But they by no right or title might haue any thing of their owne. Other beggers eate and drinke their owne, because by gift it becometh theirs. But these Friers by their rule might haue no right, title, or interest in any thing to be their owne; their good founder Francis hauing layd it downe, that without any construction, glosse or interpretation they should haue nothing of their owne. Now this in part is the thing that M. Bishop must proue, that it is pleasing to God, that men vow to liue like theeues, to eate & drink and weare that that is none of theirs. Let vs see then what he can alledge for proofe thereof. His first example commeth not within compasse of this disputation, because we know that our Sauiour Christ submitted himself to the bearing of our curse, that he might purchase a blessing for vs.2. Cor. 8.9. He being rich, for our sakes became poore, that we through his pouertie might be made rich. Yet neither is there here any thing of any vow, neither can we question but that Christ possessed as his owne whatsoeuer was ministred vnto him, and therewithIohn 13.29. bought whatsoeuer was needfull, to vse the same as his owne, which the vow of pouertie admitteth not. Now to the example of Christ, he addeth the lesson that he gaue to the yong man,Mat. 19.21. Go sell all that thou hast, if thou wilt be perfect, and giue it to the poore, and come and follow me, and thou shalt haue treasure in heauen. But still we faile of that that we require: we heare not Christ here saying to him, Vow thy selfe hereafter to perpetuall pouertie and beggery, that thou mayst neuer hereafter haue any thing of thine owne. This is the very point, and of this the sentence of Christ importeth nothing. Well, let this go, but of that speech of our Sauiour M. Perkins answereth, that it tended to discouer the secret corruption of the yong mans heart, and therefore was a commaundement not common to all, but speciall to him, as was to Abraham the commandement of offering his sonne. And to this effect Clemens Alexandrinus vnderstandeth it, saying,Clem. Alexan. stromat lib. 3. Cū dixit, si vis perfectus esse, &c. refella eum qui gloriatur quòd omnia à iuuētute praecepta seruauerit: non enim impleuerat illud, Diliges proximū. &c. Tunc autem vt qui à Domino perficeretur docebatur cōmunicare & impertiri per charitatem. Pulchrè ergo non prohibuit esse diuitem iniustè & inexplebilitèr. When Christ saith, If thou wilt be perfect, sell what thou hast and giue to the poore, he disproueth him that glorieth that he hath kept all the commaundements from his youth; for he had not fulfilled the commaundement, Thou shalt loue thy neighbor as thy selfe. But then as being to be perfected by the Lord▪ he was taught charitably to communicate and bestow. Notably therefore he forbiddeth not to be rich, but to be rich vniustly and vnsatiably. [Page 1092] Clement then saith as M. Perkins saith, that the words are directed to a particular occasion, and had their speciall vse in respect of him to whom they were spoken, to discouer his erronious conceit and opinion of himselfe. This is not then a silly shift of the poore Protestants, but the true exposition of an auncient and learned Father. But what doth he alledge for the confuting of this silly shift? Marry thatVer. 27. S. Peter a little after saith, Lord we haue forsaken all, and haue followed thee, what reward shall we haue? And what is that? We haue done (saith he) that which thou commandedst in the words before to the yong man. But that is not so; for we do not find that they sold all to giue to the poore, as he was commaunded to do, much lesse that they vowed neuer after to haue any thing, as M. Bishop would proue by it. For it is apparent, that though the Apostles then had left the care and the vse, yet they had not left the proprietie & right of all. They medled not with any thing they had, they attended not to any businesse of their owne, they gaue ouer their nets and their ships, & the following of all worldly affaires, that they might wholy follow Christ, but yet that they had stil their owne, it appeareth by the words of Christ,Iohn 16.32. Ye all shall be scattered euery man to his owne, and shall leaue me alone. So is it said of Iohn, that when Christ said to him, Behold thy mother, meaning it of the blessed virgin,Chap. 19.27. he thenceforth tooke her to his owne home. Yea and by the last chapter of his Gospell it may wel be conceiued that they had still their ships and their nets to go a fishing as they had before. But howsoeuer that be, these words make nothing against M. Perkins answer, because the disciples had had a like speciall calling to follow Christ as this yong man had, and they do hereby but professe their yeelding themselues to that speciall calling of Christ, as this yong man shold haue done to this calling directed particularly to him. Albeit therfore this commaundement were here intended onely to the yong man, yet there was no cause why Christ should say that they had done foolishly in doing that they had done, because they had receiued the like commaundement in effect before, and by vertue therof had before this forsaken all and followed him. Now as those callings of the disciples, and Christs commandements to them of following him, were particular to themselues and not common to al, nor could be vnderstood as belonging to this yong man, so neither can this commaundement to the yong man be vnderstood here as [Page 1093] spoken in cōmon to the disciples, or belonging vnto vs. In a word, Christ called him to be one of his disciples, as the rest were, and his calling cānot be vnderstood to belong vnto vs any more then their calling doth. Now as Christ saith peculiarly to the disciples, that they hauing left all at his commaundement and followed him shall sit vpon twelue seates to iudge the twelue tribes of Israel: so he maketh a common and general promise to all, that whosoeuer for his names sake and for the Gosp [...]ls sake shal forsake all, that is, shal be content to yeeld all into the persecutors hands, and to loose all rather then to denie the name of Christ and to forsake his Gospell, he shall now receiue an hundred fold, and in the world to come eternall life. This is true, we doubt not hereof, but M. Bishop himselfe must perforce confesse, that this maketh nothing at all to prooue that the former words spoken to the yong man do belong to vs. For that forsaking of all which Christ here speaketh of for his names sake and for the Gospels sake, is a necessary dutie, without the performance whereofLuke 14.26. a man cannot be Christs disciple. Marke 8.35: Whosoeuer (in this case) will saue his life, saith Christ, shall lose it; and whosoeuer shall lose his life for my sake and for the Gospels sake, he shall saue it. But M. Bishop telleth vs, that that selling of all and giuing to the poore, is no commandement but a counsell, a matter not necessary but voluntary, which a man may chuse whether he will do or not. He that forsaketh not all in such sort as Christ speaketh thereof in the latter words, sinneth grieuously against Christ: but M. Bishop saith, that a man may forbeare to sel all and giue to the poore, and yet sinneth not. Here by then we may see how vntowardly he dealeth, in taking from one of these a confirmation of the other, and so it appeareth that hitherto M. Perkins answer standeth good, that those words of our Sauiour Christ to the yong man, were intended onely in particular to him, and concerne no other in proper meaning, but onely such to whom they were in particular directed, as they were to him. But yet that M. Bishop may know that we haue somewhat more to say then M. Perkins hath said, and can make it good that they most wickedly abuse this place to the maintenance of their vowes and opinion of perfection, I will somewhat more fully examine the circumstances thereof. I shall seeme haply here to go against the streame, and to be somewhat preiudicated by the opinion of sundry of the Fathers, but yet (gentle Reader) let not names of men carry thee away [Page 1094] from that which thou thy selfe canst manifestly discerne to be the truth. Remember what hath bene already said, that the words of Christ literally and in proper vnderstanding belonged peculiarly to the yong man, but yet we deny not but that as the calling of the rest of the Apostles, so the calling of this yong man by deduction and moralization is to be applied vnto vs, onely the question is, in what meaning it doth concerne vs. Let it be obserued what meaning M. Bishop intendeth of it, that Christ here recommendeth a matter of counsell, not necessary for all Christians, but voluntarily to be followed as a matter of speciall perfection by such as will; so as that without this a man may be saued and come to eternall life, but by the doing of it he meriteth a release of his owne and other mens sins, and an eminent and more then ordinary degree of glory in euerlasting life. But the text plainly sheweth that this cannot be there meant, and that the lesson that Christ taught him did concerne a dutie necessary for the obtaining of eternall life. The question that he moueth to Christ, is,Mat. 19.16. Good master what shall I do to obtaine eternall life? Our Sauiour answereth, If thou wilt enter into lift, keepe the commaundements. He professeth himselfe so to haue done from his youth, and addeth, what lacke I yet? What is it whereto he supposeth somewhat yet to be lacking? Euery man seeth whereto it is to be referred, What lacke I yet to the obtaining of eternal life? Accordingly then the answer of Christ is to be construed, If thou wilt be perfect, that is, lacking nothing to the obtaining of eternall life, go sell all that thou hast and giue to the poore, and thou shalt haue treasure in heauen, and come and follow me. That this is the meaning of the perfection here spoken of, appeareth by the two other Euangelists, who thus set downe the answer of Christ,Mark 10.21: One thing is lacking vnto thee; Luke 18.22. Yet lackest thou one thing, sel all that thou hast, &c. Wherto did he lacke one thing, but to that whereof he made the question, to the obtaining of eternal life? Christs words then in effect are, Thou hast not yet all that is needfull to the obtaining of eternall life, but if thou wilt be perfect lacking nothing thereto, go sel all that thou hast, &c. Now if we vnderstand it as M. Bishop would haue vs, then there was no cause why the man should go away so sorowful at that that Christ said. For the thing that he desired, was to haue eternal life, and if he might haue had eternall life without the forgoing of his riches, it would haue fully satisfied him. But by M. Bishops doctrine [Page 1095] it might be said to him that he troubled himselfe in vaine, for the words of Christ were but a counsell and not a commaundement, and that there was not any necessitie of doing that that was sayd vnto him. They that wold be of a high degree of perfection aboue others, must so do, but if he would rest in a lower degree, he might continue as he was, and yet obtaine eternall life. But the yong man conceiued not so; he knew that Christs words imported a conditiō of obtaining eternal life, according to the question that he had moued to him, and therefore was very sorowfull. And hereto accord the words of Christ ensuing, Ʋerily I say vnto you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdome of heauen. It is easier for a camell to go through the eie of a needle, then for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. Why doth Christ vse these words, but that the yong mans respect of his riches did hinder him, not from a state of perfection aboue others, as M. Bishop dreameth, but wholly from entring into the kingdome of God? Furthermore it is to be considered how improbable a thing it is, that to a man who knew as yet only the Iewish religion, & had no knowledge of the faith of Christ, our Sauior wold giue at first a direction of perfection aboue others in Christian profession. He was as yet no disciple of Christ, he beleeued not in him, and is it credible that he would teach him at the first dash, of a ruler▪ according to M. Bishops vnderstanding, to become a Monke? Nay it appeareth plainly, that whereas the man had a zeale of God, and no doubt in true meaning did walk according to the Law so farre as he had the true vnderstanding thereof, our Sauior Christ wold instruct him that that was not sufficient for the obtaining of eternal life, but he must be content vpō his calling and commandement to renounce all that he had, to cast off al vaine loue and confidence of worldly things, and to become one of his disciples and followers. In a word, he teacheth him to be of the same mind that the Apostle S. Paul professeth as touching himself,Philip. 36.8. As touching the righteousnes of the law I was vnrebukable, but I think all things but losse for the excellent knowledge sake of Christ Iesus my Lord▪ for whom I haue counted all things losse, and do iudge them to be dung that I might win Christ. For so it is, that morall workes, whether of Iewes or of Gentiles, are not auailable in the sight of God; they want their forme, and life, and perfection, vntill the same be giuen vnto them by the faith of Christ.Ambr. in psal. 1 Virtutes sine fide folia sunt: videntur virere, sed [...] non [...] Vertues without faith are bu [...] [Page 1096] leaues, saith S. Ambrose, they shew greene, but they cannot profite vs. Therefore the faith of Christ teacheth vs to renounce all trust and confidence thereof, and to trust onely vpon him. This is the perfection whereto Christ calleth this yong man, as if he should haue said vnto him, Thou doest well in that which thou doest, but that is not enough: if thou wilt haue good of it, become my disciple, and to that end be content to forgo all that thou hast, and come and follow me. Where to know how these words do belong to vs, it must be considered that this man was called to a corporall and outward following of Christ according to the flesh, by meanes whereof he must necessarily forgo the vse of those great possessions that he had. Thus the Apostles had partly done already, and were afterwards fully and wholly to do, being to be corporally employed to preach the Gospell through the world; & thus Christ calleth this yong rich man to do the same. But our following of Christ now cōsisteth not in changing of our places, but in giuing him our affections, neither is performed by the foote but by the heart, neither is it a matter of speciall dutie belonging onely to some, but vniuersally concerneth all that belong to him. As is then our following of Christ, so is our selling of all that we haue, a matter of the heart and affection, whilest in the midst of all that we haue, we haue our minds so vntied & free from the loue and respect of worldly things, as that we are ready to forgo all when the cause of Christ and his Gospell shall require vs so to do. And this M. Bishop out of their owne grounds must be forced to confesse whether he will or not. For by Bellarmine we vnderstand, that to be a Monk isBellar. de Monach. cap. 2. Status Episcoporum est status perfectionis adeptae: status religiosorum est status perfec [...]ionis acquirēdae. a state for the gaining of perfection, but to be a Bishop is a state of perfection already attained, and therefore that perfection already attained standeth without literal or actual selling of all, because their Bishops may be rich, and many of them are so richFrasm. in epist. Hieron. ad Heliodor. in antidoto. Quid dicemus de [...]et egregijs Episcopis qui vel cū regibus certare possunt opulētia? as that for wealth they are able to compare with kings. If these Bishops were formerly Monkes, how do they keepe their vow of doing perpetually that which Christ speaketh of in this place, vnlesse it be so meant as I haue said; to say nothing that these are notable fellowes to tell vs of a perfection in renouncing the world, and yet of a perfection too in returning afterwards to the world againe. If they were not Monkes, as a number neuer were, and yet attaine to a state of perfection, then it is not necessary to perfection literally to sel and to forsake all, but it is sufficient according [Page 1097] to our construction, habitually in disposition and affection to be ready thereto if cause require. Yea M. Bishop himselfe will confesse, that it is not a thing necessary for vs for the obtaining of eternal life, literally & actually to forsake all. But it was put to the yong man as a necessary condition literally to be performed for the obtaining of eternall life, as before was shewed. The words of Christ therfore are not literally to be applied vnto vs as they were to him. To be short, Gulielmus de sancto Amore very truly against M. Bishops vow of beggery expoundeth the words of Christ concerningHospin. de Orig. Monac. lib. 6. ca. 17. ex Antonino. Mandatū esse ibi paupertatem habitualem non actualē flagitare Christum à nobis non vt iā omnia abijciamus quae habemus, sed vt cùm confessio diuini nominu et gloriae Christi postulauerit, tum propter eum omnia deserere parati simus, &c. habituall not actuall pouertie: namely, that Christ requireth of vs not forthwith to cast away all that we haue, but that when the confession of the name of God and the glory of Christ requireth, then we be ready to forsake all, euen as when Christ requireth of his followers the hatred of father and mother, and of their owne soule, he doth not simply bid not to honor their parents, much lesse to hate them, but that occasion so requiring they be ready for Christs sake to neglect all. Now this dutie concerneth all, and therefore the words of Christ in application to vs do belong to all, and are very falsly abused for the establishing and defending of Monkish vowes, which are peculiar to some, and if men list may without sin be none at all, as M. Bishop himselfe hath before made plaine vnto vs. But he is content to tell vs that the words concerne all, yet as a counsel only, not as a commandement; they are a heauenly counsell (saith he) giuen generally to all. But this is not so; they were a commaundement giuen to him to whom they were giuen, as M. Bishop himself a litle before hath termed them, & as they concerne vs, they are a commandement to vs also. The yong man sinned in refusing to do that that Christ directed him, and it is sinne to vs not to do that that herein is intended concerning vs. If S. Anthony and S. Austin in that sort tooke it to be said to them, they did rightly therin; but otherwise if Christ did not say to them, Come and follow me, in the same sence wherein he spake to the yong man, then they had no reason to think that Christ said to thē, Go sell all, in the same sence that he did to him. If their coming to Christ, & fellowing of him were a matter not outward but inward, thē their selling all was to be a matter not outward but inward, vntill the following of Christ by loue & affection with in, could not stand with the keeping of those things that are without. As for Ieroms reproof of Vigilātius, it moueth vs litle in a cause that by the text it self is cleere & plaine. [Page 1098] His choler and heate in those matters that were questioned betwixt S. Austin and him, do bewray that he could not endure that any man should dislike what he approued. He calleth Vigilantius in another place, a holy Priest, and we find not that he hath said any thing but what standeth with the holinesse and truth of the word of God, and we approue that which he here saith, thatHieron. aduers. Vigil. Asseru eos meliùs facer [...] qui vtūtur rebus fuit & paulatim fructus possessionum suarū pauperibus diuidunt quàm illos qui possessionibus diuendit [...] semel omniae largiuntur. they do better who vse their owne goods, and by litle and litle deuide the fruites of their possessions to the poore, then they who sell their possessions, and giue all at once. These make Christ a great feast for once, and leaue him afterwards to hunger and thirst, but the other haue care continually to minister comfort and reliefe vnto him. As for Hieromes distinguishing of degrees, we admit not of it, because it hath no ground in the text which he alledgeth, yea and so much the lesse, because in the church of Rome it selfe, as hath bene shewed, the state of perfection, which is the highest degree, standeth with the enioying of those goods, to the forsaking whereof Hierome attributeth that perfection.
23. W. BISHOP.
I might confirme this former argument with the example of the foresaid best Christians, Acts 4. who hauing possessions & lands, sold all, and brought the price of them, and layd it at the Apostles feet: and more yet enforce it by the fact of Ananias and Saphira his wife, who hauing sold all theirs, presented but part of the money vnto the Apostles, and reserued the rest vnto themselues. Belike they were of M. Perkins his mind, that it is better to giue then to receiue, and therefore kept part to that purpose; but they therefore were both punished with present death: which proueth inuincibly, both how laudable it is to sell all, and how dangerous to halt in such holy workes.
But to auoyd prolixitie, I do but point at the places: and that Ananias, as the rest had promised this to God (which is a vow) it appeareth in the text, where it is said, that he lied not vnto men, but vnto God, in not performing his promise.
And here we deduce very cleerly, that such a vow is much pleasing vnto God, thus: That which▪ is commended by our Sauiours owne both example and doctrine, and was practised by the Apostles and most holy Christians, that may be vowed very laudably: but to sell all, and giue it to the poore, is such.
R. ABBOT.
It cannot be proued, neither doth the text say, that those foresaid best Christians sold all that they had. Let him take his owne Rhemish translation, and tell vs which way he can make good that which he saith.Acts. 4.34. As many as were owners of lands or houses, sold and brought the prices of those things which they sold, and laid it before the feete of the Apostles. The text saith, they sold and brought the price of that they sold; it saith not that they sold all, and brought the price of all. Philip was one of them, and yet Philip had hisCap. 21.8. house still, and I hope M. Bishop will not thinke but that he had something in his house also, wherewith hee gaue entertainment to Saint Paul, and those that were with him. And who doubteth but that the rest kept their dwelling houses furnished for their owne vse, and for the vse of other godly and faithfull brethren, as occasion should serue? So it is said of Barnabas, thatCap. 4 37. whereas he had a field or a peece of land he sold it, but it is not said that he sold all. So Ananias and Saphira Cap. 5.1. sold a possession, or a peece of land, but they are not said to haue sold all that they possessed. And whereas Maister Bishop saith, that the same Ananias and his wife made a vow, because it is said thatVer. 4. they lied vnto God, he talketh idlely. They lied vnto God, because they pretended to bring the whole price of that which they sold, when they brought but a part thereof. But those other faithfull Christians did that which the common state and necessitie of the Church did then require. Many poore doubtlesse were then conuerted to the faith of Christ, who being now ioined to the Church, could expect no reliefe but from the Church. They therefore who had wherewith to relieue the necessity of such, were to testifie their faith and loue, by communicating & imparting to them of that they had. Here was no matter of Monkery; it was an example of the common fruit that should be of true Christianity and piety, whensoeuer like occasion should require. He sheweth not himselfe a liuely and feeling member of the body of Christ, who in the publike want of the Church, cannot find in his heart to dispossesse himselfe of somewhat for the succour and comfort of other members. Letting these things briefely passe as M. Bishop doth, let vs see what argument he collecteth of these examples. That which was commended by our Sauiours own both example and doctrine, and was practised by the Apostles [Page 1100] and most holy Christians, may be vowed very laudably. But to sell all and giue it to the poore is such. We denie his second proposition, because it pronounceth that absolutely and simply, which in the other proposition is vnderstood respectiuely onely, and with exception.Hieron. ad [...]. Iouin. lib. 2. Antisthenes venditis quae habebat & publicè distributis nihil sibi quàm palliolum reseruauit. Antisthenes the Philosopher, who was maister to Diogenes, sold all that he had, as Hierome mentioneth, and made publike distribution thereof. So doth the same Hierome mention a sect of Philosophers called Idem in Math. cap. 10. Bactroperitae, contemp [...]ores seculi, & omnia pro nihilo ducētes cellariū secum vehebant. Bactroperitae, who were contemners of the world, and set all things at nought, onely carying a bagge or wallet with them, and yet these did not that which Christ commended, or the Apostles practised. Christ hath commended it, and the Apostles and faithfull Christians by their practise haue taught it, when it concerneth vs necessarily for the following of Christ; when the commandement of Christ and his cause and Gospell doth require it. But to do it voluntarily and of our owne heads, when no such cause requireth it, it is not a matter of commendation with Christ, but of our owne superstitious and fond presumption. The former way we may lawfully and laudably vow it, yea and we do all vow it in our baptisme, to forsake all rather then to forsake Christ; to keepe nothing, the keeping whereof should keepe vs away from Christ. But when the hauing of our wealth hindereth not, but that in mind and affection we may follow Christ, and keepe our selues faithfull vnto him, then to vow the relinquishing thereof, is a superfluous and rash vow, no seruice of God, but a pleasing of our owne fancie, and no where commended by Iesus Christ.
24. W. BISHOP.
Now one word of obedience before we end this question. This vow saith M. Perkins, is against Christian liberty, whereby we haue granted vs a free vse of all things indifferent, and therefore to be bound to certaine meates and apparell is intollerable: but this reason hath bene reproued already: Gal. 5.10. he addeth, Stand fast in the liberty wherein Christ hath made you free: Doth your breath or heart faile you Sir, that you stop thus in the middest of a sentence, the rest belike discouereth the fraud of it: And wrap not your selues againe in the yoke of bondage, to wit, bind not your selues to the obseruation of Moses law, as yee shall do if ye be circumcised. All this is good; but doth it follow hereof, that in the [Page 1101] law of grace, we should not obey our superiours, nor obserue such good orders as holy Church hath approued? nothing lesse: but happy is that necessitie, as Saint Augustine witnesseth, which holdeth vs close to those things which be better to do, than to leaue vndone, otherwise our weaknesse would quickly shrinke backe. And againe, if Christes sufferings without his obedience (as M. Perkins himselfe testifieth, Pag. 61.) had not bene auaileable for our iustification, no doubt, but those workes which are garnished with the vertue of obedience, are more acceptable in Gods sight.
Finally, M. Perkins saith, that wee magnifie these three vowes of chastitie, pouertie, and obedience. And good reason haue we so to do, as hath bene shewed: but saith he, for the vow of Baptisme, we haue made no such account of it, as they do; which is not so. We hold indeede that the couenant which we make in Baptisme, is no vow, but a full and assured promise to beleeue in God, to renounce the diuell and all his workes, and to keepe all Gods commandements, which we keepe or do our best indeuour to keepe; at least wee teach not as the Protestants do, that they are impossible to be kept, for that is enough to discourage any man from endeuouring to keepe them. And as touching the vow which he saith we made in our creation, wee remember nothing of it, nor neuer heard speake of it by any good author, not that we make, or meane we any vowes when we receiue the B. Sacrament. These be but nouelties of words, and the rauing of some decayed wits.
R. ABBOT.
Christian liberty hath not onely set vs free from the rigour and curse of the law, but also from the yoke of externall obseruations, that is, from placing religion and holinesse, the worship and seruice of God, and from reputing cleannesse or vncleannesse towards God in any externall or outward things. Concerning this liberty against the Monkish vow of obedience, M. Perkins alledgeth the Apostles words,Gal. 5.1. Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made you free. Here Maister Bishop being somewhat pleasurable, asketh: Doth your breath or heart faile you, Sir, that you stop thus in the midst of a sentence? Why, I pray, what is the rest of the sentence? And wrap not your selues againe in the yoke of bondage. And what meaneth that? Marry binde not your selues to the obseruation of Moses law, as ye shall doe if ye be circumcised. And was it [Page 1102] then the meaning of the Apostle, that they should not wrap themselues in the yoke and bondage of Moses law, which was giuen of God, but they might wrap themselues in the yoke and bondage of the lawes of men? Did God ease vs of his yoke, to giue men libertie to yoke vs againe with their deuises? What an idle exception is this of his, and why doth he not remember, that the Apostle maketh this instruction generall against all yokes of humane imposition, where he saith,1. Cor. 7.23. Ye are bought with a price; be ye not made the seruants of men. S. Austine lamenteth it as touching the condition of his time, thatAug ep [...]st. 119. Ipsam religionē quā paucissimis & manifestissimu celebrationū Sacramentis misericordia Dei esse liberā voluit seruilib [...]s oneribus premunt vt tolerabilior sit conditio Iudaec [...]ū qui etiamsi tēpus libertatis nō agnouerint, legalibus tamen sarcinis non humanis praesumptionibus subijciuntur. whereas the mercy of God would haue religion to be free, hauing very few, and those very manifest Sacraments or mysteries of obseruations, men did so oppresse it with seruile burdens, as that the state of the Iewes was more tolerable, who albeit they knew not the time of liberty▪ yet were subiect to the burdens of the law of God, and not to humane presumptions. It is plaine then by S. Austines iudgment, which therein is very true, that the liberty of Christian faith and religion, is not onely from the burdens and yokes of Moses law, but also from all burdens of humane presumptions, and therefore M. Bishops answer is very vnsufficient to our obiection. The vnsufficiencie whereof will the better appeare in considering the other place alledged by M. Perkins and omitted by M. Bishop, Col. 2.16.20. Let no man iudge you in meate and drinke; why are ye led with traditions or decrees, Touch not, tast not, handle not? which all perish in the vsing, being after the doctrines and commandements of men. By which words he plainly sheweth, that by the liberty of Christ no rules may be set downe, whereby men should be iudged in conscience about meates and drinkes, about touching, tasting, handling, or any thing decreed by the doctrines and precepts of men. And what doth he then but thereby condemne all Monkish institutions, whereby the consciences of men are burdened and intangled with so many obseruations about meates, drinkes, apparell, and other matters reckoned as a purchase of the forgiuenesse of sinnes, and the merit of eternall life? This cannot be auoided but that since the doctrines and cōmandemens of men as touching meats & drinks, and such other things be condemned therefore Friar Frauncis & his fellow Dominicke, with the rest of them, were superstitious hypocrites to prescribe rules, and to require obedience to be performed vnto them in such things. Yea, and let M. Bishop be reckoned with them, who setteth such [Page 1103] before vs vnder the name of superiours to be obeied, and calleth those good orders which the Apostle reiecteth because they are but mens traditions, and nameth that a holy Church, which contrary to the Apostles doctrine approueth such orders. As for that which S. Austine saith,Aug. epist. 45. Foelix est necessitas quae in meliora compellit. Happy is the necessity that compelleth to the better, it is true where the thing is good whereto we are compelled, but vnhappy is the necessity whereby wee tye our selues to those things which are superstitious and offensiue vnto God. Where he saith, that if Christs sufferings without his obedience had not bene auaileable for our iustification, no doubt but the works which are garnished with the vertue of obedience, are more acceptable in Gods sight, he notably plaieth the hypocrite, to make Christes obedience to his father, a cloke for their Friarly obedience to superstitious and absurd men. It is true indeede which S. Austine saith, thatAug in Psal. 70. Nihil tam expedit animae quàm obedire. there is nothing so expedient for the soule as to obey, but it is then true, when we obey them who according to God are to be obeied.Origen. in Cā tic. hom 2. Ornamentum & monile ceruicis ecclesiae obedientiae Christi est. The obedience of Christ, saith Origen, is the ornament and iewell of the Churches necke, and therefore in Christes behalfe we are to obey none, but onely them in whom we obey Christ. We are to obey them whoMath. 28.20. teach the things which he hath commanded, not those things which they themselues haue deuised.Tertul. de praescript. Nec ipsi (Apostoli) quicquam ex suo arbitrio quod inducerent elegerunt. The Apostles, saith Tertullian, gaue themselues no liberty to bring in any thing of their owne will, and we are to follow none but such as haue followed the Apostles to deliuer faithfully Christes words, not presumed rules and orders of their owne inuention.Ibid. Sed ne eligere quod aliquis de suo arbitrio induxerit. We are not, saith he, to chuse (or follow) any thing, which any man of his owne discretion hath brought in. Mathew of Paris telleth a story ofMath. Parisan Henr. 3 anno. 1227. Friar Frauncis, that when he deliuered his rule to the Pope to be viewed and confirmed, the Pope considering the same, and beholding the deformed condition of the man, bid him get him to the swine, & wallow with thē, and bestow his paines to preach to them. The Friar presently went where swine were, and tumbled himself amongst thē, and frō top to toe beraied himself all ouer with mire and dirt. In this habite he goeth to the Pope againe, saying, My Lord I haue done as thou commandedst, I pray thee now to hearken to my request. The Pope admired the man, and being sorie for that he had said to him, granted him the confirming of his rule. Were not here two fooles well met, and may we not make it a question whether was the greater foole, whether the Friar [Page 1104] for so doing, or the Pope for approuing that which he did? Yet this brain-sick and drunken trick of a dirty beast goeth with M. Bishop for a vertue of obedience, and was one of those worthy acts, for which of a Friar he became a Saint. Such is the rest of the obedience that their vow tieth thē to, euen to a number of mad & witlesse fancies, such as that a man may well think thē to be bewitched of Satan, in that they place deuotion & holinesse in such toies. We leaue their obedience to thē, & not only of these absurdities, but of those other matters which carie some better shew of sobriety & grauity, we say as S. Ambrose hath said,Ambros. de Virg. lib. 3. Nos nou [...] omnia quae Christus nō docuit, iure dānamus quia via fidelibus Christu [...] est. Siergo Christus non docuit quod docemus nos illud detestabile iudicamus. We iustly condemne all new things which Christ hath not taught, because Christ is the way for faithfull men. If Christ haue not taught what we teach, we hold it worthy to be detested. Now therefore let them magnifie their three vowes whilest they wil, but because Christ neuer knew them for his, we cōdemne them as superstitiously deuised, & blasphemously maintained to the iniury and wrong of the crosse. We magnifie the vow of baptisme as the onely Christian vow, approuing no other vowes but what are implied & contained therein, because therein for the whole course of our life we vow & dedicate our selues wholy vnto God. M. Bishop saith, that that is no vow but a full and assured promise, and yet in the former section he hath told vs, that to promise to God is a vow. We vow our selues therein to the keeping of Gods commandements, and we endeauour to keepe them, and by the grace of God we attaine to the keeping of thē, but yet so as that we know it to be one of Christes commandements to say daily vnto God,Aug. cont. 2. epist Pelag. lib. 3 ca. 7. Ita dixerim, mandata f [...]cerunt vt ipsa mandata memi nerimus pertinere ad orationē in qu [...] veraci [...]or quotidie dicunt sancti fi [...]ū promissimis fiat voluntas tua &, D [...]miti [...] nobis, &c. Forgiue vs our trespasses, because we do not so keepe his other cōmandements, nor can so keepe them in the infirmity of this flesh, but thatIam. 3.2. in many things we offend all. This we teach, and this is so true, as that M. Bishop himselfe in his owne conscience is forced to subscribe it, and yet by a wilfull spirit of contradiction bendeth himselfe to dispute against it. The vow of baptisme we alwaies renew in receiuing the Lords supper, because therein we professe our selues to be of his retinue, and renew the promise of being holy vnto him. As for that which Maister Perkins saith of a vow made in our creation as touching our obedience to God, in what meaning he spake it, I cannot determine. There may be nouelty in the word, but1. Tim. 6.20. prophanenesse which is the thing that the Apostle condemneth, there is none. He might suppose Adams promise thereof before his fall, or the bond and [Page 1105] duty arising of our creation, whereby we are no lesse tied then by a vow. Of his termes of rauing and decaied wits, we will leaue him to consider further, presuming that one day he will thinke that in all this matter he hath but raued, and that his wits were not right in taking vpon him the defence of so bad a cause.
CHAPTER 9. OF IMAGES.
OVr consents. We acknowledge the ciuill vse of Images, M. Perkin [...]. as freely & truly as the Church of Rome doth. By ciuill vse, I vnderstand that which is made of thē in the cōmon societie of men, out of the appointed places of the solemne worship of God: And this to be lawfull appeareth, because the arts of painting and grauing are the ordinances of God, and to be skilful in them is the gift of God, as the example of Bezaleel and Aholiab declare. Exod. 35. This vse of Images may be in sundry things. First in adorning and setting forth of buildings; so the Lord cōmanded his Temple to be adorned with Images of Palme-trees and Pomegranates; of Buls, Cherubs, and such like. Secondly, they serue for distinction of coyns. Thirdly, Images serue to keepe in memory friends departed whō we reuerence, & therfore in the daies after the Apostles, Christians vsed priuatly to keepe the pictures of their friends departed; which afterward (saith he) by abuse came to be set in Churches and worshipped, of which hereafter.
Second conclusion: We hold the historicall vse of Images to be good and lawfull: that is, to represent to the eie the acts of Histories, whether they be humane or diuine; and thus we think that the histories of the Bible may be painted in priuate places.
Third conclusion: In one case it is lawfull to make an Image, to testifie the presence or effects of the maiestie of God; namely, when God himselfe commands it: so was the brazen Serpent made to represent Christ crucified, Iohn. 3. and the Cherubs ouer the Mercie seate, to represent the maiestie of God, whom the Angels adore: And therefore it is said: Thou shalt not make to thy selfe (that is vpon thine owne head) any grauen Image: This by the way is a very wilfull peruerting of those words (to thy selfe) which cannot signifie, but, to thine owne vse, that is, to adore them, as is plainly declared in the text following.
The fourth conclusion: The right Images of the new Testament, are the doctrine and preaching of the Gospel, wherin Christ and his benefites [Page 1106] are liuely represented vnto vs: but these be metaphoricall Pictures, not belonging to this purpose: for it is one thing to describe in words, another to expresse in liuely colours and lineaments.
1. W. BISHOP.
These conclusions containe, as M. Perkins affirmeth, the doctrine of the Church of England; which I would beleeue, if I did not see the Magistrates publikely to take away Pictures from Catholikes, to teare and burne them, which were kept but in priuate places: yea, their more feruent disciples cannot abide a Crosse standing by the high-way-side, or in any, neuer so prophane a place, but either they beat and hale them down, or most despitefully deface them: bewraying indeede vnto all moderate men, their cankred stomakes against him that died on the Crosse: who will one day (when he pleaseth) confound them. But to couer this their malice, they cast ouer it the mantle of zeale, saying that the Papists make them their Gods, and that therefore they are to be abolished.
O men blinded with spite against true deuotion. We Catholikes are a thousand times more zealous of the true honour of the liuing God, than any Protestants euer were or will be: And that small reuerence which we yeeld vnto Images, is more different from the honour and obedience due vnto Almighty God, than the cope of heauen is distant from the center of the earth.
R. ABBOT.
They say the diuell neuer goes away but he leaues a stinke behind him. M. Bishop as it appeareth, had giuen ouer this worke at the question of satisfaction, but better remembring himselfe, he tooke the matter in hand againe, and then would by no meanes giue ouer till he had left vs this stinke of Images. This is one of the grosse and palpable abhominations of the kingdome of Antichrist, the filth whereof there is no man but seeth, saue onely they2. Cor. 4.4. in whom being vnbeleeuers, the god of this world hath blinded their mindes, that the light of the glorious Gospell of Iesus Christ, which is the Image of God, should not shine vnto them. By this the Church of Rome hath matched all the idolatries of the heathen, and brought all their iugling deuices into the Church, abusing the ignorance and simplicity [Page 1107] of the people as grossely and damnably as euer they did. But in this field I haue walked at large before inSect. 12. answer of the Epistle to the King: and therefore I will here tye my selfe to those things which Master Bishop giueth vs occasion to consider of. M. Perkins in his third conclusion affirmeth a lawfulnesse of making Images, to testifie the presence and effects of the maiestie of God, when God himselfe hath so commanded, as he exemplifieth in Moses his making of the brazen serpent in figure of Christ crucified, & the Cherubin set ouer the mercy seate, God there promising his presence, and signifying the attendance of Angels to do him seruice. Concerning this point Tertullian being vrged by idol-makers with the example of the brasen serpent, answereth very rightly:Tertul. de Idol. Benè quod idem Deus & lege vetuit similitudinem fieri, & extraordinario praecepto serpentis similitudinem interdixit. Si eundem Deum obserues, habes legem eius. Ne feceris similitudinem Si & praeceptum factae posteà similitudinis respicis, & tu imitare Mosen. Ne feceris aduersus legem similitudinem, nisi & tibi Deus iusserit. It is wel that the same God both did forbid by law, that any likenesse should be made, and by extraordinarie commandement did appoint the likenesse of a serpent. If thou worship the same God, thou hast his law, Thou shalt not make the similitude or likenesse of any thing: if thou looke to the cōmandement of making a similitude afterward, do thou imitate Moses, do not against the law make an image, vnlesse God command thee also. God giueth not lawes to himselfe but to vs: what he commandeth to the contrarie by his owne authoritie, is no iustification of our presumption. For this cause M. Perkins obserueth, that in the commandement it is said: Thou shalt not make (TO THY SELFE) any grauen image: to thy selfe, that is, (saith he) vpon thine owne head, or vpon thine owne will and pleasure. M. Bishop saith, that this is a wilfull peruerting of the words, which cannot signifie, but to thine owne vse, that is, to adore. Thus he cannot abide that they should be restrained from doing somewhat of their owne heads, and at their owne will: it is death to them to be hedged from that walke. Yet Moses gaue it for a lesson from God,Deut. 12.8.32 vulg. Hoc tantū facito Domino. Ye shall not do euery man what seemeth good in his owne eyes, What I command thee that onely do to the Lord; thou shalt put nothing to, nor take ought therefrom. Whereby it appeareth, that M. Perkins exposition containeth a truth, that to the Lord, or by way of seruice to God, no image might be made but what God himselfe commaunded, neither doth the text declare any thing to the contrarie, but that that is the true meaning of the words which he expoundeth. In his fourth conclusion he saith, that the right Images of the new Testament, are the doctrine and preaching of the Gospell, and all things that by the word of God do thereto appertaine, [Page 1108] wherebyGal. 3.1 [...] Iesus Christ is described before our eyes, as the Apostle saith, euen as crucified amongst vs. This (saith he) is an excellent picture whereby Christ with his benefites is liuely represented vnto vs. These are Metaphoricall pictures, saith M. Bishop, not belonging to this purpose. But why doth he admit that which M. Perkins citeth out of Origen affirming that Christians haue no other.Origen. contra Celsum lib. 8. Simulachra Deo dicanda sunt non fabrorum opera, sed à verbo Dei dedolata formata (que) in nobis, videlicet virtutu ad imitationem primogeniti totius ereaturae in quo sunt iustitiae, temperantiae, fertitudinis, sapientiae, pietatis, caeterarum (que) virtutū exempla. Hae sunt statuae Deo dicata in animū virtutes exertentium, quibus decētèr honorari credimus omniū huiusmodi statuarum archetypum primū, &c. The images to be dedicated to God are not the work [...]s of Carpenters, but hewed by the word of God and framed in vs, namely, vertues to the imitation of him, who is the first borne before all creatures, in whom are the examples of iustice, fortitude, temperancie, wisedome, pietie and other vertues. These are Images dedicated to God in the minds of them that exercise such vertues, wherewith we beleeue the principall of all such Images, the image of the inuisible God, who is God the onely begotten, to be conueniently honoured. He knew no other images lawfull amongst Christians, but onely such as wherein we beare the image of God and of his Son Iesus Christ, but this M. Bishop thought not good to take knowledge of. As for that which he saith, that he beleeueth not our doctrine to be as M. Perkins hath set downe, because the Magistrates publikely take away pictures from Catholikes, and teare them downe and burne them, he must vnderstand that it is nothing to vs, what he beleeueth. Our Magistrates know how to put difference betwixt the lawfull vse of things, & the vnlawfull abuse: they know well how such pictures and images are by Papists turned to Idols, and therefore to shew the detestation of the dishonor that thereby is done to God, they burne them, and teare them, and deface them being found with them, that they may no more be abused to such idolatrie. Where otherwise they are found, and are not subiect to their superstitious and false deuotions, our Magistrates do nothing against them, because they are not offended at the hauing, but at the abusing of them. By reason of those idolatrous fancies, it is, that our more feruent disciples, as he calleth thē, cannot abide a Crosse stā ding by the high way side, or in any other place. They carie therein a true zeale to God, though not alwaies so aduisedly managed as it ought to be. But if any of priuate fancie proceed to the demolishing and destroying of such publike monuments, we approue it not, and they that do it, deseruedly receiue their check. We are well enough perswaded, that they who first began the erecting of those Crosses, did it meerely in the honour of the name of Christ, that where [Page 1109] before had stood the ensignes of false and idoll Gods,Ezec. 16.25. at the head of euery way, there might be lifted vp a trophee and standard as a monument and token of the exaltation of him that died vpon the Crosse. They were farre off from Popish idolatrie: they had learned not to worship that that is made with hands, being conuerted from worshipping stockes and stones, they knew they were not to returne to the same againe: they caried the same mind as did Helena, when she found the Crosse wheron Christ was crucified:Ambr. de obitu Theodos. Regem adorauit non lignum, vtique quia hic gentilis est error & vanitas impiorū sed adorauit illū qui pependit in ligno. She worshipped the King (saith Ambrose) verily not the wood: for this were heathenish error, & the vanity of vngodly men: but she worshipped him that was hanged vpon the wood. But what they erected onely for historicall ostentation of the aduancement of the kingdome of Christ, that Poperie turned to heathenish abhomination, & gaue to the Crosse the honour that belonged onely to him that died vpon the Crosse. In respect whereof publike authoritie hath done that, that seemed necessarie for the taking away of such idolatrie. It hath remoued what contained open and apparant scandall to true religion, and hath left the rest to fall of it selfe, applying it selfe to the rule of S. Austin, Aug. de verb. Dom. Ser. 6. Prius agimus vt idola in eorum cordibus confrin. gamus. We first labour to breake the idols in mens hearts, knowing that where the heart is reclaimed frō idolatrie, it learneth to esteem of things outward as they are. And thus (thankes be to God) men haue now learned to behold Crosses, and go by them without those superstitious opinions and vsages which before haue bene had and obserued towards them. Now where publike authoritie ceaseth, it is not for priuate men to begin againe, neither can it be warranted, that men in shew of zeale cary themselues tumultuously for the reforming of such errors. S. Austin could say of breaking the Pagan Idols,Ibid. Vbi nobis non est data potestas, non facimus: vbi data est, non praetermittimus. Where power is not giuen vs, we do it not; where it is giuen vs, we omit it not. Much more are we to obserue the same rule in those things which are deemed in their originall to haue contained nothing preiudiciall to the faith. Yea & by common experience we see, that by such priuate opposition, beside that it is iniurious to publike gouernment, men do but enkindle the minds of their opposites to a more earnest affecting of those things, which before they haue seemed very lightly to set by. But yet the ground whereupon either publikely or priuately we or any of vs haue bene moued to the defacing of any such superstitious Images, is that which M. Bishop nameth, because the Papists haue made them Gods, & therein [Page 1110] robbed God of that deuotion and seruice which peculiarly belongeth vnto him. Here he cryeth out, O men blinded with spite against true deuotion! but we on the other side giue most humble thankes to God, that by his word he hath giuen vs light to see what true deuotion is, and hath freed vs from their yoke, who vnder the name of Christian deuotion held vs in the bondage of heathenish abhomination. As for them, whether they be zealous of the true honour of the liuing God, their fruites do shew, who in all things, and specially in this matter of Images, carie themselues so contrarie to the expresse word of God. And whereas he saith, that the small reuerence which they yeeld to Images is more different from the honor due to God, then the cope of heauen is distant from the center of the earth, he sheweth that he hath learned of the Iesuites to equiuocate with God, as they are wont to do with men. How doth he call it a small reuerēce which they do to Images, when it appeareth not, but that they do the same to Images that they do to God? They kneele to them, they pray to them, they vow vowes to them, they offer offerings to them, they sweare by them, and yet M. Bishop would make vs beleeue, that there is great difference betwixt the worship that they do to images, and that which they do to God. But forsooth we must thinke that by a mentall reseruation they make a difference, and though all things outwardly seeme the same, yet in mind and vnderstanding they preferre God before their Idols. Thus they wold haue vs to thinke, when as notwithstanding Andradius their great defender of the Councell of Trent, freely confesseth, thatAndrad. Orth. explicat. lib. 9. Non tamen inficiamur hac nos Latriae adoratione Christi praeclarissimam crucem colere & venerari. with the worship of Latria (belonging they say to God onely) they worship the crosse of Christ. Yea Polydore Ʋirgil another of their owne fellowes, hath told vs how they haue obserued this difference:Polyd. Virgil. de inuent. rer. lib. 6. cap. 13. Eò insaniae deuentum est vt haec pittatis pars parùm differat ab impietate Su [...]t enim benè multi rudiores stupidiores (que) qui saxeas vel ligneas, marmore [...]s, aeneas, seu in parteribus pictas varijs (que) coloribus litas imagines colant, non vt figuras, sed perinde quasi ipsae sensum aliqu [...]m habeāt & ijs m [...]gis fia [...]ne quam Christo. & alijs [...]uis quibus di [...]atae sunt, &c. Men are growne to that madnesse (saith he) that this part of pietie is little differing from flat impietie. For there are a many of the more rude and ignorant who worship images of stone or wood, of marble or brasse, yea and painted and garnished with colours vpon the walles, not as figures, but euen as if they had verily sense, and do put more trust in them then they do in Christ or other Saints to whom they are dedicated. We doubt not but he would speake of his owne as fauourably as he could, and therefore we may well conceiue what horrible impiety it was that wrested frō him this confession. There followeth more to that purpose, wherin he sheweth how the masters of that Image-craft [Page 1111] made their profit of it, drawing on the people in that simplicitie to offer richly vnto them, but what he said, he is made now not to say, the Spanish Censors hauing taken order by their Index Expurgatorius, that al that matter in their editions is left out. Thus they take care that their Idolatrie may continue still, prouiding so neare as may be, that nothing may be extant amongst them for the discouerie thereof And hereby it appeareth, that it is but for bashfulnes that M. Bishop telleth vs of so great difference of worship, & howsoeuer he and such other as he is, can pleade for themselues a mental reseruation, euen as the Philosophers and learned amongst the heathen did, yet they suffer the people to run on in this abhomination to worship their Images with as great deuotion, as if they were very Gods.
2. W. BISHOP.
And that these hotter brethren may see what reason Master Perkins had to allow of the ciuill and historicall vse of Images, I thinke it expedient to note here, how in the purest antiquitie, Images were made and respected.
That famous Image of our blessed Sauiour, which the woman cured of the bloudie fluxe, Mat 9. set vp in brasse at Caesarea Philippi, vpon a pillar of stone, is not vnknowne vnto any that haue read the Ecclesiasticall History of Eusebius, Lib. 7. cap. 14. And how God did approue it by giuing vertue vnto an herbe when it did grow to touch the hemme of that Picture, to cure all manner of diseases. Which Image Eusebius himselfe did see standing vntill his dayes, which was 1300. yeares agoe, as he there testifieth as also, that he saw diuers others, namely, of Saint Peter and Paule.
This goodly stature being most memorable both for antiquitie of it, being made our Sauior yet liuing, and for the miracles wrought by that herbe, growing at the foote of it, Iulian the Apostata for malice against our Sauior, caused to be broken downe, and set vp his owne image in the place of us but his was presently with lightning and thunder from heauē consumed into ashes, and our Sauiours, by the Christians carried into their Church, as witnessech Zozomenus.Lib. 5. hist. cap. 20.
Another picture of our Sauiours visage, he himselfe is reported to haue sent vnto Abgarus Prince of Edessa, as witnesseth Metaphastes In vita Constantini, DamasceneLib. 10. de Imaginibus., and Euagrius,Lib. 4. hist. c p. [...]. who doth in the [Page 1112] same chapter rehearse a notable miracle, wrought by the same Image, to deliuer the towne from the sacking of the Persians. And in his fifth booke and 18. chapter, recordeth another miracle done by the image of the blessed Ʋirgin Marie in a prison at Antioch.
The third Image representing our blessed Sauiour, is said to haue bene made by Nicodemus his secret Disciple, which afterward was taken by the Iewes, and in despite of Christ was crucified, and to their confusion, much bloud issued out of it.
This historie is in the worke of S. Athanasius that sound pillar of the Church, intituled, De passione imaginis, and is either his, or some other verie ancient and graue writer: For it is related in the seuenth generall Councell, act. 4.
That Saint Luke the Euangelist drew the picture of our blessed Laedie, is registred by Theodorus Lector 1000. yeares ago, and Lib. 1. collectā. Metaphrastes, In vita Lucae, and NicephorusLi. 14 hist 1, 2..
Tertullian, an author of the second hundredth yeare after Christ, hath left written, Lib. 2. de pudic. that the Image of Christ in shape of a shepheard carying a sheepe on his shoulders, was engrauen vpon the holy Chalices vsed in the Church. In the time of S. Chrysostome, they were so common, that they were caried in rings, drawne on cups, painted in chambers. See Theodoret. in histor. relig. in vita Simeonis Stelitae. August. lib. 2. de cons. Euang. cap. 10. And the 7. Synod. Act. 4.
R. ABBOT.
This Section M. Bishop writeth, neither against M. Perkins nor against vs, but onely against some hoter brethren, indeed against his owne shadow, because I know none that do not allowe of the ciuill and historicall vse of Images. But yet it shall not be amisse to note somewhat as touching some of the examples that he bringeth, because albeit by his owne wordes it appeareth and is true, that they are nothing to his purpose, yet his drift is by such examples of Images, to gaine some credite to their corruption and abuse of them. It is true that Eusebius maketh mention of such an Image set vpEuseb. hist. lib. 7. cap. 17. at Caesarea Philippi by the woman whom Christ cured of the bloudie issue, and that an herbe grewe at the foote of it, which when it grew to a certaine height, cured all diseases miraculously, [Page 1113] but that he himselfe saw it, he saith nor, neither doth he speake of anie religion or deuotion in anie sort done vnto it. If Poperie had then swayed, what a worke would there haue bene about that Image? what pilgrimages, what offerings, what kneeling, what censing, and no end of superstition? But there was no such matter, nor anie manner of seruice done for the honour of it. Of the erecting of that Image Eusebius himselfe there saith:Ibid. Nec mi rum videri d [...] eos qui ex gertibus olim a Seruatore nostro curata suntasta seciss [...], quando & Apostolorum illus imagines, Pauli videl. cet & Petri, con [...] (que) & apsius Christi [...]. tabul [...] colorious depicta [...] ass [...]ruari vidimus quòd veteres ex gētili consuetudine eos quos seruatores put [...]rum hunc in modum honorare solui sunt. It neede not seeme strange, that those of the Gentiles who of old were cured by our Sauiour Christ did such things, for that we haue seene the Images of his Apostles Peter and Paule, yea and of Christ himselfe, kept painted with colours in tables, for that of old they haue bene wont by a heathenish custome thus to honour them whom they tooke to be preseruers and sauiours of them. Where it is duely to be noted, that Eusebins referreth the originall hereof to the Gentiles, to heathenish custome and imitation, not to anie-institution of Christ, or of his Apostles and Euangelistes, or other Pastours and Bishops of the Church. Againe, that which he saith of other Images of Christ and Peter and Paule, he saith as of a matter verie seldome and rare; We haue seene such, saith he, as importing it was no common and ordinarie thing. As for that which M. Bishop maketh the speciall commendation of this Image, which is the herbe growing at the foote of it, it maketh me greatly to suspect, that in the report of it somewhat is amisse: do thou iudge gentle Reader, whether there be not iust cause of such suspition. First Eusebius himselfe reporteth the matter onely by hearesay:Ibid. Domum eius ostendi, beneficij (que) Seruatoris illam collati admirāda trophaea durare serunt, &c Hanc statuā imaginem Iesis habere dicūt, &c Māsit ad nostra vsque tempora, sicut & vinere potest ab ijs qui in illam citatatē commigrant. They say, saith he, that the womans house is yet shewed, and that there continueth a notable monument of the benefite done to her by our Sauiour; they say that the same hath the Image of Iesus. It hath continued euen vntill this time, and may be seene of them that trauell to that Citie. If he had reported this matter as of his owne sight and knowledge, some more reason there had bene to giue credite to it, but he doth not so report it, and therfore we cannot so firmely rest vpon that which he saith. Secondly we so much the lesse beleue it, for that it hath no other testimony but only his hearesay, there being no other of the ancient fathers that giueth vs any record or witnesse of it. M. Bishop citeth Sozomen, making mētion of that herbe also, but he doth it only vpō Eusebius his credit, other proofe or knowledge of it he bringeth none. Now it is [Page 1114] not possible that so famous a testimonie & iustification of the name of Christ should be omitted by Iustin Martyr, by Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Tertullian, Arnobius, Minutius Felix, and others in their Apologies and defences of Christian religion against the heathen: yea in the expounding of the story of that woman in the Gospell, neither Origen nor Chrysostome, nor Hylarie, nor Ambrose, nor Hierome make any mention of such a matter. This I suppose should much weaken the credit and opinion of the miracle by him reported, to say nothing that if any such matter had bene knowne, which could not but be knowne, it is not credible that it could haue stood for the space of those three hundred yeares in so many terrible persecutions, wherin nothing was left vnattempted or vndone to take away all things that might giue any glorie to the name of Christ. Some speech it seemeth there grew afterwards concerning it, at leastwise of the standard or Image which in likelihood stood there, which so soone asSozomen. hist. lib. 5. cap. 20. Iulian the Apostata heard, he sent to haue it taken away, and his owne Image to be set vp in steade thereof. Which being done in despite of Christ, no maruell if by thunder & lightning from heauen God reuenged it, and turned topsi-turuie the Image which that renegate set vp against the name of Christ. Yea we doubt not concerning Popish Idols and Images of Christ and his Saints, but that Gods reuenge shall follow them, who destroy them in contumely & reproch of Christ, and in despight and hatred of his name, howsoeuer they themselues are abhominable also in the sight of God, who are the makers and vsers of them. For he who amongst the heathens so notoriously reuenged the sacriledges that were done to idoll-gods, when they were done to thē vnder the name of gods, will vndoubtedly reuenge the contempts that are offered and done to sacrilegious Idols in the name of Christ, because their malicious purpose is therein directed against Christ himselfe. The tenne tribes being diuided from Iudah, built themselues altars wherewith to sacrifice to God, expresly contrarie to the law of God, who admittedDeut. 12.11.13.14. no altar but in the Temple at Ierusalem, but yet when Ahab and Iezabell pulled downe those altars in contempt of God, and in behalfe of Baal, Elias the Prophet complaineth vnto God:1. King. 19.10. Lord they haue digged downe thine altars. That therfore which Sozomen reporteth of the destructiō of Iulians image, serueth not to adde any credit to Popish Images, if at least it [Page 1115] be true which he alone also reporteth, who in the same place reporteth some other verie fabulous and vaine things. The next example of Images is so much the more impudently alledged, for that in their owne Decrees those two EpistlesDist. 15. cap. Sancta Romana. ex decret. Gelas. 1. Concil. tom. 2. Epistola Abagari regis, ad Iesum Apocrypha: Epistola Iesu ad Abagarum regem apocrypha. of Abgar to Christ and of Christ to Abgar, whence that fable is taken, are condemned for an apocryphall or counterfet deuice. It is to be noted also, thatEuseb. hist. lib. 1. cap. 14. Eusebius mentioneth Abgarus sending an Epistle to Christ, and Christs answer to him, but of this matter of Christs image he saith not one word. The tale it appeareth was then begun, but it was not come to perfection till afterwards Damascen that notable Idol-monger added to it another peece, and to that peece Nicephorus added yet another peece, and so now it serueth M. Bishop and his fellowes for an authentical and good record. As for the miracles that he telleth vs of, they litle auaile with vs, because the one standeth wholy vpon a false ground, and for the other or rather for both, we know that Euagrius sometimes sheweth too little discretion in the entertaining of such tales. The third instance M. Bishop himselfe distrusteth, and naming first Athanasius for the reporter of it, cometh in presently with either it is his, or some other verie graue and ancient writers. And why? for, saith he, it is related in the seuenth generall Councell, namely wherein they seemed euery man to haue put on a vizard vpon his face, that they might not be seene to blush at those leud and shamefull forgeries wherewith they then almost eight hundred yeares after Christ, laboured to set vp the worshipping of Idols and Images, by the instigation and furtherance of a wicked Empresse, vsurping and tyrannizing in the minoritie of her sonne. We shall haue afterwardes further occasion to speake concerning this Councell; in the meane time it is to be vnderstood, thatSigebert. in Chron. anno 765. Sigebert mentioneth this matter of the Image of Christ to haue befallen as the report was, 400. yeares after the time of Athanasius, in the yeare of our Lord 765. at which time much good drinke was in brewing to make men drunke with the opinion of that Idol-seruice which Satan then by might and maine laboured to bring in. Yet M. Bishop so directed by his maister Bellarmine, is not ashamed to cite this as vnder the name of Athanasius, by his name to gaine some credite to a lye. Such another tale doth he tell vs out of Theodorus Lector, and Metaphrastes and Nicephorus, of the Image of the virgine Marie, taken by Saint Luke the Euangelist, of whom we [Page 1116] reade that he was a Physition, but that he was also a Painter we reade not. This matter hath no record at all for sixe hundred yeares after Christ, and we must beleeue it vpon their words who so long after haue deuised it of their owne heads. They come too late to informe vs what Saint Luke did, and because it hath no better witnesse we reiect this also for a lye. The rest I omit, importing onely a ciuill and historicall vse of Images, as M. Bishop propoundeth, which we question not, onely against the seuenth Synod we except as an vnfit witnesse in this cause, which from historicall vse lifted vp Images to be adored with religious and holy worship.
3. W. BISHOP.
This briefly of Images in generall: now a word or two of the signe of the Crosse, which our Protestants haue banished from all their followers: neuerthelesse it cannot be denied to haue bene in most frequent vse amōg the best Christians of the Primitiue Church.
Tertullian hath these words, De corona militis. At euery going forward and returne, when we dresse vs and pull on our shoes, when we wash and sit downe, at the lighting of candles, and entring into our chambers, finally when we set our selues to anie thing, we make the signe of the Crosse on our fore-heads.
Saint AmbroseSerm. 84. exhorts vs to begin all our workes with the signe of the Crosse.
S. Augustine.118. in Joan. What is that ensigne of Christ, which all men know, but the Crosse of Christ, the which signe, vnlesse it be made on the foreheads of the faithfull, yea, on the water by which they are regenerate, and on the Oyle and Chrisme wherewith they are annointed, and on the sacrifice wherewith they are nourished, not one of them are orderly and duly administred. Our Protestants then that haue neither holy Oyle, nor sacrifice to make the Crosse vpon, are in pitifull taking.
But heare also what some of the best Greeke Doctors do say of this same signe of the Crosse.
S. CyrilCatech. 4. agreeth fully-with Tertullian, saying: Make this signe of the Crosse both eating and drinking, both sitting and standing, and walking and speaking, in summe, at all times.
S. BasilDe Spir. sanct. accounteth this making the signe of the Crosse, among [Page 1117] some of the principall traditions of the Apostles.
OrigenHom. 8. in ca. 15. Exod. yeeldeth one reason why we make this signe, affirming that feare and trembling doth fall vpon the euill spirites, when they see the signe of the Crosse made with faith.
S. Gregorie NazianzeneOrat. 1. in Iul. reporteth, that the wicked Apostata Iulian, being frighted with spirits, made the signe of the Crosse, which he had renounced, and yet it deliuered him from them.
S. Chrysostome most largely discourseth of the glorious vse of the Crosse, Orat quod Christus sit Deus. See the place, among an hundred other commendations of it, he hath these wordes: That the heads of Kings are not so decked with their Diademes, as with the signe of the Crosse, and concludeth, that all men striue to passe other in taking to them this admirable Crosse, and that no man was ashamed of it, but esteemed themselues more beautified with that, then with many Iewels, borders and chaines, garnished with Pearle and precious stones.
Heu quantum mutamur ab ipsis: Alas, what a pitifull chaunge is this, that that which was of the best Christians reputed deare and holy, should now be accounted a point of superstition and plaine witchcraft?
By all which we learne, that the best Christians both vsed alwayes and highly esteemed of holy Images, euen from our Sauiours owne dayes, and God himselfe hath by diuine testimonie of miracles recommended them vnto vs, not onely for the ciuill and historicall vses of them, but more to honour them whose pictures they were: for no man in his right wits can denie, but that it is and alwayes hath bene reputed as a great honour done to the deceassed, to erect him an Image, to eternize the memory of his noble acts: as also that it is great incouragement to all beholders of such Pourtraits, to endeuour to imitate their glorious examples. The very sight of the Image of Polemon, a most chast and holy personage, mooued an vnchast woman to change her life, as out of S. Gregorie Nazianzene is relatedSynod. 7. act. 4..
Hauing so great testimonie for the ancient vse of Images, and such manifold commodities by the discreete and holy practise of them, he must needs be furiously transported with blind zeale, that makes warre against Crosses, and burnes holy pictures, as of late the Superintendent of Hereford did in the market place openly.
R. ABBOT.
Of the signe of the Crosse enough hath bene said before in answer to M. Bishops Epistle to the King. We condemne it not being taken as an arbitrarie and indifferent ceremonie, voluntarily vpon occasion accepted by the discretion of the Church, and left free to the like discretion as occasion requireth, either to be wholly relinquished, or the vse thereof to be moderated and abridged without opinion of anie violation or breach of religion towards God. So long as it was kept within compasse of being onely a matter of admonition, a token of profession, and occasion of remembrance of the name of Christ, so long there was no reason for any man to contend concerning the vsing of it. But since it hath growne from being a meere ceremonie, to be accounted as a Sacrament of grace and saluation, an instrument of sanctification and holinesse, containing a spirituall vertue and power of blessing, and ministring inward strength against our spirituall enemies, it hath concerned the godly discretion and wisedome of the Church, to vse due care to redresse those erroneous and superstitious conceipts thereof, which tend to the detriment and wrong of the faith and name of Iesus Christ. We haue receiued no commandement thereof from God, no institution of Iesus Christ, no word or warrant of the Apostles, and therefore being brought in by men, it ought to be subiect to the iudgement of the Church, and not the Church tyed to any bondage of the vse of it. Our Church therefore hath vsed her libertie in this behalfe, and though we denie not but that the signe of the Crosse were in most frequent vse, as M. Bishop saith, in the primitiue Church, yet considering it to be a thing iniurious to the faith and crosse of Christ where it is made a matter of mysticall consecration and blessing, hath discharged vs of it where it was taken in that sence; and yet that we seeme not wholly to explode that which antiquitie hath approoued, hath there retained it where it may carrie no shew of being subiect to that construction. We vse it not to our selues, to our meates and drinkes, to the water of baptisme, to the bread and wine of the Lordes Supper, or any otherwhere where it was vsed with that meaning as in Poperie it was vsed in all these: we vse it in baptisme with the application first intended, and to them which yet know not the vse of it, that that which is done to them may be a remembrance to vs, & to them also [Page 1119] when they shall hereafter know and see the same in others, not to be ashamed of Christ crucified, and of the bearing of his crosse, but with courage and constancie to follow him whose in baptisme we haue vowed our selues to be. We know the Papists themselues are not so frequent in the vse of the crosse in their ordinarie conuersasation, as some ancienter times haue bene, and therefore as they themselues haue done in part, so they must giue vs leaue further also as occasion requireth to relinquish the custome of i [...] [...] as touching the testimonies of antiquitie which M. Bishop alledgeth for the approuing thereof, first Tertullian and Ambrose and Cyril do simply note the vulgar vse of it, which in them and in those times we condemne not; they had their reason for the vsing, and so haue we for the leauing of it. S. Austin goeth further and saith, thatAug. in Ioan. tract. 118. Quod signum nisi adhibeatur siue frontibus credentium, siue ipsi aquae qua regenerantur, siue oleo qu [...] Chrismate vnguntur, siue sacrificio quo aluntur, nihil eorum ritè perficitur. vnlesse the signe of the Crosse be applied to the water of baptisme, and to the sacrifice wherewith the faithfull are nourished, neither of them is rightly or orderly done, but he meaneth rightly or orderly in respect of the order and custome of the Church, not as touching anie ordinance of God, euen as if we would say, that baptisme is not rightly administred with vs without adding afterwards the signe of the crosse, who yet account no religion or holinesse at all in the adding of it, and neither hold baptisme to be the better in the hauing, nor the worse in the wanting of it. The sacrifice of which S. Austine there speaketh, the Protestants want not, howsoeuer in respect of Popish abuse they forbeare the name. He speaketh of a sacrifice wherewith the faithfull are nourished, which is our Sacrament whereof they are communicants and partakers, not the Popish sacrifice where they are onely lookers on. See what hath bene said hereof before inSect. 27. answer of the Epistle to the King. As for Chrisme or holy oyle, as M. Bishop termeth it, spoken of in the same place by S. Austin, the Protestants are in no pitifull taking for the want of it, because they want nothing thereby that Christ hath commanded to be had. The ancient Churches vsed their ceremonies at their discretion.Faber. Stapul. in Dionys. eccles. hierarch. Faber Stapulensis noteth many ceremonies of old time vsed, which are now quite omitted in the Church of Rome. We leaue out Chrisme by the same authoritie whereby they haue left out of their ceremonies so many publikely receiued in ancient time. But so much the rather do we forgo this, that we may not seeme to vphold that abhomination of Poperie, wherby in their coniurations and benedictions [Page 1120] they giue power to these impotent creatures of water, oile, salt, and such other like, to serue for soules health and for forgiuenesse of sinnes, and for resisting the power of the diuell, which are no other but blasphemous deuices, meere illusions of Satan, drawing men to put their trust in these trumperies, that they may neglect true faith and trust in Christ himself.Basil. de Spir. sanct. cap. 27. Vt [...] eos qui sp [...] stum collocarunt signemus, &c. Basil mentioneth the signe of the crosse no otherwise but in baptisme as we vse it. As for his speech of Traditions, what we are to attribute vnto it, hath bene before shewed in the question thereof. [...] Origen do nothing concerne the outward signe of the crosse made with the hand, but the inward signe and print thereof consisting in faith.Orig in Exod. hom. 6. Quid timent demones? quid tremuns? si [...]e dubio crucem Christi in qua in umphati sunt, in qua exuti sunt principatus corū & potestates. Timor ergo & tremor cadent super eos cùm signum in nobis viderint crucis fidelitèr fixum, & magnitudinē brachij illius quod Dominus expendit in cruce. Non te ergo alitèr timebunt nisi videant in tecrucē Christi; nisi & tu poteris dicere, Mihi absit gloriari, &c What do the diuels feare? what do they tremble at? Vndoubtedly at the crosse of Christ, whereby they were triumphed ouer, whereby they were stripped of their principalitie and power. Therfore feare and trembling shall fall vpon them, when they shall see faithfully fastened in vs the signe of the crosse, & the greatnesse of that arme which the Lord stretched forth vpon the crosse. Therfore no otherwise will they feare thee, except they see in thee the crosse of Christ, except thou canst say, God forbid that I should reioyce but in the crosse of our Lord Iesus Christ. This is then the crosse or signe of the crosse where at the diuell is dismayed, euen the faith of Christ crucified, and our glorying and reioycing in him onely, whereby we are inwardly signed and marked to be his. That which Gregory Nazianzene reporteth of Iulian the Apostata we are somewhat doubtfull of, because it may be a matter either misreported or misconstrued. Iulian and his coniurer go into a darke caue to consult with the diuell about getting the Empire. The diuell beginneth after his wonted maner to appeare. Iulian being afraid signeth himselfe with the crosse. The diuell hereupon departeth away. Being brought againe, he departeth againe vpon the same occasion. The coniurer telleth Iulian, that it was not for feare that the diuel wēt away, but because he detested his making of the signe of the crosse. Now the question is, how this matter cometh to be knowne, for here was no bodie but Iulian and the coniurer and the diuell, and we cannot well imagine who should be the true reporter of it. Againe, it is doubtfull whether the historians do make right construction of this accident if it were so. Iulian was a vile miscreant, a wretched caitife, euen a limme of the diuell, and what, shall we thinke that with the signe of the crosse one diuell driueth away another? It is likely that the [Page 1121] coniurer knew well the meaning of the diuell, that it was not for feare that he went away, but onely for that he could not abide that anie that came to aske counsell of him, should make anie shewe of hauing to do with Christ. Whatsoeuer the matter there were, we vndoubtedly resolue, that it is but a mee [...]e illusion of the diuell, to seeme to go away at the signe of the crosse, when in the heart there is no faith or beliefe in the crosse of Christ, as in Iulian there was none. As for that which he citeth out of Chrysostome, thatChrysost. hom. Quòd Christus sit Deus. Neque enim sic regia corona ornatur caput vt cru [...]. &c. the heads of kings are not so decked with their diademes as with the signe of the crosse, our most noble King Iames will confesse no lesse, and we will subscribe the same, that the greatest honour of his Crowne is the signe of the crosse, as an acknowledgement of the Sonne of God that died vpon the crosse. The glorie of pearles and precious stones is mortall and transitorie, but immortall is the glory of that which his Maiestie professeth, by bearing the ensigne of the crosse vpon his Imperiall Crowne. That otherwise the signe of the crosse is not nowe so affected and admired as Chrysostome there describeth, it is partly for that there is not so great occasion thereof now as then there was, when as Christians liued so commonly amongst the heathens: partly for that Poperie hath so intollerably abused it, and by sinister and superstitious fancies and opinions of it, hath put it into the handes of coniurers, sorcerers, witches, charmers, who most damnably haue made it one of the speciall instruments of their diuellish and wicked practises. Now therefore it is enough for vs, that in substance of faith concerning Christ crucified, we agree with the auncient Church: as for the change of an accident or ceremonie, it is not sufficient to put anie difference betwixt them and vs. The house of God ceasseth not to be the same, for taking away a peece of an appentise which hath bene so beaten with wind and raine, as that it is quite rotten, and yeeldeth to the walles neither ornament nor defence. The chaunge therefore ariseth not so much of vs, as of the thing it selfe, which howsoeuer it was aunciently reputed of, yet hath since bene made, though Maister Bishop will not haue it so thought, a point of superstition and plaine witchcraft. The auncient Church would not be thoughtTertul. Apol. c. 16. Qui crucit nos religiosos putat, &c. to make a religion of the Crosse, and Tertullian yet continuing sound, acquitteth them thereof.Minut. Felix in Octau. apud Arnob. Cruces nec colimus nec optamus: vos planè qui ligneos deos consecratis, cruces ligneas vt deorū vestrorum partes forsitan adoratu. We doe no worship to Crosses, sayeth Minutius Felix imitating and more plainely expressing the meaning [Page 1122] of Tertullian, but you, saith he to the Pagans, who consecrate woodden gods, do haply worship woodden crosses as peeces of your gods. Ambrose maketh this the vse of the signe of the crosse, thatAmbros epist. 77. Per momēta singula fronti propria contemptum mortu inscribit, vtpote qui sciat sine cruce Domini salutem se habere nō posse thereby a Christian man euery while writeth vpon his owne forehead the contempt of death, as who knoweth that without the crosse of Christ he cannot be saued. When Iulian obiected to Christians the vse of the Crosse, Cyril maketh no more thereof but this, thatCyril cont. Iul. lib. 6. Pretiosi ligni crucem facimus in memoriā omn [...] boni & omnis virtutu. they made it in remembrance of all goodnes and all vertue. Whatsoeuer they say of the crosse or of the signe of the crosse, they referre it to the faith of Christ crucified, not to the crosse it selfe, but to the inward cogitation of the benefite of his crosse.Iaem in Ioan. lib. [...]. c. 17. Cruce insignita mens coelesti alimonia & Spiritus sancti gratia affatim pascitur, &c. Quisquis oculos animi ad Christū cruci affixum conuerterit, ab omni vulnere peccati ilicò curabitur. The mind marked with the crosse, saith Cyril, is plentifully fed with heauenly food, and grace of the holy Ghost: whosoeuer turneth the eyes of his mind to Christ nailed to the crosse, he shall be forthwith cured from all wound of sinne. They vsed the outward signe onely to turne the minde to the beholding of the crosse of Christ, thereby hoping to receiue comfort and defence. But Poperie hath taught men so to conceiue, as if God had giuen to the signe of the crosse some formal power to do great wōders for vs, & in this sence haue witches & charmers borowed it from thē, as was before said. Yea Popery hath taught men most blasphemously to say to the woodden Crosse:
They haue made the people to worship it, to pray to it, to do to it all manner of religious deuotiō, as if the woodden crosse were to be taken for Christ himselfe. Vpon pretence that he hanged vpon a crosse, they haue attributed that to the crosse which belongeth to Christ only. Consider the prayer which they make for consecration of the crosse;Oramus te Domine sancte Pater, &c vt dignerus benedicere hoc lignum crucis tuae, vt sit remedium salutare generi humano, sit soliditas fidei, bonorū operum profecius & redemptio animarum: sit solamen & protectio & tu [...]ela aduersus saeua iacula inimicorum, &c. We beseech thee O Lord, holy Father, that thou wilt vouchsafe to blesse this wood of thy crosse, that it may be a sauing remedy to mankind, strength of faith, furtherance of good workes, and a redemption of soules; that it may be a comfort, protection and defence against all the cruell darts of the enemies, &c. This is nothing else but to set vp a blocke or a piece of wood in stead of Christ, and to cause men to say vnto it, Thou art our redēption & saluation, euen as the Israelites said of the golden Calfe,Exod. 32.4. These are thy Gods which brought thee [Page 1123] out of the land of Egipt. These and such other like both impious blasphemies and superstitious fancies, haue caused vs to content our selues with the faith of Christ crucified, and to forbeare the outward ceremony of the crosse, which was of old vsed only as a token of the profession of that faith. For conclusion of this matter of the Crosse thou must note, gentle Reader, that it is but onely a Crosse whereof they all speake whom he hath alledged; of the Crucifix they say nothing. And so indeed they vsed barely the Crosse, but the Crucifixe in those times was yet vnknowne.Beat. Rhen. in Tertul. Apologet. ca. 16. Apparet Crucifixi effigiem sculptilem aut pictam id temporis crucinō solitā addi, &c. Id à gentilibus natum videtur, conniuentibus sanctis patribus vt vel sic ad Christiamsmum pertraherentur. That seemeth to haue growne frō the Pagans, saith Beatus Rhenanus, the fathers winking at it, that so they might be drawne to Christianitie. That which came in by conniuence and winking at Pagan fancy, the Church of Rome hath since taken hold of, and turned it according to the manner of the Pagans to extreame abhomination. Now albeit full little it be which M. Bishop hath hitherto said in the behalfe of his Images, and that vpon so broken and hollow grounds, as that we may thinke him scarsely well in his wits that would build any thing thereupon, yet he is wel perswaded of that he hath said, and telleth vs that we may learne thereby that that yet wee cannot see, that Christians haue alwaies highly esteemed of Images, that God hath recōmended them by miracles, and that not only for the ciuill and historicall vse, but more to honor them whose pictures they were. The signe of the crosse indeede belongeth not to this question, but otherwise what a poore deale hath hee brought vs, lies and all, that serueth any way to iustifie their Popish vsage of Images. He hath told vs of certaine pictures of Christ, and Peter, and Paul, which we also haue; he bringeth but one only example of any standing Image, and that acknowledged to be of heathenish custome, and imitation of Paganisme. The miracles that he reporteth what slender and vncertaine proofe they haue, it appeareth by that that hath bene said. Surely if Popery had bene then in the world, M. Bishop would haue bene able to haue brought vs manie famous authors, and pregnant examples of all Churches for the same which they now do. Many carts are not able to beare the Legends that might be written of Images, and their miracles since the Church of Rome first vndertooke the patronage of them, and shall we beleeue that the ancient Church was of their mind, when there is so scant and silly shew of any authority or testimony for warrant thereof? We may therefore see what a speciall faculty M. Bishop [Page 1124] hath in making a conclusion, and how workmanlike he can build a large house vpon a little ground. But out of that wit which he hath shewed therein, he telleth vs, that no man in his right wits can denie, but that it is, and alwaies hath bene reputed a great honour to the deceased, to erect him an Image to eternize the memory of his noble acts. Where if his owne wits had bene right, he would haue remembred that this of old was a heathenish reputation, but no such honour done to the deceased amongst the people of God. There was no such honor done to Abrahā, and Isaac, & Iacob, to eternize the memorie of their noble acts, not to Moses, nor Iosuah, nor Dauid, nor any other of those holy men. And what, shall we think that Solomon had not his right wits, who in the building of the Temple neglected to set vp Images for all these, to eternize the memorie of their noble acts? This conceipt of Maister Bishops is prophane and foolish, and sauouring wholy of Paganisme, neither do we finde that the holy men of God haue euer reputed this as an honour to be done vnto dead men. Nay, he herein pointeth to the very roote from whence idolatry first sprung. Men being by death depriued of them whom they loued, would comfort themselues by making their pictures and images, thereby to keepe some kind of sight and memoriall of them. Thus the father did by his deceased sonne, and men to them at whose hands they had receiued great benefits, or whom they would seeme in speciall manner to admire. From humane affection they proceeded to opinion and exercise of religion, and whilest they doated vpon the Images of the dead, they would thereby doe some honour and seruice to them. The heart of man being gone astray from God, grew more and more in the liking of this deuice, and the diuell ceased not by all meanes to further the same, vntill he had brought it to the height of all abhominable idolatry, and found meanes to haue deuotion done to himselfe thereby vnder the name of God. Thus S. Austine noteth, thatAugust. cont. Faust. lib. 22. cap. 17. Ex desiderio mortuotum constitutae sunt imagines vnde simulachrorum vsus exortus est, & maiore adulatione diuini honores deferebantur tanquam in coelum receptis, pro quibus se in terris daemoniae colenda supposuerunt & sibi sacrificari à deceptis & per diti [...] flagitarunt. of desire or loue to the dead images were set vp, whence the vse of Idols began, and by greater flattery diuine honours were done to them, as being taken vp into heauen, in steed of whom the diuels here on the earth did substitute themselues, and required of deceiued and wretched men, to haue sacrifice done vnto them. Here of the booke of Wisedome saith: [Page 1125] Wised. 14 13: The vaine-glorie of men brought in Idols into the world. When a father mourned for his sonne that was taken away sodainly, he made an image for him that was once dead, whom now he worshippeth as a God, and ordained to his seruants ceremonies and sacrifices. Here is the originall and effect of that fantasticall deuice which Maister Bishop mentioneth of eternizing the memorie of men, and of their noble acts, by making Images and pictures of them. As for that which he addeth of great incouragement hereby giuen to all beholders of such pourtraites, to indeauour to imitate their glorious examples, they are the glorious words of a vaine man babling his owne conceipts. If God had seene this to be a fit meanes for incouragement to vertue, he would not haue failed to giue to his people a commaundement thereof, neither would he by speciall law haue taken away from them all vse and practise of this incouragement. He telleth vs a tale out of their second Nicene Councell, of a lewd woman reclaimed by the sight of Polemons picture, but hee must bring vs a better authoritie if he will haue vs to beleeue him, because we know it to haue bene the practise of that Councell, to tell their owne lyes vnder the Fathers names. Surely wee must thinke that shee was well prepared before, that by the sight of a picture could be moued to leaue her vitious and vnchast life. Out of doubt amongst all the pictures and Images of their Romish Church, Maister Bishop cannot giue vs one example of the like. But he telleth vs that the manifold commodities of Images, stand in the discreete and holy practise of them, and it is likely that that discretion and holinesse is worne out from amongst them, and for that cause not one Curtizan learneth by the Image of our Lady that which that vnchast woman learned by the Image of Polemon, and so much the lesse for that sometimes some gallant Curtizan is chosen to make our Ladies Image to her likenesse. Foolish vaine man, what discretion can there be in that, in the practise whereof God hath pronounced men to beEsa. 44.19. voide of vnderstanding? What holinesse can be in that which he affirmeth to beIbid. an abhomination? what profit in that which he hath taught vs to beVer. 10. profitable for nothing? what teaching by that which he callethIerem. 10.8. the doctrine of vanity, concerning which he hath said,Habac. 2.19. Woe vnto him that saith to the dumbe stone, Rise vp, it shall teach thee? Which things considered, the Superintendent of Hereford, saith he, but good manners would haue taught him to say, [Page 1126] the Lord Bishop of Hereford did iustly that which he did to take away crosses and pictures from such as make Idols of them, and openly to burne them, not transported therein with blind zeale, but led thereto with mature iudgement and discretion, not being like the Trent and Romish Bishops, who for the most part are like the Idols which they worship, carying a name of that they are not; but a man of learning, and grauity, and wisedome, giuing honour to the place wherein he is, as the place hath done to him.
4. W. BISHOP.
The difference. Now to the points in controuersie, which are three, as M. Perkins deliuereth: The first is, in that the Church of Rome holds it lawfull to make Images to resemble God; though not in respect of his diuine nature, yet in respect of some properties and actions: We contrarily saith M. Perkins hold it vnlawfull to make Images any way to represent the true God. For the second commandement saith plainly, * Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen Image, nor the likenesse of any thing in heauen, &c. The Papists say that the commandement is meant of the Images of false Gods; but it must needs be vnderstood by the Image of the true Iehouah, and it forbids to resemble God, either in his nature, or in his properties and works; for so saith the Romane Catechisme vpon the second commandement.
Answer. This passeth all kind of impudencie, to quote the Romane Catechisme in defence of that opinion, which it doth of set purpose disproue. It teacheth indeede, that the very nature and substance of God, which is wholy spirituall, cannot be expressed and figured by corporall lineaments and colours, and alledgeth the places produced by M. Perkins, to proue that vnlawfull; yet by and by annexeth these words: Let no man therefore thinke it to be against religion, and the law of God, when any person of the most holy Trinitie is purtraited in such sort as they haue appeared, either in the old or new Testament, &c. But let the Pastor teach, that not the nature of God, but certaine properties and actions appertaining to God, are represented in such pictures. If the man be not past grace, he will surely blush at such a foule error. His texts of Scripture are taken out of the same place of the Catechisme, and do proue only, that Gods proper nature cannot nor may not be resembled in any corporall shape or likenesse.
Then Master Perkins returnes to confute the answer made him; that Idols are there only prohibited and saith, that we then confound the first and second commandement. For in the first was forbidden all false Gods which man frames vnto himselfe, by giuing his heart and the principall affections thereof vnto them. (Good) and in the second, (admitting it to be the second) is forbidden to draw into any materiall likenesse, that Idoll which the heart had before framed vnto it selfe, and to giue it any bodily worship: which is distinction good enough to make two seuerall commandements. Now the Romane Catechisme, following Clement of Alexandria: Lib. 6. Stromat. and Saint Augustine Quest. 71. super Exod, and Ep. 119. cap. 11. and the Schoole-doctors in 3. Sent. distinct. 37. doth make two commaundements of the Protestants last, distinguishing desiring thy neighbours wife, from coueting thy neighbours goods, as they do: Thou shalt not commit adulterie, from, Thou shalt not steale; and make but one of the first two, because the former doth forbid inward, and the second outward Idolatry: and the outward and inward actions about the said obiect are not so distinct, as the desiring of so diuerse things, as a mans wife for lecherie, and his goods of couetousnesse: And yet besides, adde another reason very probable, that the reward and punishment belonging alike to all the Commandements, cannot in good order be thrust into the middle of them, but must be placed either with the first or last. Now comprehending the two former in one, the reward is annexed conueniently to the first; whereas, if you make them two, it is out of order, and without any good reason put after the second. This I say, not to condemne the other diuision, which many of the auncient writers follow: but to shew how little reason Maister Perkins had to trust to that answer of his, that we should confound the first and second, which he saw the very Catechisme cited by himselfe, doth make but one of both.
R. ABBOT.
M. Bishop doth much amisse here to put M. Perkins to the blush for an ouer-sight, as touching the Romaine Catechisme, and therin very ill prouideth for himselfe, who in his owne booke hath scarcely written one leafe, wherein there is not cause for himselfe to blush. Verily, he hath little cause to be so angry with M. Perkins, for thinking better of the Romaine Catechisme then it doth [Page 1128] deserue; he onely pointed at it in a marginall note by memory, which oftentimes deceiueth the carefullest man. Albeit it may be that M. Bishop and I are both deceiued, and so is it very likely, that by ouer-sight of the writer or the printer, the marginall note is put after, which should be applied to the words before. The Papists say the commandement is meant of the Images of false Gods. But the point of question is, whether it be lawfull to make an Image to represent God. We say it is not lawfull, because God hath wholy forbidden it, when he saith, Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen image, &c. That hereby God forbiddeth the making of any Image to him, we proue, for that God after the giuing of the law, aduertiseth his people by Moses, as to declare the intent of this commaundement, that thereforeDeut. 4.15. they saw no image in the day that the Lord spake vnto them in Horeb out of the midst of the fire, because they should take heede vnto themselues, not to corrupt themselues by making them a grauen Image, or representation of any figure. Againe, by the Prophet Esay he expostulateth the matter with idolaters saying,Esa. 40.18. To whom will ye liken God, or what similitude will ye set vp vnto him? M. Bishop answereth, that those texts do proue onely that Gods proper nature cannot or may not be resembled in any corporall shape or likenesse. But if these places proue onely this, what do they proue more then the heathen idolaters themselues freely confessed, such at least as were of any capacity or discretion amongst them. They knew their Images to be but corruptible things, hauing beginning and end, and therefore that they could not expresse the nature and condition of the Godhead, which they knew to be immortall. Hermes Trismegistus as Cyrill alledgeth, said, thatCyril. cont Iulian lib. 1. Jncorp [...]reum corpore significare impossibile, & perfectum imperfecto cōprehendere non possibile, & sempiternum conferre cum momentaneo d [...]fficile. it is impossible to signifie the incorporeall God by a body, or by a thing vnperfect to comprehend that that is perfect, or to compare that that is eternall, to that that is but for a moment. Zenophon a follower of Socrates, acknowledgeth thatMinut. Felix in Octa. apud Arnob. Zenophō Socraticus formā Dei veri neg ac videri posse, & ideò queri non oportere: Aristo Chius comprehendi omninè non posse: vter (que) maiestatem Dei intelligendi desperatione senserunt. the forme of the true God cannot be seene, and therefore is not to be enquired of; as also Aristo Chius, that the same cannot be comprehended. They both, saith Arnobius, perceiued the maiestie of God by despaire to attaine to the vnderstanding of him. Antisthenes the Cynicke affirmed, thatClement Alexand. in pro [...]ept. Antisthenes dicit Deum nulli esse similem; quare eum nemo potest discere ex imagine. God is not like to any, and therefore that no man can learne him by an image. So doth Euripides for the notifying [Page 1129] of God vse these words;Ibid Qui cuncta cernu, ipse sed nō cernitur. Who seeth all things, and himselfe is not seene. Plato saith:Ibid. Vniuersi huius pa [...]rem & effectorem & inuenire diffi [...]ile est & cùm inueneris fieri non potest vt enuncies. It is hard to finde out the father and maker of the world, and when thou hast found him, it is vnpossible to declare him; yea he saith further, thatCyril. cont. Iul. lib. 1. De vno Deo Plato dixit nomen illi nullum congruere, ni (que) humanam cognitionem posse cō prehēdere, sed appellationes quae de ipso dicuntur à posterioribus esse, abusiue (que) de ipso dici. no name is fitting to him, and that no knowledge can comprehend him, and the names that are giuen him are taken of after-effects, and abusiuely spoken of him. It were infinite to alledge all that might be here brought, to shew that the Pagans and Heathens tooke the proper nature of God to be incomprehensible, and therefore made not their images as to expresse the deitie, but onely as signes and shadowes fitting the condition and state of men. And if the heathen idolaters conceiued thus, much more are we to think so of the Iewes, that they well vnderstood that the maiestie of the immortall God could not be set forth by the figure or forme of any creature. What, when they madeExod. 32.4. the golden Calfe, and worshipped it, doth M. Bishop imagine them to be such Calues, as to thinke God himselfe to be like a Calfe? They knew their Calfe could not set forth the proper nature of a Calfe, and therefore must needes be farre off from thinking that it could resemble the proper nature of God. So was it likewise as touching the Calues that were set vp at1. King. 12.28. Dan and Bethel; they were set vp as visible signes at which they should worship God, but neuer did they think that the proper nature of God was described or resembled by thé. As the Romanes at first worshippedClem: Alexand. in protrept Romae antiquitùs statuā Martis fuisse hastā dicit script [...] Varro. Mars their God of battell by a speare, not because they thought him to be like a speare, but because the speare imported his property and act, so the Iewes worshipped God by a Calfe, not thinking him to be like vnto it, but thereby onely to betoken him, who by the Oxe in the tillage of the ground, ministreth bread for the sustenance of the life of man. Now therefore Maister Bishop yeeldeth vnto them a good Apology and defence of all their idolatry committed in these Calues. For they had to say for themselues, that they trespassed not the commaundement of God, because they did not intend by their Images to resemble the proper nature of God, but did onely represent him in his effects, which the cōmandement forbiddeth not. But this deuice serued not the turne, neither did the people of God euer dreame that by this distinction they might take liberty to fet vp anie Image vnto God. Yea, and therefore doth Moses tell them, as before was alledged, that they saw no image in the day when the [Page 1130] Lord spake vnto them, because they should make none, no not to represent him in his properties and actions, because the appeared in no such. Therefore doth he by the Prophet disclaime the likening of him, and the setting vp of a similitude vnto him, because he will no way be likened, nor will haue any similitude to represent him in his properties and effects. Therefore Origen telleth Celsus the Pagan,Origen. cont. Cels. lib. 3. Communis sensus cogitare nos iubet nō delectari Deum hoc honore imaginum quae effigiem eius aut significationem reprasentent aliquam. that common sence doth will men to thinke that God is not delighted with honour of images made by men, to represent his likenesse or any signification of him, yeaIbid. li. 7. Quis [...]anamentis non rideat eum qui post egregias illas et valde Philosophicas de Deo siue dijs disputationes statuas respicit et aut preces eis offeri aut per earum contemplationem tanquam signi a [...]euius cōspicui cenatur animū [...]rigere ad imaginationem intelligibilis numinis? who, saith he, that hath his right wits will not laugh at him, who after those excellent and very philosophicall disputations concerning God or the Gods doth looke to Images, and either offereth praiers vnto them, or by the contemplation thereof, as of some visible signe goeth about to lift vp his mind to the cogitation of God thereby to be vnderstood? Thus he wholy explodeth all vse of Images for any signification of God, or any representing of him, as thereby to be remembred or vnderstood of vs. We may not therefore so vnderstand the commandement of God, as to leaue men at liberty to cō mit idolatry, and to hold themselues sufficiently excused, for that they meane not by their Idols to resemble the proper nature of the Godhead. But they further tell vs, that God by that commaundement forbiddeth onely Idols, that is as M. Bishop expoundeth, either Images that are taken for Gods, or Images of false Gods. So then take away false Gods, and here is no forbidding of Images at all: they shall be a part of the religion and worship of the true God both in himselfe and in his Saints, onely we must take heede that we do not admit by them any false God. Thus they circumcise and pare the commandements of God, and force them by their constructions into such compasse, as that they may do what they list, and yet not seeme to be within any checke of them. But to this M. Perkins answereth, that this should be to confound the first and second commandement, the one forbidding all inward, the other all outward idolatry, which M. Bishop acknowledgeth to be distinction good enough to make two seuerall commaundements, and yet will not be content to rest vpon that distinction. He will not condemne it, but yet neither will hee commend or follow it, because he well knoweth that it condemneth them of hainous impietie and sacriledge against God, for that they then in their ordinarie Primmers and Catechismes, do wholy leaue out one of Gods cōmandements, [Page 1131] and cannot denie but they do so. Now they haue some colour for that they do, as setting downe but a briefe and the capitall matter of the commaundement; but if that distinction be admitted, they haue nothing to excuse themselues of leauing out the whole commaundement. And thus they do indeed to the vttermost of their power suppresse and conceale this second commaundement; and whereas they cannot preuaile but that some will be reading, yet they so order the matter that they shall take no knowledge of that in their reading, least thereby they grow to any dislike or suspition of their idolatry. But the distinction of those two commandements is manifest, God in the one condemning all false gods, in the other all false worship, as namely, in making any image vnto God, or in way of deuotion & seruice to him, or the image of any other thing whatsoeuer, to yeeld thereto, or otherwise without an image to yeeld to the thing it selfe any part of deuotion and religion, which is a thing belonging to God onely. And we cannot doubt but that there is one commaundement for preseruing the externall worship of God entire and pure, to which as to the head (these ten commandementsPhilo Iud. de Decalog. Leges sunt & capitae legum particularium. being not onely lawes but also heads or capitall points of particular lawes, as Philo well noteth) all the particular lawes as touching that matter of the worship of God are to be referred. Which because they cannot be taken to be contained in any of the other three commandements, therefore we must necessarily take this as a distinct commaundement to which all those particulars must belong. And thus the Iewes, whose testimonie in this behalfe is of great moment, took them to be distinct, as appeareth byIoseph. Antiq. lib. 3. cap. 4. Primum praeceptum Deum esse vnum & hunc solum; colendū: secundū Nullius animalis simulachrū adorandū. Sic Philo de Decalogo. Iosephus and Philo, reckoning the first commaundement, that there is one God, and he onely to be worshipped: the second, that no image of any creature is to be adored. In the same sort doth Athanasius distinguish them,Athanas. in Synop. Exod. Primum est. Ego sum Dominus Deus tuus. Alierum. Non factes tibijpsi simulachrū &c. The first is, I am the Lord thy God: the second, Thou shalt not make to thy selfe an image or any likenesse. Origen saith, thatOrigē in Exod. hom. 8. Haec omnia nonnulli putant vnum esse mandatū. Quòd si ita putetur, nō complebitur decē numerus mandatorū, & vbi tam erit Decalogi veritas? some tooke those two commandements to be one; but if we so take them, saith he, we shall not make vp the number of ten cōmandements, and where then shall be the truth of the name of the Decalogue, namely, which signifieth ten commaundements? He saw well that there can be no reason of deuiding the last commaundement as we reckon it into two; and therfore that there can be but nine vnles we distinguish the two first in such sort as hath bin said. But the Romane catechisme M. Bishop [Page 1132] telleth vs doth otherwise, following therein the diuision of Austine and Cl [...]mens Alexandrinus, deuiding the Protestants l [...]st commaundement into two. Where we see the course that they follow in the vse of the Fathers writings, namely, that howsoeuer they professe to stand to the generall accord and agreement of them, yet if some one or two varying from all the rest doe serue their turne, they leaue all the rest, and the matter shall go with them. As for the Schoole-doctors, M. Bishop did but put them in to fill vp the roome; for little reason is there that the streames of our religion should be taken to runne out of puddles that haue bene so lately digged, and as well might he haue named himselfe and his fellowes as haue named them. But by reason he will make it good, that there is more reason to confound the two first commaundements, then to make one of that which we call the last; because the first forbidding inward, and the second outward idolatry, the outward and inward actions about the same obiect are not so distinct as the desiring of so diuers things, as a mans wife for lechery and his goods of couetousnesse. Which reason of his is alreadie ouerthrowne by that that hath bene said of the difference of two first commandements. For thereby we see that as God and the worship of God are two distinct things, so the commaundements must be diuers which instruct vs to conceiue of our dutie in respect of both. The first commandement requireth of vs an acknowledgement of one true God; the second requireth the true worspping of him. A man may acknowledge one onely God, and that he onely is to be worshipped according to the first commandement, and yet breake the second commandement by worshipping him amisse, as by setting vp an image whereby to worship him, which he there forbiddeth to be done. Therefore those termes of inward and outward idolatrie, do not sufficiently distinguish those two commaundements, because the first commaundement is broken by outward idolatrie, in the outward professing and following of any false god; and there is inward idolatry against the second commaundement in the inward framing of idol-seruice vnto the true God. Here is then very materiall ground of difference betwixt the first and second commandement, but a silly reason is it to alledge a difference of things coueted and desired, to make thereby a diuision of the last commaundement. The thing there forbidden is lust and concupiscence [Page 1133] as the roote and fountaine of all sinne and wickednesse, and therefore the Apostle setteth downe for the whole effect of that commaundement,Rom. 7.7. Thou shalt not lust, and calleth it oftenVer. 8, 9, 10. the commaundement, the commandement, as to note that it is but one commandement which saith, Thou shalt not lust. He exemplifieth lust in the commandement by some obiects, leauing the rest to be vnderstood; but if we wil deuide the cōmandement of lusting, because the things are diuers that are lusted after, there must be a necessitie of making more commandements, because as there are lusts tending to couetousnesse and lechery, so there are also that tend to disobedience, to murther, to lying and slaundering, and such like, and therefore by M. Bishops reason there should be so many seuerall commaundements against lust. But to shew that that diuision which they follow is not good, we may note that whereas they make the ninth commaundement, Thou shalt not couet thy neighbours wife, and the tenth, Thou shalt not couet thy neighbours house, &c. which order may not be broken if we will deuide the commaundements as they do: Moses himselfe doth alter the same, and setteth it downe as it was first endited thus,Exod. 20.17. Thou shalt not couet thy neighbours house, thou shalt not couet thy neighbours wife, nor his seruant, &c. as it was after repeated thus,Deut. 5.27. Thou shalt not couet thy neighbours wife, thou shalt not couet thy neighbours house, nor his seruant, &c. and by so indifferent placing of those two branches, infallibly prooueth that they are not two commandements but one only. If M. Bishop wil not yeeld this, we would know how he will order the commandements, as in the twentith of Exodus they were first deliuered from the mouth of God? If he will make the ninth commandement, Thou shalt not couet thy neighbours house, then he must say that the ninth and tenth do both serue to forbid the coueting of our neighbours goods. If he will not say so, he must accord with vs that those two which they deuide are but one commaundement, and therefore that which they make but one, must be deuided into two. His other reason is of the same moment as the former, that reward and punishment belonging alike to all the commaundements, must be placed either with the first or with the last. But Maister Bishop considereth not, that there is a punishment or threatning annexed also vnto the third commaundement, and yet it is no argument to say, that therefore it must be the first. [Page 1134] Againe, hee considereth not that God annexeth that promise and threatning to the second commaundement, not for the order but for the matter of it, to moue his people so much the more attentiuely to regard it, as giuing to vnderstand that it most highly prouoketh him, to haue the honour that belongeth to him giuen to stockes and stones, and that men should fall downe to the workes of their owne hands. And this the Scripture most plentifully teacheth vs, that God in so high manner detesteth this aboue other sinnes, as that for thisRom 1.24.26.28. he giueth men ouer to their owne hearts lusts, to vile affections, to a reprobate sense, to do those things that are not conuenient, that by all filthinesse and vncleannesse they may dishonour themselues who haue in so base and vile sort dishonored him. Very pregnant example whereof we haue in the Church of Rome, which since it gaue entertainment to this idolatry, hath made it selfe a verie sinke of sinne, stinking and lothsome both to Christians and Infidels, neuer ceasing running headlong from one corruption to another, from one wickednesse to another, vntill it had made vp a full measure of all abhomination, and became according to the words of S. Iohn, Iohn 18.2. an habitation of diuels, the hold of all foule spirits, and a cage of euery vncleane and hatefull bird. Now therefore God knowing how prone and readie his people were to this grosse idolatrie, whereof they presently gaue example in worshipping the golden Calfe, giueth them a speciall warning in this behalfe, telleth them that he is a ielous God; and thereby signifieth, that as the ielousie of the husband cannot endure that the wife vnder any pretence yeeld the vsage of her body to another, nor can be satisfied by hauing it answered to him, that she doth it not as to her husband, but onely as to her husbands friend, and for loue to her husband, so he cannot brooke the communicating of his worship vnder any pretence to idols and images, to blockes and stones, nor taketh it for answer that we account them not as gods, but do it thereby to honour God, but most seuerely reuengeth this filthy polluting of the religion that is due vnto him. This is the cause of annexing the threatning to this second commaundement; and very simply doth the Romane Catechisme gather thereof the confounding of it with the first.
5. W. BISHOP.
But M. Perkins goeth on and saith, that our distinction betweene Image and Idoll (that an Image representeth a thing that is, but an Idoll a thing supposed to be but is not) is false and against the auncient writers, who make it all one. We proue the contrary, first by the authoritie of the ancient Doctors, OrigenHom. 8. i [...] Exod. and TheodoretQu. 38. in Ex., who in expresse words deliuer the same difference of Image and Idoll, which is taken out of S. Paul,1. Cor. 8. saying that an Idoll is nothing in the world, that is, such idols as the heathen take for their gods, are nothing formally, that is, though they be great peeces of wood or stone materially, yet they represent a thing that is not, that is, such a thing to be a god, which is nothing lesse. Let M. Perkins but quote one place in the whole Bible, where they are vsed both for one.
I will cite some, where if you vse the one for the other, you must offend all good Christian eares: as where a man is said to be made after the image of God, may you say after the idoll of God? Christ is said to be the image of his Father; will you call him the idoll of his Father? Surely he cannot denie but the seuenth generall Councell holden about nine hundred yeares past and gone, is so farre off from making Image and Idol all one, that it doth accurse all them who call the image of Christ and his Saints, Idols.
But TertullianDe Jdolol [...] (saith M. Perkins) affirmeth them to be all one: not so neither: for he maketh Idolum a diuinitie of eidos, which signifieth a forme or similitude: so that Idolon is but a small similitude or slender image, not so much for the quantitie, as for that it representeth but darkely.
Eustathius an excellent Greeke interpreter, vpon the eleuenth booke of Homers Odissea, describeth Idolum to signifie a vaine and vanishing image, as the shadow of a man, a ghost, or phantasticall imagination. And so it cannot be that all prophane Authors vse these two words indifferently, seeing both in proper signification, and by the declaration of the learned there is great difference betweene them.
But Saint Stephen cals the golden Calfe an Idoll, so it was indeed: What is that to the purpose?
And Saint Hierome sayth, that Idols are the images of dead men, [Page 1136] (adde) that are taken for gods: True, many Idols be Images: all such as truly represent any person that was once liuing here, but no Images be Idols, vnlesse it be taken for a god: And so Idols requires besides the Image, that it be made a god, or the image of a false god.
R. ABBOT.
Here is nothing but fraud and falshood, and a ridiculous shifting of the commaundement of God, by an idle distinction of Idols and Images. They tell vs that the second commaundement forbiddeth Idols onely and not Images, when as in truth euery Image to which deuotion or worship is performed, is no other but an Idol. The word [...] in Greeke signifieth originally the same that Imago doth in Latine, that is, an image, forme or shape, as appeareth by the vse of the word generally amongst all prophane authors. But by Ecclesiasticall vse, the signification thereof is restrained, and it is made the proper name of those Images to which any religious seruice or deuotion is done. The name of an Image then continueth more general in signification, noting euery forme or likenesse of any thing described or shaped to whatsoeuer purpose or intent, as is the Princes Image vpon the coyne, and the likenesses of men, beasts, birds, trees, flowers, wherewith embroderers, painters, grauers, caruers adorne and beautifie their workes, and in a word euery impression and forme whereby one thing carieth the resemblance of another. The Image then of it selfe is but an Image, and seruing barely to resemble any creature, it hath no offence in it, but adde worship vnto it and spirituall deuotion, and it becommeth thereby an Idoll, and the deuotion that is done vnto it is idolatry, that is, the worship of an idoll. Howsoeuer therefore the words originally are in meaning the same, yet because the custome of the Church hath appropriated the one to speciall signification, we accordingly distinguish them; in such sort notwithstanding as that where the name of Image implieth that for which an Image is called an Idoll, as in this question of Images it doth, there we take an image and an idoll to be the same, and no difference betwixt them. But the truth of this matter will appeare in examining the particulars which here M. Bishop hath set downe for the iustifying of their Idols. The difference [Page 1137] that he maketh betwixt an Idoll and an Image is this, that an Image representeth a thing that is, an Idoll representeth a thing supposed to be, but is not. Where I pray thee (gentle Reader) to marke wel how handsomly they deale in the contriuing of this matter. An Idol forsooth is a representation onely of such things as haue no being, and the second commandement forbiddeth onely idols; it therefore must be vnderstood to condemne only representations of such things as haue no being. Which being so, we maruell what those words import which are added in the commaundement, The likenes of any thing that is in heauen aboue, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters vnder the earth; or what Moses meant speaking yet more particularly, a Take heed that ye make not the representation of any figure, the likenesse of man or woman, the likenesse of any beast that is vpon the earth, the likenesse of any feathered fowle, the likenesse of any creeping thing, &c. We would know of M. Bishop what it is that Moses here condemneth, whether Images or Idols? If he say Images, then Idols onely are not forbidden by this commandement. If he say Idols, then Idols are not onely representations of those things that are not, because all the things here mentioned haue their reall existence and being in the world. But we can vse no better meanes to circumuent him, then by the authorities which he himselfe alledgeth, where following the example of his master Bellarmine, he referreth his Reader to the places, but setteth not downe the words, because he well knoweth that they fully make against him. First, Origen hauing set downe thatOrigē. in Exod. hom. 8. Longè aliud sunt Idola & aliud dij; & rursū differentiae idolorum et similitudinū Aliud est ergo facere idolū, aliud similitudinem. Siquis in quolibet metallo auri vel argents, vel ligni vel lapidis faciat spec [...]em quadrupedis alicutus vel serpentis vel auis & statuat illam adorandam, non idolum sed simelitudinem fecit, vel etiam sipicturam ad hoc ipsum statuat. &c. Idolū verò facit ille qui secundū Apostolum dicē tem quia idolum nihil est facit quod non est. Quid est autem quod non est? Species quam non vidit oculus, sed ipse sibi animus fingit. Vt siquis humanis membris caput can [...] aut artetis forniet, vel rursū in vno hominis habitu duas facies fingat aut humano pectori postremas partes equi aut piscu ad [...]ngat. Haec & ijs similia qui facit, non similitudinem sed idolum facit Facit enim quod nō est, nec habet aliquid simile su [...], &c. Quae sermo Dei vniuersacomplectens simul abiurat & abijcït & non solùm idolum fieri verat▪ sed & similitudinem omnium quae in te [...]ris sunt & in aquis & in coel [...]. Gods and Idols differ much; and againe that there is difference of Idols and resemblances or images: he prosecuteth the latter in this sort, It is one thing to make an Idoll, another thing to make a similitude or image. If in any mettal of gold or siluer, or wood or stone, a man make the forme of any foure-footed beast, or serpent, or bird, and set vp the same to be worshipped, he hath not made an Idol, but an image or similitude: or if he set vp a picture for that purpose, he is to be said to haue made a similitude: but he maketh an Idoll, who according to the Apostle, saying that an idoll is nothing, maketh that that is not. And what is that that is not? It is a shape which the eye hath not seene, but the mind fancieth to it selfe. As for example, if to the body of a man one frame the head of a dog or of a ram, or to one shape of a man make two faces to a mans likenes so farre as the brest, do adde the hinder parts [Page 1138] of a horse or of a fish. He that maketh these or such like, maketh not a similitude but an idoll. For he maketh that that is not, nor hath any thing like vnto it. All these the word of God comprising together, condemneth and reiecteth, and doth not onely forbid an idoll to be made, but also the similitude of all things that are in the earth, and in the waters, & in heauen. Theodoret imitating Origen, speaketh to the very same effect:Theod. in Exod. quaest. 38 Quî differunt idolum & similitudo? Idolum nihil representat quod su [...]sistat, similitudo verò est abcui [...] imago & effigies. Cum ergo Graeci quidā forma [...] minimè subsistentes effingunt veluti Sphingas, Trit [...] nas, Centauros, Aegyptij verò homines canina facie, babalovè capite tales rerū non subsistentiū fictiones idola vocat, similitudines autem rerū subsistentium imagines veluti Solis, Lunae, stellarum, hominū, beluarū, rep [...]iliū & his similium, quae omnia verat adorare aut (animo) colere. How differ an Idoll and a similitude or likenesse? An idoll representeth nothing that hath being, but a similitude is the image or shape of some thing being. Whē then some of the Greeks do fancie shapes that are not; as Sphinxes, Tritons, Centaures; and the Aegyptians, men with dogs faces or heads of oxen, such fictions of things that are not he calleth idols, but similitudes he calleth the images of things that are, as of the Sunne, the Moone, the starres, of men, of beasts, of creeping things, and such like, all which he forbiddeth to worship, either outwardly by gesture, or inwardly by mind. Thus these authors, the latter of them taking occasion by the former, apply the name of Idols onely to such imagined formes and shapes which haue nothing answerable to them in the creatures of the world, as Sphynx bearing in the face the shape of a maide with wings, and all the rest of the bodie like a Lion; Triton or Dagon being the forepart of a man and the hinder part of a fish; the Centaures being in one part men and the other horses; Anubis hauing an oxe-head to the bodie of a man, and sundry other such like. Now what a trouble would it be to M. Bishop, if the honest man with whom he questionedChap. 3. sect. 2 before, should come to him, saying, Good sir, you asked me a question a while since, I pray let me make bold now to aske you another. What, were all the idols that we heare and reade of such antickes and counterfeits as you tell vs out of these authors, formes and shapes to which nothing in the world hath correspondence? We tooke it that theAct. 7.21. golden calfe which the Israelites made and worshipped in the wildernesse had bene an Idoll, which yet wasPsal. 106.20. the similitude of a calfe or bullocke that eateth hay. So did we thinke of theirEzech. 16.17. Images of men, which the Prophet Ezechiel saith, they made, and committed whoredome with them (which S. Hierome expoundeth to haue beneHierō. in Ezec. lib. 4. cap. 16. Omnia const [...]uit Hierusalem &. vertit in idola Bilis siue Baalis, Chamos, &c. the Idols of Bel or Baal, Camosh, Astaroth and Melchom, and the ordinary glosseGlossa ordin. ibid. of Priapus). And thus we see the author of the booke of Wisedome, bringing inWisd. 14.14.16. a father making the image of his son, and the people counterfetting the visage, and making [Page 1139] the gorgeous image of a king, which he calleth expreslyVer. 11 15. idols, and noteth therein the beginning of them. Thus doth Dauid in the Psalme describe them by the parts and members of mans bodie,Psal. 115.5. They haue mouthes and speake not, eyes haue they and see not; they haue eares and heare not, noses haue they and smell not, they haue hands and handle not, feet haue they and walk not, neither make they any sound with their throte. If these be rightly called Idols, as we suppose they are, we desire (good sir) to know how it standeth good which your authorities report, that the name of Idols belongeth onely to such fantasticall shapes as before are spoken of. The honest man here putteth M. Bishop to a blanke, hauing nothing to say but by the renouncing of his owne authors. For if he say that those be no idols, euery man seeth that he speaketh vntruth: if he say they be, then he contrarieth his owne allegation for himselfe. Now what impudencie is this both in his maister and him, thus colourably to cite the names of Origen and Theodoret, when they themselues well know, that that which they say is contrary to the Scriptures, contrary to the rest of the Fathers, contrary to the perpetuall consent and currant language of the whole Christian Church? But yet (gentle Reader) I would haue thee to question with him somewhat further, What, M. Bishop, are onely Idols forbidden by the second commaundement whereof we speake? Yea, saith he. Yea but your authors, M. Bishop, tell vs, as appeareth by their words before, that not onely Idols which are shapes of things that are not, but also all images and representations of things that are, as of men or any other creatures, are thereby forbidden,Origē. vt supra. Vtrum (que) resecat sermo diuinus, vt nec affectu colas nec specie adores. that neither by mind or affection we worship them, nor by outward shew and gesture bow vnto them; how can it be then which you say, that onely Idols are forbidden? Here M. Bishop is plunged againe, and knoweth not what to say, because his images also which he thought to haue pulled out, are by his owne authors brought within the compasse of the second commandement, so that howsoeuer they seeme to vary from the rest in a curious deuice of the signification of a word, yet for the condemning of Popish idolatry they say the same that all the rest say. The translation which his authors herein follow, is the translation of the Septuagint, Thou shalt not make to thy selfe an Idoll, nor the likenes of any thing, &c. where that which they call idol, is in the Hebrew [...] Pesel, which in many other places they translate [...], [Page 1140] and is the same as in latin sculptile, which importeth a thing carued or grauen to the likenes of any thing, or as we call it a grauen image, so as that Arias Montanus a Papist translateth it,Deut. 5.8. Ar. Mont transl. interlinear [...]. Non facies tibi dolaturam omnis effigiei: Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any carued work of any likenesse. By reason that Idols were for the most part carued or grauen worke, therefore the holy Ghost may seeme to take that word as most common and generall, vnder that, according to custome of speech, to comprehend all the rest, onely adding by way of exposition, or the likenesse of any thing, &c. Yea the words in Deuteronomie being set downe without any particle coniunctiue or disiunctiue, Thou shalt not make to thy selfe a carued or grauen worke the likenesse of any thing in heauen aboue, &c. do plainely argue that those words are added as an exposition, as if he had said, Thou shalt not make to thy selfe Pesel, that is, the likenesse of any thing, &c. The Septuagint therfore respecting that Pesel by vse was grown to signifie generallyDeut. 7.25. & 123 Where by Pesilim, the grauen images of their gods, al maner images of their gods are to be vnderstood. the images of the heathen gods of whatsoeuer kind, would in the Greeke according to the intendment of the commandement set downe a word of the like large extent and signification, and thereto made choise of [...], an idoll, as seruing to expresse all formes and shapes which men set vp to do worship vnto them. And that the most auncient Church conceiued there no otherwise of the name of Idoll, appeareth by Iustinus Martyr, who disputing with Tryphon the Iew, readeth Image insteed of Idoll, saying thatIustin. Maert. dial. cum Tryph. Deus is erat qui per Mosen sanxit ( [...]) nequa omninò fieret vel imago vel similitudo, neque eorum quae in coelo, &c. God commaunded by Moses to make neither image nor similitude either of things in heauen aboue or in the earth beneath. Hereby therefore it appeareth that that which Origen and Theodoret say, is built wholly vpon a false ground, and cannot by any other authoritie be made good. Yet M. Bishop telleth vs that that which they say is taken out of the Apostle, where he saith, [...]. Cor. 8.4. that an idoll is nothing in the world, which Origen indeede citeth to make good that meaning which before hath bene expressed, although seruing nothing at all to that effect. But see here the trechery of this our false and faithlesse Sophister, who making Origen his author, bringeth the words in one meaning when as Origen applieth them vnto another. For Origen when he alledgeth that an Idoll is nothing in the world, meaneth (as we see in his words before) that it is a shape, to which nothing answereth amongst the creatures of the world; for those Sphynxes, Tritons, Centaures, and such like, are meere fancies, [Page 1141] neither is there any such thing at all; but M. Bishop saith, that an idol is nothing, that is, it is no god. It is nothing formally (saith he) that is, though they be great peeces of wood or stone materially, yet they represent a thing that is not, that is, such a thing to be a god which is nothing lesse. But it is one thing not to be, another thing not to be a god; neither can a thing be said to be nothing because it is no god; and therefore very wretchedly doth he peruert the words of Origen by drawing them from things vnderstood simply not to be, to things vnderstood onely respectiuely to be no gods. Yea he hereby ouerthroweth all that Origen there saith, because if by representing that that is not, he meane the representing of such a thing to be a god, which is nothing lesse, then those images and resemblances which he there speaketh of, of men and beasts and birds, set vp amongst the Gentiles to be worshipped, shall be said also to be nothing, and to represent a thing that is not, because they represented such things to be gods which are nothing lesse, which is wholly repugnant to that which Origen hath set downe. Thus either Origen and Theodoret both must be taken with one breath instantly to crosse another, or else we must take M. Bishop to be a lewd man, who seeketh to father a bastard vpon them, which is begotten by himselfe. Albeit neither can we approue that construction which O [...]igen maketh of the Apostles words, as if an idoll were onely a representation or forme to which there is nothing correspondent in the world. For who is ignorant, that the idols of the Gentiles were for the most part the images of men, and set vp in the names of men deceased, in the like sort as Popish images? Thus Tertullian vpbraideth the Pagans, that in their owne Tertul. Apolog. cap. 10. Prouocamus ad conscientiā vestrā, &c. illa nos damnet si poserit negare omnes istos deos vestros homines fuisse, &c. testimonium perhibentibus & ciuitatibus in quibus na [...] sunt, & regionibus in quibus aliquid operati vestigia reliquerunt, in quibus etiam sepulti demonstrantur. consciences they knew well enough that the gods which they worshipped were but men, that it was to be proued in what places they were borne, where they had liued, and left remembrance of their workes where they were buried. Therefore he telleth them of their custome of making gods,Cap. 11. Quos ante paucos dies luctu publico mortuos sunt confessi, in deos consecrant. They consecrate them for gods whom a little before by publicke mourning they confessed to be dead. Thus did parents take vpon them to honour their owne children that were dead before them, asLactan Instit. lib. 1. cap 15. ex M. Tull. lib. de consolat. Approbantibus dijs immortalibus ipsis in eorum caet [...] locatam ad opinionem omnium mortalium consecrabo. Lactantius sheweth that Tully did his daughter. Thus did the louer to his beloued, as did the Emperour Adrian to his paramourOrigen. contra Cels lib. 3. Antinous, building a temple to him, and causing him to be worshipped. So did the children consecrate their parents, asLanctant. vs supra. Bacchus, Apollo, Mercury and Pan did their [Page 1142] father Iupiter, and their children afterward the like to them. And thisCypr. de Jdolo. vanit. August. de ciuit. Dei. lib. 8. cap 5. Cyprian and Austine note to haue bene reuealed to Alexander the great as a great secret by Leo an Egyptian Priest, that not only their petite gods Hercules, Aesculapius, Romulus, and such like, but also those of the higher ranke, Iupiter, Iuno, Saturnus, Ʋesta, Vulcanus and the rest were but men and women to whom such honors had begun to be yeelded after they were dead, it being by custome receiued when men were renowned either for strange acts or good deserts, to honour them as gods when they were dead, by setting vp their images, and doing sacrifice and deuotion to them. Hereupon Lactantius saith, as noting the most vsuall shape and forme of their idols,Lactan. Instit. lib 2. cap. 18 Simulachra quae colunt effigies sunt hominum mortuorum. The idols which they worship are the shapes or images of dead men. Yea they who conceiued better of the conditiō of their gods, acknowledged thatM. Tull de nat. deor. lib. 1. Quis [...]aem caecus in contemplandis rebus vnquam fuit, vt non videret species istas hominum [...]ollatas in deos aut consilio quodem sapientū quò facili [...]s animos imperitorum ad decrum cultum à vitae prauitate coo [...]erterent, aut superstitione vt essenisimulachra quae venerantes deos ipsos se adire crederent. the shapes of men were applied vnto them, and that either by the aduice of wise men, that they might the more easily turne the minds of ignorant men from naughtinesse of life to the worship of the gods, or of superstition, that there might be images which the people comming to should beleeue that they came to the gods themselues. It is plaine therefore that Origen erred in vnderstanding the Apostle, to say that an idoll is nothing, that is, a shape fitting to nothing in the world, because idols were most commonly the shapes of men, and set vp as popish images in remembrance and honour of dead men, supposed for their merits and good deserts to be aduanced to heauen. And in this respect S. Austine preferred the Pagans and heathens before the Manichees, forAugust. contra Faust. li. 20. ca. 5. Pagani colunt &c. quae sunt, sed prodijs colenda non sunt, &c. Vos ea colitis quae omninò non sunt, sed vestrarū fallaciū fabularum vinitate finguntur. the Pagans worship things that be, though they be not to be worshipped, but you (saith he) worship those things which be not at all, but are fained by the vanitie of your deceitfull fables and tales. The meaning then of the Apostles words, An idoll is nothing, is that which the Scripture elsewhere telleth vs,Esa. 44 10. it is profitable for nothing, chap. 41.23. it can neither do good nor euill, neither saue nor destroy, neither make cleane nor vncleane.August. ibid. Sunt & idola sed ad salutem nihil sunt Es cap. 9. Ad salutem vel aeliquā vtilitatē nihil sunt. Idols are, saith Austin, but to saluation they are nothing: to steed vs or profit vs they are nothing. Chrysosti in 1. Corin homil 20. Sunt quidem, sed nihil possunt non magis intelligūt quā alij lapides. They are, saith Chrysostome, but they can do nothing: they haue no more vnderstanding then other stones. Hitherto then all that M. Bishop saith, is but an Idoll according to his owne construction, making shew to be somewhat when indeed it is nothing. But yet he maketh a further challenge, Let M. Perkins quote but one place in the whole Bible where (an idol and an image) they are vsed both [Page 1143] for one. This he saith, presuming vpon his masters word, and though we quote many places, all wil be one; for he is sworne to his master, and wil be true to him. But if he turne his Bible he shall find Samuel saying to Saul according to their owne translation,1. Sam. 15 23, Quasi scelus idololatriae nollo acquiescere. Not to obey is as the wickednes of idolatry: it should be, is iniquitie and idolatry. The Hebrew word which is there translated idolatry is [...] which their owne latter translator Arias Montanus putteth into the text, but in the margent to expresse the true and proper significatiō of the word, setteth downe imagines, images. The words then literally are, To transgresse is iniquitie and images. Let M. Bishop then tell vs whether an Image here do signifie the same as an Idoll, and be put in place thereof or not, for we thinke that he will graunt that the meaning is this, To transgresse is iniquitie and idols, that is to say, idolatry. Shall we quote any more then one? He shall find then that Micahs god called Pesel, an idoll, as he will haue it translated,Iudg. 18.31. is called alsoChap. 17 5. [...] an Image; and the Israelites are said to destroy2 Kings 11.18. [...] the images of Baal, which their owne translation elsewhere callethIudges 10 6. the idols of Baal: and Ezechiel in one place obiecteth to the IsraelitesEzech 7.20. Tsalmei, the images of their abhominations and of their idols, which in another place he callethChap. 16.36. the idols of their abhominations: and againe he calleth themIbid. Vers. 17. the images of men, which were the idols of Baal, Chamosh, and the rest, as hath bene before said; and the author of the book of Wisdome saith of the Idol,Wisd. 13.16. It cannot helpe it selfe, because it is an image that hath need of helpe: and the auncient Church in the second commaundement for Idol, as the Septuagint translated it, did translate Image, as before I shewed out of Iustinus Martyr. Accordingly the auncient Fathers commonly vse the name of Images concerning Idols, as Lactantius calleth themLactan. Instit. lib. 2. cap. 18. Ipse imagines sacrae, &c. sacred or holy images, and Tertullian Tertul. Apolog. ca. 12. Imagines frigidas mortuorum suorum simillimas non adoramus. cold images like to their dead principals: and of Sidrach, Misach and Abednego refusing to worship the Idoll which king Nabuchodonosor set vp, he saith,Idem de Idolol. Honorē imaginu eius respuerunt. they refused to honour his image. So saith Cyprian of the diuels,Cypr. de Idol. vanit. Sub consecratis imaginibus delitescunt. They lurke vnder sacred or consecrated images: and Austine, August. de ciu. Dei. lib. 8. ca. 24. Daemones per artem nescio quam imaginibus inditi, hoc est, visibilibus simulachris. They, by I know not what art, are put into images, that is, visible shapes or representations. So saith also Minutius Felix, thatMinut. Felix in Octa. apud Arn▪ Quis dubitat horum imagines consecratas vulgus crare? &c. the common people pray to the consecrated images of dead men. It were infinite to alledge all that might be brought out of the Scriptures and Fathers to shew this promiscuous and indifferent vse of the words or names of idols [Page 1144] and images, and putting off the one insteed of the other, Images for Idols, where the circumstance giueth occasion to vnderstand such images to which religious seruice and deuotion is performed. But M. Bishop telleth vs that he can bring some places, where if we vse the one of those words for the other, we shall offend all good Christian eares, as if we should say that man was made after the idoll of God, or that Christ is the idoll of his Father. Where wee may see, that it is much that he can do, and yet when he hath all done, it is nothing to the purpose. What doth he herein but confirme that which I haue before said, that ecclesiasticall vse hath restrained the signification of idoll to be taken in the euill part only of Images superstitiously and sacrilegiously abused, and therefore that it cannot now be so generally applied as originally it might be? And yet further his wisedome should haue considered, that we speake here of images as they are incident to the second commaundement, which are the worke of mens hands, and are set vp for deuotion and religion, and therefore if he would haue spoken pertinently, should haue brought vs an example out of the Scripture, where there is any mention of such an image that is worshipped, which is not also to be called an idoll. If he could shew vs such an example, it made somewhat for their Images, but those which he bringeth are impertinent and auaile him nothing. As for Christ, he is the substantiall image of his Father, and to be alike worshipped with him, and of him S. Austine somewhere saith, thatAugust. Nulla imago Dei coli debet nisi illa quae hoc est quod ipse. Epist. 119. no image of God is to be worshipped which is not the same that God is: and thereby condemneth Popery of idolatry. And if any other image of God were to be worshipped, it should be man, who was created after the image of God, rather then a senslesse blocke that hath onely some outward shape and proportion of a man. But to presse vs yet further with a matter of no waight, he telleth vs that the seuenth generall Councell nine hundred yeares past, doth accurse all them who call the images of Christ and his Saints Idols. He meaneth it of the idolatrous second Nicene councel which wasAn. Dom. 789.almost eight hundred yeres after Christ and about eight hundred yeares past, where he to make it seeme the more auncient addeth almost an hundred yeares. Of this Councell we shall see more in the end, but here it is to be noted in what meaning they pronounce that curse, and how according to that meaning, as men caried with a spirit of giddinesse and frensie they [Page 1145] vtterly circumuent and ouerthrow themselues. If they had meant images simply, we wold accord with them that the images of Christ and his Saints are not to be called Idols, for such images we haue, and thereby shew that we condemne them not. Yea where they are put in the Churches, we say as Charles the great and his Councell said for answer to that Nicene Councell,Lib. Carol mag. contra Synod. pro adorand. imagin. No nos imagines in basilicis pesitas idola nūcupamus sed ne idola [...]uncupentur, eas adora [...]e & colere recusamus. We call not images put in Churches by the name of Idols, but that they may not be called Idols, we forbeare to adore & worship them. But the meaning of that Councell is otherwise, that the images of Christ and his Saints being worshipped, yet are not to be called idols, and in this sence do they accuse them that confound them both in one. Concerning which it is to be obserued that the same Councell amongst sundry other heresiesNicē. 2. Act 7. epist ad Constan. et Iren. Audemus anathentatizare Arij insantam, &c. Nestorij idololatriam in homine. accurseth the idolatry of Nestorius in or concerning the man Iesus Christ. The heresie of Nestorius stood in the deuiding of the manhood of Christ from the Godhead, whereby he made two distinct persons distinctly and seuerally to be acknowledged & worshipped. He made the Godhead only an assistant to the manhood, and more eminently and effectually shewing it selfe in him then in vs, but otherwise no more vnited to the manhood then it is to vs. Therefore he denied that the virgin Mary might be called [...] the mother of God, or that it might be said that God suffered for our sinnes, albeit the Scripture so plainly saith,Luke 1.35. That holy thing which shall be borne of thee shall be called the Sonne of God: and againe,Acts 20.28. Feed the church of God which he hath purchased with his owne bloud. Now because he made a distinct person of the manhood of Christ, and yet acknowledged to worship the man Christ, he was hereby charged to beake the first commandement, Thou shalt haue no other gods but me. Cyril. de rect. fide ad Reg. Legē iguurirritā, &c. Irritā faceremus legem quae vni verè Deo adorationem offeri, vt & sapientiam loquimur &c. Verè homines à cognitione Dei abducit & mundum hominis cultum docet. We should be so doing (saith Cyril) make frustrate the law which giueth worship to one onely who is truly God, and affirmeth that this is to leade men away from the knowledge of God, and to teach the world ( [...]) the worshipping of a man. This is it which that Nicene Councell calleth the idolatrie of Nestorius, which they could not but condemne vnder that name, if they would carrie any countenance of truth, because by the Councell of Ephesus and the Catholicke and godly Bishops (as appeareth by Cyril) it had bene before in that sort notoriously condemned. Here then we say, if the manhood of Christ being taken seuerally and without personall vnion of the Godhead become an idol [Page 1146] (for that the name of idolatry importeth) by being worshipped, what should let but that the image of Christ being worshipped is much more iustly to be called an idoll, which hath no manner of vnion neither to God nor man. In what respect the name of Idoll is so applied, shall be shewed afterwards, but in the meane time we desire to know how it should be Idolatry to worship the manhood of Christ, and yet it should be no idolatry to worship the image of Christ, and as the image of Christ, so the images of the Saints also. We cannot conceiue this point, and therefore we expect M. Bishop, in this behalfe to be resolued by you. Well then, leauing him to demurre vpon it for the sauing of the credit of their Councell, let vs come to the consideration of his next authoritie. M. Perkins alledgeth Tertullian, saying, that euery forme or representation is to be termed an idoll. Not so neither, saith M. Bishop, for he maketh Idolum a diminutiue of eidos which signifieth a forme or similitude, so that Idolon is but a small similitude or slender image, not so much for the quantitie, as for that it representeth but darkely. It seemeth that it was somewhat darke when he looked vpon Tertullian, or that he tooke Tertullian for such a darke author, as that he was loth to trouble himselfe to looke vpon him at all. Tertullian indeed saith, thatTertul. de idol. [...] graecè formam sonat, ab eo per diminutionē [...], deductū aequè apud nos formulam fecit. [...] signifieth a forme or similitude, and that from thence by diminution is deriued [...], which proportionably with vs maketh or importeth a little forme, but by that that followeth he giueth to vnderstand, that as in Latine Paxillus, a naile; figulus, a potter; mandibulum, a iaw, and many other like, so [...] in Greeke is a diminutiue onely in forme and sound, not in the signification and meaning of the word. For he inferreth thus,Ibid. Igitur omnis forma vel formula idolum se dici exposcit. Inde idololatria omnis circa omne idolū famulatus & seruitu [...]. Therefore euery forme or lesser forme requireth it selfe to be called an idoll, and thence is idolatry, which is all maner deuotion and seruice about any such idoll. It is plaine then that he maketh the name of an Idoll to extend to all formes or representatiōs, whether greater or lesser, expresly saying thatNihil interest quale sit, qua de materia, qua de effigie, ne qui pu [...]et id solùm idolū habendum quod humana effigie sit consecratum. it skilleth not what a one it be, of what matter or what shape, that no man may thinke that that only is an idoll which is consecrated in the shape of man. To whatsoeuer forme then or likenes we yeeld deuotion or seruice, we therein commit idolatry, and it is that which properly we call an idoll. But to make this yet more plaine, he addeth further a little after,Omnia colit humanus error praeter ipsum omniū conditorē. Eorum imagines idola [...] consecratio imaginum idololatria. Humane error worshippeth all things saue him that made all The images of those things are idols; the consecration of images is idolatry. [Page 1147] Idols then by Tertullians Iudgement are all manner images set vp to represent either men or any other creatures, and cōsecrated to haue religious duty performed vnto them. And so elsewhere he saith of deifying men by their images after their death;Jdem de Coro. mil. Mortui idolastatim fiunt habitu & cultu cō secrationis. Being dead they are made Idols by their habit and seruice of consecration. It is consecration then or dedication, that of an image maketh an Idoll, and therefore are Idols termed sacred images and consecrated images, as before I haue shewed out of Lactantius and other writers. Hereby then we may conceiue, that M. Bishop surely wrote in the darke, when he set downe Tertullian affirming Idoll to import representing darkly, when he saith not any one word tending to that effect, but leaueth them the same as are the representations of Popish images. Neither doth Eustathius make any more for him then the rest, who when he calleth the ghosts of dead menEustath. in Hom. Odyss. lib. 11 Genus diuinationis Ethnicis vsitatum quo videbant hominum mortuorum idolae obscura & euanida, &c. obscure and vanishing Idols, importeth thereby the large signification of the word Idols, as belonging to all manner shapes and representations, both which are solide, and constant, and abiding, and those also that are aierie, and darksome, and lightly vanish and passe away. For if the word Idols had imported onely such darke and vanishing shadowes, to what end should he adde those Epithetons, the force whereof was alreadie contained in the signification of the word? And if Homer or any other do apply the name of Idols, to fancies, and dreames, and shadowes, it is nothing against vs, who know and confesse that the word [...] in the originall signification, extendeth so largely as to be fitly vsed thereof, euen as the word image may also, as appeareth by S. Austine who of the words of Christ, The sonne can do nothing of himselfe, but what he seeth the father do, &c. saith, thatAug. in Ioan. tract. 19. Quaesi intelligantur secūdum humanū sensum carnalitèr, nihil aliud nobis facit animae plena phātasmatis nisi quasdam imagines velut duorum hominū, patris & filij, vnius ostēdentis, alterius videntis, vnius loquentis, alterius audiētis, quae omnia idolae cordis sunt. if they be vnderstood carnally according to humane conceipt, the soule full of fancies doth no other but frame certaine images as of two men, a father and a sonne, the one of them shewing and the other seeing, the one speaking and the other hearing, all which, saith he, are the idols of the heart. In a word whatsoeuer he can seeme to alledge out of prophane Authors concerning the signification of the word Idoll, it auaileth him nothing, the case standing as I haue shewed, that ecclesiasticall custome of speech hath termed euery consecrated image by the name of an Idoll, neither can hee alledge anie, vvhose testimonie is in this case to be regarded, with whom an Image to which worship is done, is any other then an Idoll. [Page 1148] M. Perkins further alledgeth, that the golden calfe of the Israelites was an Idoll. What is that to the purpose, saith M. Bishop? Very much against that toy of his, that an Idoll is that that representeth a thing that is not; for a calfe is a thing that is, and therfore the golden calfe cannot be said to represent a thing that is not. Yea, but saith he, it represented that to be a God which was nothing lesse. But that is a sophisticall peruerting of the words of his authors, as hath bene before shewed, and being but his owne foolish fancy, what is it to vs? His authorities make only that an Idoll, which representeth in shape a thing that simply is not. Albeit neither will that shift of his rid him frō this obiection; for it is manifest that the Israelites made the golden Calfe to be vnto them a visible signe and representation of the true God, by which they would haue some token of his presence amongst them, and his conducting and guiding of them. By their first propounding the matter, it appeareth that they would haue the Idol in place of Moses, by whom because he was as it were a Mediatour betwixt God and them, they conceiued God to be present with them. Therefore they say,Exod. 32.1. Make vs Gods to go before vs, for as for this Moses which brought vs out of the land of Egipt, we know not what is become of him, making the want of Moses the only cause why they required Gods. When the Idoll is made, they say,Ver 4. These be thy Gods, O Israel, which brought thee out of the land of Egipt. They had said before, this Moses which brought vs out of the land of Egipt, and they knew well that the Calfe being newly made, was not it that brought them out of the land of Egipt. Therefore as they acknowledged Moses only as the minister of that God, by whom they were brought out of the land of Egypt, so they require the Calfe only as a signe and representation of that God by whom they were brought out of the land of Egypt, and only in that sence they say, These be thy Gods ô Israel, &c. Therefore they proclaime accordingly,Ver. 5. To morrow shall be the holy day, not to the Calfe or to any other god but to Iehouah the Lord, which was the proper name of the only true God. And thusAbulens. in Exod. ca. [...]2. q. 7. Deus qui te eduxit. &c. iste est quem hic cerni [...]; id est, in isto corpore aureo laetet eius virtus. Abulensis the great Schooleman vpon that place confesseth, that by the Calfe they intended to worship God, as doth alsoFerus. in Act. [...]ap. 7. Ferus their own Preacher at Mentz, yea and the Romane or Trent catechisme before spoken of, which affirming that to resemble the Godhead by an image, is the breach of the cō mandement, to shew that the Israelites cōmitted this breach inferreth [Page 1149] thus,Catechis. Trideut. in explicat. praecept. 1. Quocirca Israelitae qui ante vituli simulachrū clamabant, Hi sunt dij tut, &c. idololatrae sunt appellati qui mutarūt gloriam suam in similitudinē vituli comedentis faenum. Wherefore the Israelites crying before the image of a Calfe, These are thy gods, O Israel, &c. were called idolaters because they changed their glory (which was their God) to the similitude of a Calfe that eateth hay. Which words are altogether inconsequent, vnlesse it be taken that the Israelites in their Calfe intended the worship of their God. And this appeareth further in the Calues that were set vp at Bethel & Dan, to the worship wherof when Ieroboam would induce the people, he propounded vnto them as Iosephus reporteth it,Ioseph. Antiq. li. 8. ca. 3. Nullus locus Deo est vacuus & is nulla certo loco includitur sed vbi (que) notae exandit & vbi (que) cultores suot respicit. Quare nō placet mihi vos Hierosolyma proficisci religionis ergò, &c. Ega duas vnulas aureas consecravi. alterā in Bethelis, alterā in Dana vt pro locorū opportunitatet ex propinquioribus oppidu ad eas confluentes illie Deum ritè adoretis. that God is absent from no place, nor is included or compassed any where, but as he knoweth all things, so heareth euery where, and euery where respecteth them that worship him; therefore that he liked not that for exercise or religion they should go vp to Hierusalem, but he had consecrated two golden calues at Dan and Bethel, that at either of those places according to their dwelling, they might more neere at hand in due manner worship God. By which words it is plaine, that in the worship of the Calues he made shew of no other, but thereby to worship God, and therefore Iehu destroying the worship of Baal, for the vpholding of the worship of those Calues, vaunteth of2. King. 10.16. the zeale that he had for Iehouah, the Lord, and the Samaritans accepting of the same worship, are said therbyIbid. ca. 17.32. to serue the Lord. Hereby thē it is plaine, that an Idol is not that only which representeth that to be a God which is not, but also that wherein is intended the representation & worship of the true God. Last of al, M. Perkins alledgeth, that Hierome saith that Idols are the images of dead men. Adde, saith M. Bishop, that are taken for Gods; for many Idols be images, saith he; all such as truly represent any person that was once liuing here, but no image is an Idoll, vnlesse it be taken for a God. But that this is very false, it is manifest because the Pagans themselues, at least the wiser sort of them neuer tooke their images to be Gods, yea they scorned them that thought them to be so witlesse as to vnderstand thē so.Origen. cont. Cels. li. 7. Quis nisi sit totus fatuus haec Deos credit, nō dijs dicatas statuas? Who, saith Celsus, vnlesse he be altogether out of his wits taketh them for Gods, and not for images dedicated to the Gods? Ibid. li. 1. Probabile non est inter Deos cēseri nequā artificū et plerū (que) scelestorū hominum opera. It is not probable or likely, saith he, that the works of base artificers & who are oftētimes lewd mē should be reckoned amongst the Gods. So Olympius another Pagan Philosopher, when he saw the people of his part dismaied at the casting downe of their images,Sozom. hist. lib. 7. ca. 15 Hortatur ne à religione deficerent asserēs simulachra & statuas nihil aliud esse quam materiā corruptibilē, ac proinde in nihilū potuisse redigi; inhabitasse autē his virtutes qu [...]s [...]am, & eas iam in coelum auolasse. exhorteth thē not to fall away frō their religion; for as for those images, they were no other but corruptible matter, & therfore might be brought to nought, but there had dwelt in thē diuine powers, and those were now [Page 1150] gone to heauen. Thus Arnobius bringeth them in, excusing themselues, thatArnob. adu. Gent. li. 6. Deos inquitis per simulachra veneramus. by the images they worshipped the gods; and Austine, Aug. in Psal. 85. Jsta non co limus; haec signae sunt. We worship not these things; these are but onely signes. So Athanasius mentioneth that they pleaded for their images, thatAthan. adu. Jdola. A [...]unt tiltusmodi simulachra pro elementis literarum humano generi esse quae num leguni, Dei notitiam condiscere possi [...]t. they serued for letters, which whilest men did reade, they might thereby learne the knowledge of God. Seeing then that the heathen images were Idols, and yet were not holden to be very gods, it is hereby manifest, that an image may be an Idoll, though it be not taken to be a God. If Maister Bishop will say that the multitude notwithstanding tooke the images themselues to be gods, we answer him that so the vulgar people do amongst them also, as before I shewed out of Polydore Ʋirgil, but the heathen were of his minde, to haue their religion esteemed according to the vnderstanding of such wise men as he is. But in the conclusion he will mend the matter, saying that an Idoll requires beside the image that it be made a God, or the image of a false God. So then though it be not taken for a God, yet it must be the image of a false God. Where to omit what hath bene already said for disproofe hereof, by the example of the golden Calues, and to say nothing of Micahs mothers idoll, who saith of the siluer wherewith she would make it, that for that vseIudg. 17 3. she had dedicated it to Iehouah the Lord, therby shewing that she meant to do it as a seruice to the true God, to let these go, I say, we finde Hierome alledging that where we read in Genesis,Gen 4.26. Then began men to call vpō the name of the Lord, Hieron tradit. Heb. in Genes. Pleri (que) Hebraeorū arbitrātur quòd tunc primum in nomine Domini et in similitudine eius fabricata sint idolae. most of the Hebrew writers did so take it, that then Idols were first made in the name of the Lord, & to resemble him. By which testimony it is plaine that the name of Idols belongeth not only to the images of false gods, but to those images also that are set vp in the name of the Lord, and to resemble him. In which sortSynod. Nicen 2. Act. 4. in epist. Germā. Hoc vnū arbitrati non esse Deum ne (que) verū ne (que) falsum nisi cuius idolū formatum videant. Germanus the patriarch of Cōstantinople saith of the Israelites, that they thought him not to be a God neither true nor false, of whom they saw not an Idoll framed before them, plainly calling that an Idoll also which is framed and set vp in the name of the true God. And that this may the better appeare vnto vs, we may obserue that the Idols of the Gentiles were not condemned by the fathers only, for that they were the images of false gods, but vpō supposall that those were truly gods whō they worshipped, yet they dispute against images, as things too base, and vile, and vnfit to be vsed for seruice of thē to whō they would yeeld the acknowledgment of being gods. [Page 1151] Arnob. adu. Gent. lib. 6. Si certū est Deos esse quos remini, at (que) in summis coe [...]i regionibus degere, quae causa, quae ratio est vt Simulachra ista fingantur à vobis, cùm habeatis res certat quibus preces possitis offundere & auxiliū rebus in exigentibus postulare? &c: Quid fieri pote est iniuriosius, cō tumeliosiu [...], durius quàm Deum alterum scire & rei alteri supplicare: opē sperare de numine & nullius sensus ad effigiē deprecari? If it be certaine that those be Gods whō you think so to be, saith Arnobius, and that they dwell in the highest regions of heauen, what cause, what reason is there that you should make these images (or as they wil haue it these idols) seeing ye haue otherwise to whō to pray, & of whō in extremities to request help? What can there be more iniurious, reproachfull, intollerable, then to know one to be God, and to make his supplication to another; to looke for helpe of the diuine power, and to make his praier to a senselesse image? So Lactantius saith;Lactaent. Justitut. li. 2. cap. 2. Quid simulachra volunt quae aut mortuorum aut absentiū monumenta sunt, &c. Si dij absentes esse non possunt, qui quoniam diuini sunt in quacun (que) mūdi parte fuerint vident et audiūt vniuersa, supernacua ergo sunt simulachra illis vbi (que) praesentibus cū satis sit audientiū nomina precibus aduocare. To what end are images which are the tokens either of them that are dead, or of them that are absent? Now if the Gods cannot be absent, who because they are Gods (or of diuine nature) in whatsoeuer part of the world they be, do heare and see all things, then are their images vaine, they being euery where, because it is sufficient in their hearing to pray vnto them by their names. And to this purpose do they obiect vnto them out of their owne bookes the sentences of their owne writers, condemning the worshipping of their Gods by images, as Austin bringeth in Ʋarro, acknowledging thatAug de ciuit. Dei. lib. 4 ca. 31. Dicit Varro antiquos Romanos plusquam annot centum & septuaginia Deos sine simulachro coluisse quod si adhuc, inquit, mansisset, castius dij obseruarentur, &c Dicit qui primi simulachra Deorum populis posuerunt & me [...]ū dempsisse & errorem addidisse, prudenter existiman [...] Deos facilè posse in simulachrorum stoli [...]itate contemn [...]. the Romanes for aboue a hundred and seuenty yeares worshipped their Gods without images, and that if they had still so done, the Gods should haue bene more holily and purely serued or regarded; and that they who first set vp the images of the Gods, for the people did both take away feare and added error, wisely esteeming saith S. Austine, that the Gods in that blockish senselesnesse of images, might easily be contemned. Much more might be said to like effect out of Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Cyprian, Athanasius, and others in their tracts against the Pagans, but by these it is sufficiently to be vnderstood, that the cō dēnation of their idols ariseth not only of being the images of false Gods, but of that being images they were worshipped, howsoeuer the Gods might be supposed to be true Gods which they worshipped therby. And who wold doubt but that the Carpocratiā heretiksEpiphan haer. 27 Carpocrat Habent imagines Pythagorae, Plat [...]nis Aristotelis, &c cum quibus etiam imagines Iesu collocant collocatas (que) adorant & gentium mysteria perficiunt, &c. sacrificium at (que) alia, &c. August de haeres Colobant adorando incensum (que) ponendo Iren. li. 1 ca. 24. setting vp the images of Iesus and Paul, & withall of Pythagoras, Homer, Plato, Aristotle, and doing worship, offering sacrifice, burning incense vnto thē, did cōmit idolatry, & make idols of these images, albeit they were so far frō taking thē to be Gods or images of Gods, as that it was one part of that heresie to denyAugust ibid. Iesum hominem tantummodo putasse perhibetur. the godhead of Christ? Thus the name of Idols and Idolatry are sometimes metaphorically [Page 1152] applied to those creatures which are vnlawfully worshipped, albeit they be either not supposed, or expresly denied to be Gods. In which sort the Councell of LaodiceaTheodoret. in Col cap. 2 Laodicenae synodus lege cauit ne precarentur Angelos. forbidding to pray to Angels, as Theodoret briefly expresseth the effect of that Canon, addeth;Laodic. Concil. ca. 35. Quicun (que) autem inuentus fuerit occultè huic idololatriae vacan [...] anathema sit quoniam derelinquēs Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum filium Dei accessit ad idola. Whosoeuer shall be found giuing himselfe secretly to this idolatry, accursed be he, because forsaking our Lord Iesus Christ the Son of God, he hath made accesse to Idols. By which words it is plain, that by praying to Angels, men make Idols of thē, though they do not think thē to be Gods, because praier is a deuotion that belongeth only to God. The like M. Bishop must confesse according to the opinion of Arius, euen of Christ himselfe. For if the first commandement forbid onely Idols, as M. Bishop will haue it, and Arius in impugning the diuinitie of Christ, and yet acknowledging to worship him, did breake the first cōmandement, then it cannot be denied but that by the doctrine of Arius Christ must become an Idol. That Arius therin brake the first commandement, appeareth by Theodoret, Theodoret. in Exod. q 37. Qui Trinitatis vnam substantiam cō fitentur, diuinae vocis legem obseruant: nihil enim aliud pro Deo coli permittunt excepta diuina naturae. Qui vero errorē sequuntur Arij at (que) Eunomij manifestè in diuinam legem committunt, confitentes quidem vnum filium, sed creatum esse asserentes & à diuina substantia alienū. Cū autē Deus dicat, Non erunt tibi d [...] alij praeter me, isti profectò Deum aliū introducūt. They, saith he, who confesse one substance of the Trinitie, do obserue the law of the word of God, for they permit nothing to be worshipped for God, saue only the nature of God. But they which follow the error of Arius and Eunomius, do manifestly trespasse against the law of God, cōfessing that the Son is one, but affirming him to be created & a strāger frō the substance of God, Whereas God then saith, Thou shalt haue no other Gods but me, these verily bring in another God. M. Bishop therfore must necessarily graunt that Arius made an Idoll of Christ, whom notwithstanding he denied to be God, and therefore that the name of an Idoll may belong to that which yet is not taken to be a God. Therfore doth Athanasius say of them, that by their opinion Athan. cont. Arian. orat 4. Cur sese non adnumerant gentilibus siquidem ambo Creatore omisso creaturae inseruiant? they were to be reckoned with the Gentiles, because together with them in steed of the Creator, they worshipped the treasure, which as it was idolatry in the Gentiles, so it must be in them also. The like we haue heard before of the Nestorian heresie, condemned of idolatry for worshipping the manhood of Christ, without acknowledging the personall vniting thereof to the Godhead. To be short, S. Austine saith of the works of the flesh reckoned vp by the Apostle, fornication, vncleannesse, &c. Aug. de verb. Apost. ser 3. ista in nobis tāquam idela frangenda sunt. These are we to breake in our selues as Idols; & again telleth the Manichees, Idē cont. Faust. lib. 14. ca. 11 In phantasmatibus fabularū suarū idola colunt. that in their fabulous fancies they worship Idols, and Hierome generally saith of heretikes, thatHieron in Zachar. ca 13. Haereticerū peruersa doctrina quodcun (que) simulauerit vertit in Idolum. whatsoeuer they deuise or feigne, [Page 1153] they turne it to an Idoll, not for that men haue any opinion of Godhead in their lusts and fancies, but because they yeeld them that affection and seruice which they owe to God. By all this then it appeareth, that because the name of Idols is metaphorically applied to things for being worshipped, or deuoutly and affectionately embraced and followed, which yet are not holden to be Gods, therefore the proper vse thereof belongeth to Images, in respect of worship done vnto them, though the same Images be neither taken for Gods, nor be the Images of false Gods, whence it followeth that Popish Images because they are worshipped, must necessarily come vnder the name of Idols.
6. W. BISHOP.
Now to those few authorities which M. Perkins citeth in his fauour: To them of the counsell of Eliberis and Epiphanius, which seeme to speake against setting vp of Images in Churches: I will answer in their place. To that out of Lactantius lib. 2. instit. ca. 19. Where Images are for Religion sake, there is no Religion, the force lieth in false translation of Images for Idols: Put, where Idols are for Religion, there is no Religion: But what, suppose he spake against worshipping of Images in generall, it were not proper to this purpose, where we speake onely of making Images, and not of all sorts of Images neither, but of an Image onely to represent some properties or actions of God.
That out of OrigenCont. Cel. lib. 7. is yet farre wider; We suffer not any to worship Iesus at Altars, Images, or Temples, because it is written: Thou shalt haue none other Gods. Here is nothing concerning the making of Gods Image; onely Christians are forbidden to go vnto the heathen Temples, and there at their Altars or Idols to worship Iesus, who hath no affinitie, nor can endure any fellowship with Idolaters.
R. ABBOT.
The words of Lactantius are,Lactan. instit. li. 2. ca. 19. Non est dubium quin religio nulla sit vbicun (que) simulachrum est. It is vndoubted that where Images are, there is no religion. M. Bishop chargeth vs with false translation of Images for Idols. A poore shift, but it must serue where there is no better; yet how vaine it is appeareth by the reason which Lactantius addeth:Ibid. Nā si religio ex rebus diuinis est, diuini autē nihil est nisi in coelestibus rebus, carent ergò religione simulachra quia nihil potest esse coeleste in ea re quae fit ex terra. for if religion consist of things diuine, and there be nothing diuine but in heauenly things, then images are voide of religion, because [Page 1154] there can be nothing heauenly in that that is made of earth. Now we suppose that M. Bishop can put no difference betwixt Idols and Images, in respect of being made of earth, and therefore must needs confesse that Lactantius meant to make no difference betwixt Images and Idols. But that the folly of this exception may the better appeare, to say nothing that the Fathers vsually call heathen Idols by the name of Images, as by some examples I haue shewed in the former section, let vs obserue the reasons which Lactantius himselfe vseth against them in the chapter next before, and we shall plainly see that Simulachra and Imagines, Idols saith M. Bishop, and Images are put both for the same thing.Jbid. cap. 18. D [...]m religiones Deorum triplic: ratione vana [...] esse. Vna quòd simulachra ipsa quae coluntur effigies siue hominū mortuorū: est autē peruersum & incōgruens vt simulachrum hominis à simulachro Dei colatur. I haue shewed, saith he, that the religions of the Gods are vaine for three reasons. First, because the Images which are worshipped are the shapes of dead men, and it is disorderly and vnfitting, that the image of a man should be worshipped of man who is the image of God. Images, we say, but if M. Bishop will say it must be Idols, then let him translate the rest also in like sort, because the word is the same, It is vnfitting that the Idoll of man should be worshipped by the Idoll of God. Which if he will not then let him acquit vs of false translation, and confesse that Lactantius speaketh here of Images, as indeede he doth. And if he will not acknowledge it by the first reason, yet we hope he will by the second, where he setteth downe the very name of Images.Altera quòd ipsae imagines sacrae quibus inanissimi homines seruiunt omni sensu carent quia terra sunt. Quie autē non intelligat nefa [...] esse rectū animal curuari vt adoret terram? Another reason is, saith he, for that (ipsae imagines sacrae) the holy Images which vaine men serue, are altogether without sense because they are earth, and who vnderstandeth not that it is a wicked thing that a creature made vpright, should bow downe it selfe to worship earth? Where calling those imagines which he had called before Simulachra, he sheweth that Simulachra are as we translate them Images, and that in this point Idols, as M. Bishop calleth them, and Images are all one, the reasons which he alledgeth standing alike against Popish Images, as they do against heathen Idols. The other part of his exception is but another part of a shift, M. Per. propounding to proue not only that it is vnlawful for vs to make any image any way to represent the true God, but also that we may make no Image of any thing in way of religion to worship God, much lesse the creature therby. M. Bishops supposall then that Lactantius there spake against worshipping of Images in general, maketh the place directly to serue to that purpose, for which it was alledged. The words of Origen are applied also to the same end, who [Page 1155] where Celsus obiecteth, thatOrig. cōt. Celso lib 7 Non ferunt templa, aras, & statuas inspicere; ne Scythae quinē & Numidae, &c. Christians not enduring to look at tēples, altars, and Images, are therein like to the Scythians, Moores, Persians, and such like barbarous nations, answereth, that the barbarous natiōs do it otherwise and for other respects, butChristiani temperāt ab his propter illud Legis, Dominum Deū tuū timebis, &c. & alia similia quae adeo nos prohibent ab aris & simulachris vt etiam emori: ubeant citiùs quā contaminemus nostram de Deo fidem talibus impietatibus. Christians forbeare these things, saith he, because of that which the Law saith, Thou shalt haue no other Gods but me, and thou shalt not make to thy selfe an image, &c. and thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely shalt thou serue, and many other like speaches which do so forbid vs altars and Images, as that they require vs rather to die then to defile the faith that we haue cō cerning God with such impieties. M. Perkins rather pointed at the place then cited it, & M. Bishop was loth to take the paines to looke into it, and therefore returneth an idle tale, that Christians were forbidden to go to heathen temples, and there to worship Iesus at their altars and Idols, as though in the meane time they might haue Idols and Images of their owne, whereas the thing that Celsus obiected was, that they could not abide Images at all, and as afterwards he speaketh againe,Lib. 8. Celsus ait nos ararum, statuarum templorum (que) dedicationes fugere. did shun the dedicating of altars, Images and temples; and the verie words here alledged do plainly expresse, that they wholly abhorred Images as an impious defiling of religion, & condemned by the law of God. And therfore by and by after he saith,Li. 7. Impossibi le est vt qui Deū norit supplex fiat statuis; stulium est siquis preces simulachris offerat: Nos ideo quc (que) non honoramus simulachra, quia quantum possumus caueamus ne in eā credulitatem incidamus vt & his tribuamus diuinitatis aliquid. It is impossible that he that knoweth God should make supplication to Images; it is a foolish thing that a man should offer prayers to Images: we honour not Images, because we take heed so much as we can lest we fall into any such conceipt as to attribute any diuine matter vnto them. It is euident then that Origen wholly condemneth Images as touching all vses of religion, to which M. Bishop would approoue them.
7. W. BISHOP.
Hauing confuted the Protestants arguments against the making of Images to represent some propertie or action of God, I now come vnto Catholike proofe of thē. The first reason set downe by M. Perkins I reserue to the next point: the second is; God appeared in the forme of a man to AbrahamGenes. 18., and to Daniel, Who saw the ancient of daies sitting on a throneDan. 9.. Now as God hath appeared, so may he be purtraited & drawn: M. Perkins his answer is, Not so, vnlesse it be expresly cōmanded by God.
Reply. This first is flat against his owne second conclusion, where he holdeth it lawfull to represent to the eye in Pictures, any histories of the [Page 1156] Bible in priuate places, both the foresaid apparitions be in the old Testament, and therefore may be painted in priuate places, which cannot be truly done without you do represent God in the same likenes, as there he appeared. And what reason leadeth in words to represent those actions of God, the same serueth to expresse them in liuely colours. Not so, sayth M. Perkins, because when God appeared in the forme of man, it was a signe of Gods presence, for that time onely, and for no longer. Be it so, it might notwithstanding be recorded in writing, that the memory of such maiestie ioyned with louing kindnesse might endure longer. And if it pleased God, that this short presence of his should be written to be perpetually remembred, euen so the same might be ingrauen in brasse, to recommend it to vs so much the more effectually: For as the famous Poet doth by the light of nature sing:
This argument may be confirmed by the pictures of Angels, of Vertues, and other such like spiritual or accidentall nature: for if such things as haue no bodily proportion or shape, may notwithstanding be counterfetted and resembled in some qualities, why may not some propertie or actiō of God be in like manner represented? That thou mayest (Reader) vnderstand the better what we meane, obserue that pictures represent after three sorts. Some expresse to the quicke, the very shape, proportion, and colour of the patterne; as the liuely picture of man, or of any such corporall thing: others represent things as they did appeare and were acted, as if the Painter should expresse the meeting of God with Abraham and his entertainment, he must then resemble God in the same likenesse of a man in which he shewed himselfe to Abraham.
Thirdly, an Image of a spirituall thing, may be drawne not to resemble the nature of it, but to leade our vnderstanding by such a similitude, into some better knowledge of that thing: so are Angels painted like goodly yong men with wings, to teach vs that they be of an excellent pure nature, euer flourishing, and most readie to dispatch with all expedition any employment to which God sends them; and so may God the Father be pourtraited as a goodly old graue man, sitting in his throne of maiestie, attended vpon by millions of Angels, (as he is described in Daniel 9.) to instruct vs how he is eternall, infinite, wise, and of most redoubtable maiestie. [Page 1157] In either of these two latter sorts we hold that God may be represented, and so in the seuenth generall Councell, the drawing of the holy Ghost in forme of a Doue, as he appeared, Mat. 3. is approoued.
R. ABBOT.
Here M. Bishop telleth vs what they hold, but as for proofe of that that they hold, which in so weightie a matter should specially haue bene regarded, he bringeth none, nothing out of the old or new Testament, no example of anie Patriarch, Prophet, Apostle, Euangelist, not of any of the godly Princes, or righteous and faithfull seruants of God, there being not one of them found to haue made an Image to represent God since the world began. Yea he bringeth vs neither Father nor Councell for the space almost of eight hundred yeares after Christ, and that which he bringeth then, so vncertaine & vnsufficient, as that we may iustly wonder at their wilfulnesse who will affirme or hold so important a matter vpon so small ground. Their allegation is, that God appeared in the forme of a man to Abraham and to Daniel, and as he hath appeared so he may be pourtraited and drawne. Now albeit we approoue a ciuill and historicall vse of Images as he alledgeth, yet we denie that the same extendeth so farre as to warrant an Image of God, because howsoeuer it hath pleased God to appeare at anie time, yet he hath giuē to vs an expresse charge, that we presume not to set vp an image in any sort or meaning to represent him. Therfore albeit God had appeared to Abraham in the forme of a man, whence the Israelites might take occasion to figure him in that sort, yet to preuent their so doing Moses telleth them, as before hath bene shewed, thatDeut 4.15. they saw no Image in the day when the Lord spake vnto them in Horeb out of the midst of the fire, that they might not corrupt themselues, and make them a grauen image, the representation of any figure, the likenesse of male or female, &c. Vers. 23. Take heed, saith he, lest ye forget the couenant of the Lord your God which he made with you, and make you any grauen Image, the likenesse of any thing, as the Lord thy God hath charged thee. Where if the Israelites had bene skilled in M. Bishops distinction of making Images, this had hindered them nothing at all, but that at the first they might carue, or graue, or paint God in the likenesse of a man, because he had so appeared to Abraham, or afterwardsSee hereof after in sect. 1 [...]. of a goodly [Page 1158] old graue man, as this hypocrite speaketh, and I abhorre to repeate, because he appeared to Daniel also in the forme of a man, vnder the name of the Ancient of dayes. But they knew not this kinde of learning; they tooke the commaundement simply as it was intended, and therefore perpetually through all their generations, saue onely when they fell away from God, they held it vnlawfull to make anie Image vnder any pretence to represent God. If they had vnderstood the commandement of God as M. Bishop doth, vndoubtedly they would haue left some examples of doing that which he saith may be done. But king Agrippa told Caligula the Emperor whē he wold haue had his Image set vp in the Temple of Hierusalem,Philo Iud. de legat. ad Caium. Hoc temptū iam indè ab initio nullam vnquam admisit manufactā effigiem, cùm sit Deo domi [...]ilium: pictorum enim at (que) statuariorū opera sunt sensibilium deorum imagines: illum autem inuisibilē pingere aut fingere nefas duxerunt maiores nostri. This Temple euen from the beginning neuer admitted any Image made with hands, because it is the house of God: for the workes of painters and caruers are the Images of sensible Gods, but our forefathers haue holden it a thing vnlawfull to paint or carue him that is inuisible. Accordingly the Christian Church receiued and practised, denying thatOrig. cont. Cels. lib. 7. Deum incorporeum & inuisibilem nulla figura circumscribimus. God who is without body and is inuisible, may be described by any figure, as Origen saith, no not to represent any signification of him, as I obseruedSupra sect. 4. frō him before. Thus Theodoret saith, that MosesTheodoret. in Deut. qu. 1 Instruens eos ne tē tent vnquam diuinam imaginē effingere, cum arc [...]etypi speciem minimè viderint, &c. vt nullam imaginem construant inuisibilis Dei. instructed the Iewes that they should not at any time attempt to frame any Image of God, seeing they had seene no likenesse of him; that they should not set vp anie Image of the inuisible God. In like sort Clemens Alexandrinus setteth it downe for the doctrine of Moses which he saith Numa by him instructed taught the Romanes,Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. 1. Numa ex ijs quae à M [...]se tradita sūt adiuius prohibuit Romanis ne homini aut animali similē Dei facerent imaginem, &c. quòd ad quod est optimū non alia ratione quàm sola mente vlli licet attingere that we are not to make any Image of God like to man or any other thing, because no man may any otherwise meddle with God who is the soueraigne good but onely by the minde, and therefore the same Clement affirmeth as by the words of the Apostle,Jbid lib. 6. Nobis nullum est simulachrum in mundo quoniam in rebus genitis nihil potest Dei referre imaginē. We haue no Image in the world, because in the creatures there is nothing that can represent the Image of God. Because there is nothing that can represent God, therefore they admitted no Image of God at all. As for M. Bishops goodly distinction of painting and describing, it is no other then the Pagans themselues would well like of for their defence. He excepteth no otherwise against making Images of God, but onely the first way, as the Image should be vnderstood fully and to the quicke to resemble God, and in that sort the very heathens denied the resembling of God, or making any Image of him, as hath bene before said. Yea Zeno the Stoicke in that respect condemned the making of Images to their Gods, as Clemens [Page 1159] Alexandrinus also sheweth,Ibid. li. 5. Dicit Zeno oportere nec templa facere nec imagines: nihil enim quod sit compositum esse Dijs dignum. because nothing that is compounded is worthy of the gods. Now therefore they will say to M. Bishop, that he cannot deny but that God hath appeared in the likenesse of a man, and therefore that nothing hindereth, but that according to that apparition they may paint their gods like men, though they know them to be of more excellent nature then can be fully expressed thereby. Yea and if they adde any other thing thereto, or worship them in any other shapes, they do it not as to resemble the nature of the gods, but to leade mens vnderstanding by such similitudes into some better knowledge of them. They set forth Mars with helmet and [...]arget & other complements of fight, Apollo with a glistering Crowne on his head, and bow and arrowes in his left hand, Mercurie with wings at his feete, and a rod or mace in his right hand, Cupid bl [...]nd with a dart also in his hand, butPhilo de ligat. ad Caium. Haec gestamina simulachris adduntur vt significent vtilitates ab his Dijs exhibitas humano generi [...]uis (que) cultoribus. these badges, saith Philo Iuda [...]us, are added to the Images to signifie the benefites that these gods yeelded to mankind and to their worshippers, or otherwise some speciall properties & effects seuerally belonging to euerie of them. With the same mind and respect they sometimes worshipped Iupiter in the likenesse of a Swan, Aesculapius of a Serpent, Mercurie of a Dog, Pan of a Goate, Apis of an Oxe, not thinking them to be like to anie of these, but either for that they were said sometimes to haue appeared in such likenesses, or for that they wold herby expresse somwhat that was memorable concerning them. To be short, there was nothing so absurd in their idolatries, but they had their Hieroglyphicall and Physicall interpretations to salue the deuice and practise thereof, and therefore M. Bishop hath no reason to except against them, because they professe to haue bene led by the same reasons by which he seeketh to vphold the idolatrie of his owne part. But that he may seeme not altogether without authoritie to say that which he saith, he alledgeth vnto vs the second Nicene Councell, approouing the drawing of the holy Ghost in forme of a Doue, because he is read in the Gospell so to haue appeared. Where it seemeth to me, that he should haue done much more wisely for himselfe, not to haue alledged that record at all, because vndoubtedly his Reader must needs thinke, that it is a very bad matter that he hath in hand, for defence whereof for almost the space of fiue thousand yeares from the beginning of the world there is no example to be found. If he had cited nothing, it might haply haue bene supposed that he [Page 1160] had notwithstanding somewhat to cite, but no man will imagine that for his proofe he would haue come downe so lowe as that Councell, if he had had anie better authoritie to rest vpon. But the mishap is, that that Councell also faileth him, insomuch as it sayth nothing positiuely for the drawing and painting of the holy Ghost in the forme of a doue, and doth approue those speeches which generally condemne the resembling of the godhead in any forme. A relation is made of one Seuerus, who at Daphne tooke away the Doues framed in gold and siluer and hanged ouer the fonts as in figure of the holy Ghost, saying that they ought not to vse the name of the holy Ghost cōcerning anie such forme of a Doue. Hereupon Tharasius readie to apprehend euery thing that might make for their Image-idolatrie, answereth thus:Nicen. 2. Act. 5 Si in nomine sancti Spiritus dedicaetas columbas sancti Patres receperunt, quantò magis corpus incarnati verbi & in terris in corpore visi recipiendum? If the holy Fathers receiued doues dedicated in the name of the holy Ghost, how much more is the body of the incarnat Word seene vpon the earth in a body to be receiued; meaning the image of the body of Christ. If they did he saith, but he saith not that they did it lawfully if they did so. A man may say, if a Popish Priest may be permitted to keepe a concubine or a harlot, much more should it be thought lawfull for him to marrie a wife, and yet doth not therefore approue, that it should be lawfull for a Popish Priest to keepe a concubine or harlot. And that the Councell did not approue it as a thing lawfull, it is manifest by those narrations and authorities which they do approue and alledge for the approuing of their Images. They alledge a Sermon of Iohn Bishop of Thessalonica containing a disputation betwixt a Pagan and a Christian, where the Pagan obiecting in defence of their Images, that Christians also did make Images, not onely to their Saints, but also to their God: the Christian answereth as touching God thus:Ibid. ex Ser. Joan. Episc. Thess. Dei autē imaginem (dico Seruatoris nostri Iesu Christi) quemadmodum ipse super terrā eum hominibus conuersatus est, pingimus, non vt ipsae natura Deus est. Quae enim posset esse Dei similitud [...], aut quae figura incorporei, ineffigiabilis (que) verbi Patris? Deus enim (vt scriptum est) spiritus est. Quoniam visum est Deo Patri vnigenitum filiū suum è coelis demittere quo pro nostra salute ex Spiritu sancto & in [...]olata virgine D [...]para incarnaretur, nos eius humanitatē ea ratione pingimus, non illius incorpoream Deitatem. The image of God, I meane of our Sauior Iesus Christ, we make according as he was conuersant with men vpon the earth, not as by nature he is God: for what likenesse can there be of God, or what figure of the word of the Father which is without body, and not to be expressed by any shape? for God (as it is written) is a spirit. Because it seemed good to the Father to send downe from heauen his onely begotten Sonne, that by the holy Ghost he might be incarnate of the pure Virgin the mother of God, therefore we paint his humanitie in that sort, but not his incorporall Godhead. Afterwards out of Leontius there is read a disputation betwixt a Iew and a Christian, the Iew professing to beleeue, that [Page 1161] Christ is the Sonne of God, but that he was offended to see Christians contrarie to the commandement to fall downe before Images, and the Christian thereto answering:Ibid. ex Leont. Deo vt talis est Scriptura iubet non esse faciendā similitudinem, ne que aliquam imaginem adorandam esse vt Deum. Imagines enim quas vides ad memoriam Iesu Christi salutaris nobis incarnationis pinguntur Personam illius humanitatis ex primentes. Sanctorū autē imagines eodem modo vniuscuius (que) praelia contra diabolum & mundum victoriasque significant. The Scripture commandeth, that to God as he is God, no similitude or likenesse shall be made, and that no image shall be worshipped as God: but the images which thou seest are made to the remembrance of the incarnation of Iesus Christ which hath yeelded saluation to vs. But the Saints images do in like sort signifie the battels and victories of euery of them against the Diuell and the world. Againe, it is alledged out of the confessions of certaine Martyrs, thus:Ibid. ex Const. Diacon Chartophyl. Non enim diuinū simplex existens & incomprehensibile formis & figuris assimilamus, ne (que) cera & lignis supersubstantialē & ante principia existentem substantiam honorare decreuimus. We do not by formes and shapes resemble God: being simple and incomprehensible, neither haue we intended by waxe and wood to honour the substance whith is aboue all substance, and hath his being before beginning. By al which it is euident that they wholy disclaimed the painting and picturing of the Godhead, so that their whole decree throughout the Councell proceedeth onely as touching the images of Christ,Jbid Act. 7. Epist. ad Constā. & Iren. Quatenus scilicet perfectus homo suit. as he was perfect man, and of the Angels and Saints, as appeareth also by their Synodall Epistle in the end of the Councell, but of images of the Godhead they decree nothing. Whereby we see that M. Bishop is a man of an euill nature and disposition, who will thus make a bad matter worse then it is. A good mind will make things better and not worse, but whereas the Councell was bad enough in decreeing worship to the images of Christ and his Saints, he maketh it worse then it was, by fathering vpon it the approuing of the images of the holy Ghost. We see then that he hath no proofe at all for making an image of God, and therefore it was but a point of indiscretion in him to tell vs in what manner and meaning they picture and resemble God, it being alledged that it is not lawfull many manner or meaning so to do. As for his discourse of motiues that come by sight, it sauoureth of the grosse conceipt of all idolaters, who cannot endure to be without babies and puppets and no longer think they haue a God, then they haue a God to looke vpon. To heare of God or to reade of him in his word, and to behold him in his workes it is not sufficient, but by an image they must needes haue him set foorth more nearely to feed their eyes. Surely if the wisedome of God had thought it fit, that we should haue learned him by painting and caruing, he would not haue failed to haue giuen vs instruction thereof. But sith he hath not so taught vs, yea sith he hath taught [Page 1162] the contrarie, and condemned them, (as hath bene before shewed) who haue pretended to be instructed by such meanes, what a simple man doth Master Bishop shew himselfe, to reason against God, and to say, If Angels and vertues may be figured and represented, why may not some propertie or action of God be in like manner represented? A simple man indeed, that hath not learned to put a difference betwixt the creature and the Creator, nor vnderstandeth that that which is yeelded to the pleasing of our curious fancy in the one, yet may iustly be condemned as a wicked presumption to be attempted in the other. God hath forbidden to make any similitude to him. He hath not limited vs any meaning wherein we may do it. What is it but wilful contempt in vs to say, that in this or that meaning we will do that which he hath absolutely said we shall not do?
8. W. BISHOP.
The first point then being obtained, that such images of God may be made; I come to the second: That all holy Pictures may be placed in Churches: which I proue by the argument that M. P. made for our first obiection. In Salomons temple were erected Cherubins, which were images of Angels, on the mercie seate, where God was worshipped, and vpon the walles and very doores of the same pictured. To this M. P. answereth, that they were erected by speciall commaundement from God, who prescribeth the very forme of them, and the place where they should be set, and therby Moses had a warrant to make them, let them shew the like warrant for their images, if they can.
Secondly, (saith he) the Cherubs were placed in the most inward place of the Temple, and so were remoued from the sight of the people, and the Cherubs without the vaile, though they were seene, yet were they not worshipped.
Reply. This mans wits were gone a wool-gathering, when proposing to himselfe the Cherubs erected in Solomons Temple: he answereth of the Cherubs made by Moses 350. yeares before: a most grosse ouersight and a shamefull shift: but such as men desperately defending vntruths, must needes vse. For if he had answered directly, he had not had a word to say: for neither did God prescribe the forme of them, nor giue any [Page 1163] speciall commandement to Solomon, to make and erect any such Cherubs, as he that pleaseth to reade the Chapter may see, and there they were placed not onely in the inward, but also in the outward parts of the Temple, vpon the walles and very doores, that they might be seene of all the people: which M. P. finding, flitted from thence, and did flie vnto another, which because it spake of Cherubs, he thought would serue to blind his simple followers.
Moses indeed had an expresse precept for the making of them, as he had for the Curtaines and Curtain-rods, and euery particular belonging to the Tabernacle. But Solomon without any speciall commandement out of his high and holy wisedome, vnderstood that he might most lawfully and laudably imitate that heauenly patterne of Moses: and as the building was farre more sumptuous and stately, so in the number and quantitie of pictures exceeded, which is a sufficient instruction and warrant for all men after his daies to make and set Images in the Church. And this finally M. Perkins seemes to graunt, when he saith, that these Cherubs without the veile, were there to be seene, but not to be worshipped: so that we haue gotten one steppe further, that Images may not only be made, but also be set vp in the Churches: which is fortified by the testimonie of Tertullian, in the place cited before: where he saith, that our Sauiour was pictured vpon holy Chalices, which were vsed at the Altars: and of Sozomenus, who witnesseth that our Sauiours picture was taken into the Church.
S. Gregory Naz.Epist. 49. maketh mention of images in the Church of Diocaesarea, trimmed vp by himselfe.
Saint BasilOrat. in Barl. pointeth to that holy mans picture, standing in the Church.
DamasusIn vita Silue. shewes how Constantine in the Church of S. Iohn Laterane, erected a siluer Image vnto our Sauiour.
Saint Chrysostome in demonstrat. quòd Christus sit Deus. And S. Aug.Ser. 19. de Sanct. do teach, that the Crosse was on the holy Tables, and vsed at all holy functions. And the reason why images should principally be set in Churches, is very pregnant. For where should holy pictures of holy men be more properly bestowed, then in holy places: and the Church being a resemblance of heauen (as S. Paule teacheth, Heb. 9.) is most conueniently decked vp with Images: the representations of heauenly creatures: that men entring into that holy place, may by the view and consideration [Page 1164] of such an heauenly shew, retire their minds from worldly businesse, and lift them vp vnto the soueraigne Monarch of both heauen and earth.
R. ABBOT.
There is some wit in gathering wooll, but M. Bishop spendeth his time in gathering mosse, and therein is little wit. For some colour of setting vp their idols in Churches to be worshipped, they full simply alledge the Cherubins that were set vp in the temple which Solomon built, which M. Bishop saith were the images of Angels, and that they did represent the Angels we will not deny, butIoseph. Antiq. lib. [...]. cap. 2. Hae Cherubicae effigies qu [...]nā specie fuerint, nemo vel con [...]cere potest vel eloqui. of what shape they were, no man, saith Iosephus, can cōiecture or affirme any thing. Our English translatiō readeth one where, that they were2. Chr [...].10. like children, but by the testimonie of Iosephus being himselfe an Hebrew, it appeareth that that signification of the Hebrew word is not certaine, and the same word being no where else found in the Hebrew text leaueth it the more doubtfull what construction may be made of it. And the doubt is so much the greater, for that in the vision of Ezechiel there is expresly noted a difference betwixt the face of a Cherub, and the face of a man,Ezech. 10.14. Euery beast (saith he) had foure faces, the first was the face of a Cherub, the second was the face of a man, &c. But to let that passe, to the obiection M. Perkins answereth, that those Cherubins were erected by speciall commandement of God, who had prescribed both the forme of them, and the place where they should be set, and thereby Moses had warrant to make them, which they haue not for their Images. Here M. Bishop alledging that M. Perkins proposing to himselfe the Cherubins erected in Solomons temple, answereth of the Cherubins made by Moses 350. yeares before, falleth into a great rage, and cryeth out, a most grosse ouersight and shamefull shift, but such (saith he) as men desperatly defending vntruths must needes vse, and if he had answered directly he had not had a word to say. Now who would thinke that so wise a man would take so great paines to bewray his owne ignorance? who would thinke that in such heate he wold charge another man with grosse ouersight, when he himselfe doth so grossely ouersee himselfe? God commanded Moses to make the Arke, and the propitiatorie or mercy seate, which was the couer of the Arke according to the fashion that he had shewed him. Withall he appointed [Page 1165] him to make two Cherubins, one at the one end of the mercy-seat, and the other at the other end, so as that with their wings stretched out, they shold couer the mercy-seate. Which done he saith,Exod. 25.22: There will I declare my selfe vnto thee, and from aboue the mercy-seate betweene the two Cherubins which are vpon the Arke of the Testimonie, I will tell thee all things which I will giue thee in commandement vnto the children of Israel. According to this commaundement Moses did, but what was done with those Cherubins which Moses set vp, it is vncertaine; whether by the enemies taking of the Arke, as most likely it is, they were taken away, or whether they fitted not the place of the Temple where they should stand, the Tabernacle and furniture thereof being before made portable to be remoued from place to place. Howsoeuer that were, this is certaine, that Solomon by vertue of the same commandement, and to obserue that which by Moses was prescribed, made two Cherubins to stand in the same place as the other did, and to the same vse. The worke therefore being finished1. King. 8.5.6: king Solomon and all Israel being assembled together, the Priests brought the Arke of the couenant of the Lord into his place, into the oracle of the house, the most holy place, euen vnder the wings of the Cherubins: for the Cherubins stretched out their wings ouer the place of the Arke, and the Cherubins couered the Arke. Inasmuch then as God had by the law directed in what sort this should be done, Solomon needed no further speciall cōmandement for the doing of it, but had trespassed against God, if being appointed to build a house vnto God, he had not done it according to such rules as the law before had limited for the doing of it: so idle a fancy is it which M. B. here deliuereth, that out of his owne high wisedome onely he thought it lawful for him to imitate that which Moses had done before, and consequently so vaine a cauill is it which he vseth, that the obiection being mooued of the Cherubins made by Solomon, M. Perkins answereth by the commandement giuen thereof to Moses, when as there was the very same respect of both, and Solomon renewed them by the same commandement, by which Moses at first made thē. Now these 2. Cherubins of which the questiō is specially moued, were erected in the most holy place, whether, as the Christiā saith to the Iew before spokē of in the 2. Nicen coūcell,Nycen. Synod. 2. Act. 5. ex Leont. Quo sanè nulli mortalium dabatur accessus praeterquam summo Sacerdoti, idque semel in anno. it was grā ted to no mortal man to haue accesse, but onely to the high priest, & that once only in the yeare, yea and there was alsoExod. 26.33. 2. Chron. 3.14▪ a veile drawne before to [Page 1166] make a separation betwixt the holy place, and the most holy, so that no man had the sight of any thing therin. Very falsly therfore & vnhonestly doth M. B. deale to cōfound these Cherubins with the rest as touching their place, and generally to say, There they were placed not onely in the inward, but also in the outward parts of the Temple vpon the walles and very doores, that they might be seene of all the people, it being euident that these were neuer to be seene of the people nor of any, saue onely the high Priest, and consequently were such as can giue no warrant at all to setting vp of Popish images. As for the rest of the Cherubins which the text mentioneth they were of other sort, wrought in the curtaines, and feeling of the wals, and vpon the dores and vessels onely for garnishing and beautifying the works, but Cherubins that were standing images there were none but only those two. The veile of the most holy place was2. Chro. 3.14. wrought with Cherubins, Kings 6.29. the wals were carued with grauen figures of Cherubins, palme trees, and other grauen flowers: Ver. 35. the doores also with the like, Cap. 7.29. the bases whereupon the caldrons were to stand were grauen in the borders with Lions, Buls, and Cherubins. Here it is plaine then, that the Cherubins were of no other respect or vse, but as the figures of palme trees, Pomgranats, Flowers, Lions, Buls and other such like, not in any sort for exercise of the deuotion of the people, but onely for the adorning of the house. Yea and to these also the people had no accesse within the house, being prohibited to come any further thē to the doore, neare to which stood the altar to which they were to tender their sacrifice, the Priest receiuing the same, to do with it according to the law, but they themselues might not go in. There was one part of the Temple which was calledExod. 26.33. Heb 9.6.7. the holy place, into which the Priests and Leuites ordinarily went to performe their ordinary seruice: another part was called the most holy place into which only the high Priest went once a yeare, & these two parts are most properly calledLuk. 1.21. the Temple, in which Solomon bestowed all that curiositie of worke. But without these was the vast roome into which the people resorted, where they waitedVer. 10. in prayer whilest the Priests performed the seruice, wherin they were accustomed to be taught, and our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles preached vnto them, going also in generall vnder the name of the temple, yet not hauing in any sort that glorious beauty of workmanship that the other parts had, neither can M. B. tell vs of any Cherubins therein. [Page 1167] Seeing then there were no standing Cherubins in Solomons temple but onely two, which were wholy remooued out of sight, and the rest had no other vse but onely the same as the figures of Lions, and Bulles, and Flowers, and Palme trees, and such like and of dead men there were no images at all, not of Abraham, Isaac, Iacob, or any other, we should thinke that that temple yeeldeth so small grace to Romish Idols, as that like Dagon they must fall to the ground and breake their necks, vnlesse there be some better means and helpe found for the vpholding of them. As for the vse whereto Solomon intended those workes of his, who is there that maketh question of it? Who doubteth but that by curiositie of Imagerie of caruing and grauing, and painting, men may beautifie either their houses or their Churches in the like sort as he did? Yea M. Bishop well knoweth that we do not thrust Images wholly out of our Churches, because we haue in Westminster, in Paules, and commonly in the rest of our Churches throughout the land many images of our deceased Kings and Queenes, of our Nobles and States higher and lower, which we preserue, and adde more to them from day to day. We determine nothing absolutely against Images, but we determine against images in case of superstition and idolatrie or in perill thereof. Take away the feare of superstition, and against images or pictures we say nothing. If therefore some of the Fathers not fearing or suspecting that heathenish abhomination wold get place in the Church, were more secure in this behalfe, and doubted not to adorne their Churches or other places with pictures & images of Christ and his Apostles, of Saints and Martyrs, we wonder not thereat: but yet how rare a matter this was, may appeare by the poore store of examples that M. Bishop bringeth thereof. That of Tertullian was onelyTertul. de pudicitia. Procedāt picturae Calicum vestrorum, si vel in illis perlucebit interpretatio pecudis illius: (ouis perditae à Domino requisitae & humeris eius reuectae.) a picture vpon the chalice, of a shepheard carying his lost sheepe vpon his shoulder, as in figure of Christ seeking mankind, & recouering him to God, of which kind of picture no man maketh any question. The second example is of the Image that stood in the street at Cesarea Philippi, which in the time of Iulian the Apostata was broken in peeces by the Paganes, and the ChristiansSozomen. hist. lib. 5. cap. 20. Christiani cùm eius fragmenta collegissent, in Ecclesia posuerūt tooke vp the fragments thereof, and set it in the Church. Gregorie Nazianzene mentioneth certaineGregor. Naz. Epist. 49. Nequ [...] enim si statuae deijciantur hoc nos excruciat, &c. images in the Church of Diocaesarea, but what they were, or whose they were it appeareth not, but by his words of trimming, not the images, but [Page 1168] Templū quod exstruximus, omne (que) nostrum in eo exornando studium. the Church, it appeareth that they were onely for the ornament thereof. Basil onely mentioneth an image or picture that did represent theBasil Orat. de Barlaam. Abibo certaminum ac victoriarum Martyris à vobis posita imagine victus, &c. Video manus ad ignem luctam exactiù [...] à vobis descriptam, &c. burning of the hand of Barlaam the Martyr, more liuely set foorth then he could by words declare it, of which kind M. Bishop may see many in the stories of our Martyrs. Their Pontificall is but a bastard witnesse and of too late yeares to tell vs what Constantine did: he must bring vs better proofe, or else we beleeue not that which he reporteth by it, though to vs it be nothing. The last instance out ofChrysost. demonstrat. Quòd Christus sit Deu [...]. In fronte nostra figuratur: sic in sacramensa, in sacerdotum ordinationibus, sic iterum cum corpore Christi in mysticis caenis fulget. Chrysostome andAugust. de sanct. Ser. 49. Cum crucis charactere Altaris sacramenta confistuntur. Austin (though that out of Austin de Sanctis be a meere forgerie) concerneth onely the signe of the Crosse vsed at the Sacrament as before was said, not any standing image either of the Crosse or of him that was crucified, and therefore is wholy impertinent to the matter here in question. Hereby then the Reader may suppose that the vse of Pictures and Images in the Primitiue Church was not great, but specially of those standards whereof our question is principally intended, and by which idolatrie hath specially bene committed, inasmuch as there are so few certaine and pregnant examples thereof to be found. But whether it were greater or lesse, experience hath since taught vs to misdoubt that which they misdoubted not. We haue found it to be true which the author of the booke of Wisedome saith, thatWisd. 14.10. images are a snare to the feet of the vnwise, and thatCap. 15.5. the sight of an image stirreth vp the desire of the ignorant, so that he is in loue with the forme that hath no life, euen of a dead image. August. Epist. 40. Cum his sedibus honorabili sublimitate locantur vt à precantibus & immolantibus attendantur, ipsa similitudine animatorum membrorum atque sensuum quam uis insensata & exanima affi [...]iunt insumos animos vt viuere ac spirate videantur. When they are honorably set vp in places aloft, saith S. Austin, that they may be beholden of men praying and offering vnto them, euen by the very semblance of liuing members and senses, albeit they be senslesse and without life, they so affect weake minds, as that they seeme to be aliue and to take breath. Idem in Psal. 113 Ducit & infirmo quodam affectu rapit infirma corda mortalium formae similitudo & membrorum imitata compago: & post, Quis adorat vel orat intuens simulachrum qui non sic assicitur, vt ab eo se exaudiri putet, & ab eo sibi praestari quod desiderat, speret? The similitude of the forme, saith he againe, and imitation of the frame of the members leadeth and draweth by an infirmity of affection the weake hearts of men; and who worshippeth or prayeth beholding an image, but he is so affected, as that he thinketh the same heareth him, and hopeth that that which he desireth shall thereby be done for him? Hauing then found this by experience to be true, we are carefull to shunne all the danger of such superstition, and therfore where we find Images subiect to such abuse, as in the hands of Popish Recusants, we deface and destroy them, and otherwise that there may be no occasion of such abuse, we eschew and auoide the [Page 1169] setting vp of the like as haue bene vsually worshipped amongst thē, chusing rather to garnish our Churches with sentences of Scripture or with such Imagerie as Solomon did the temple, wherof there may be no daunger, then with glorious standards and images of men which may againe giue occasion of stumbling and falling to the weake minds of simple and ignorant men. As for M. Bishops reason why images of holy men should be placed in Churches, it standeth vpon so fickle ground as that it must needes fall. He alledgeth that the Apostle (Heb. 9.) maketh the Church to be a resemblance of heauen. But that which the Apostle there saith is not of our Churches, nor can be drawne thereto, but is spoken of the Sancta sanctorum, the most holy place of the temple of Hierusalem, into which onely the high Priest entred in figure of Iesus Christ once in the yeare, wherby (saith he)Heb. 9.8. the holy Ghost signified, that the way into the holiest of all, (that is, into heauen) was not yet opened, while as yet the first tabernatle was standing. Hence then we argue against M. Bishop out of his owne grounds, that seeing in the most holy place of the temple which was indeed the resemblance of heauen, there were admitted no images of holy men, therefore in our Churches though they be granted to carrie a resemblance of heauen, which he cannot proue, yet it followeth not that Images should be admitted to haue any place. Yea and the vse of our Churches is not for gazing and staring, but for prayer vnto God, for hearing of his word, and receiuing of his Sacraments, to the deuotion whereof the mind doth the lesse bestow it selfe when it is auerted and withdrawne by the businesse of the eye. And sith in the outmost Court also of the Temple, whither the people resorted, this heauenly shew of M. Bishops was altogether wanting, either we must condemne the wisedome & discretion of him by whom the temple was built, or else we must reiect this deuice as fantasticall and childish, to which M. Bishop ascribeth the retiring of our minds from worldly businesse, and lifting them vp to God. Nay, images serue not to lift vp the mind, but to depresse it and keepe it downe, and this was one speciall argument whereby the Fathers impugned the Images of the Pagans,Aug. in Psal. 113. Valent ad curuandā infoelicem animam &c. Cyprian. contra Demetr. Lactani. instit. lib. 2. cap. 2. for that by the eye they held the mind doating & dreaming vpon an Idoll here on earth, when by spirituall contemplation and deuotion it should be lifted vp to heauen: so ill hap hath M. B. that he can say nothing for Popish Images which hath not bene before impugned in Pagan Idols.
9. W. BISHOP.
Now let vs come to those two obiections of M. P. which seemes to be against the erection of images in Churches. The first is out of the Councell of Eliberis cap. 36. which commandeth, that nothing should be painted on the wals of the Church, that was adored of the people.
Answ. That if the Councel speake of the image of God (in which sence M. P. citeth it, and the word (adored) doth insinuate) then it may be said, that the Councell inhibiteth that sort of Gods images which are made to expresse the diuine nature: if it be extended vnto all sorts of images, I answer, that they were then forbidden to be drawne vpon the Church wals, but not to be set in Tables vpon the altar, or in any other place. The reason is, because that Councell was holden in time of persecution, as appeareth by the twenty fifth Canon of it: and then, if the persecutors had found out the place of their assembly, as they often did, those pictures must needes either haue bene defaced by themselues, or left vnto the derision and despight of the heathens; and pictures also painted vpon such poore walles as they had then to their Churches, would either by the moysture of the walles, or other incommoditie, haue bene quickly disfigured: wherefore to the greater honour of such sacred things, those graue Fathers thought it not meet to haue them drawne vpon the Church walles, there being many more meete places for them in the Churches.
R. ABBOT.
It seemeth that they are much troubled with this Canon of the Eliberine Councel, which maketh them to turne it and wind it one way and another way, to set some such meaning vpon it, as that it may not seeme to make against them. The Canon is this:Concil. Eliberi. Can. 36. Placuit in Ecclesia picturas esse non debere, ne quod colitur aut adoratur in parietibus depingatur. It hath seemed good to vs, that there shall be no pictures in the Church, lest that which is worshipped or adored be painted vpon the walles. Bellarmine alledgeth out of their Writers foure seuerall answers, and being satisfied with none of them falleth in the end to the discrediting of the Councell,Bellar. de ima. sanct. Quicquid Conciliū statuerit, &c. contra nos tantùm esse potest Concilium 19. Episcoporum quod prouinciale fuit & minimè confirmatum & in alijs decratis videtur errasse. Whatsoeuer it decreed, it was but a prouinciall Councell, and of but nineteene Bishops, and was neuer confirmed, and seemeth to haue erred in other decrees. This tricke of his masters M. Bishop [Page 1171] thought not good to vse, thinking it to be somwhat too homely, but out of those reiected answers patcheth vp somewhat to serue the turne till he can prouide better. First, he telleth vs that the Councell inhibiteth that sort of Gods images which are made to expresse the diuine nature. ButIbid. Non videtur satisfacere tum quia Concilium loquitur de picturis in genere, cum etiā quiae non erant in vsu eo tempore inimō nec vnquam fuerunt in ecclesia tales imagines quae sunt vera idola. Concilium autē loquitur de eo quod fieri solebat & interdicit ne deinceps fiat. this, s ith Bellarmine, seemeth not to serue the turne, both for that the Councell speaketh generally of pictures, and also because there neuer were any such images vsed in the Church which are very Idols; and the Councell speaketh of that that was wont to be done, and forbiddeth the doing of it any more. As for M. Bishops reason of the tying of the Canon to the images of God, namely that the word (adored) doth so insinuate, it maketh much against himselfe. For if the Councell intended, as indeede it did, that adoration belongeth only to God, then by the iudgement of this Councel, the second Nicene Councell decreed idolatry, & the Church of Rome now practiseth it, in giuing adoration to Saints and their images, as also to other images whatsoeuer, because none of them are gods. M. Bishop finding no hold in this answer, goeth to another, which is a scrap of Doct. Sanders answer, set downe also by Bellarmine, that the Councell decreed that which time and place then required, because there was doubt least the Pagans should thinke that the Christians worshipped flockes and stones, and againe least in those times of persecution, the images should by the persecutours be reproachfully vsed. Of this answer Bellarmine saith,Fateor rationē illam Canonis (Ne quod adoratur, &c) nō multum quadrare huic expositioni. I confesse that the reason of the Canon, Least that which is adored and worshipped be painted vpon the walls, doth not well agree to this exposition. But M. Bishop to shew his cookery, dresseth this answer in a little other sort, and whereas Doct. Sanders vnderstood images for those reasons to be wholy forbidden, he telleth vs that they were forbidden to be drawne vpon the Church wals, for then they must be forced to deface them themselues, or else must leaue them to be disgraced by the enemies, but did not forbid them to be set in tables vpon the Altar or in any other place. Their onely care then was to haue their images at liberty, that if occasion of persecution required, they might be packing bagge and baggage, and like Aeneas his Gods might be shipped away to another Countrey, if they could not finde safety in their owne. Thus whereas Doctor Sanders his conceipt was, that for feare of persecution, they were to haue no images, Maister Bishop is of another minde, that they might haue them standing vpon the Altar or in other places, [Page 1172] onely they might not haue them painted vpon the wall. But the wise man had forgotten the first part of the Canon, It seemeth good to vs, that there shall be no pictures in the Church, not that there shall be no pictures vpon the Church wals, but that there shall be no pictures in the Church. Whereby it appeareth plainly, that they supposed no other being of them in the Church, but onely by being painted vpon the wals; and if they had intended the hauing of them any otherwise in the Church, as vpon the altar or in any other place, they would not haue forbidden the hauing of them in the Church, by a flat contradiction to that which they intended. There were yet no standards of images in the Churches; only they had begun to adorne them with historical pictures & paintings. The fathers thinking it a dishonour to him whom we adore and worship, to be pictured vpon a wall, to take away that abuse, forbid the hauing of any pictures in the Church, referring their words to that kinde of images, because there was no other kinde to which they had occasion to direct them. But Bellarmines exception standeth still good against this answer, that the reason of the Canon fitteth not to it, which is not for any feare of the pictures, falling into the hands of infidels, but that that which we worship be not painted vpon the wals. And by the same reason he excepteth also against the third answer, which is taken out of Alanus Copus, that Christians worshipped their images as Gods, & in that sence the Councell did forbid them, for then saith he it should not haue bene said, least that which is adored be painted, but rather least that which is painted be adored. The last answer to which he saith the reason of the Canon doth most fitly agree, is that good stuffe which M. Bishop here addeth for supply, that pictures painted vpō such poore wals as they had then to their Churches, would either by the moisture of the wals or other incommoditie (he knoweth not what) haue bene quickly disfigured; therefore for the honour of such sacred things, those graue Fathers thought it not meete to haue them drawne vpon the wals, there being many more meete places for them in the Church: So then those graue Fathers are forced in effect to say thus, We will not haue any pictures in the Church, because there are many meete places for them in the Church, and they will soone be disfigured being painted vpon the walls. Wee thinke good to haue no pictures in the Church, that that which is worshipped may not be painted vpon the walls, that is, We wil haue pictures [Page 1173] in the Church, and that painted which is worshipped, onely for feare of being too soone disfigured, our Church walls being subiect to much moisture, it shall not be done vpon the wall; albeit if that inconuenience may be preuented, we doe not dislike, but that that which is worshipped may be painted vpon the wall. Hypocrite, what doest thou with that soule which Christ hath so dearlie bought? wilt thou sell it wilfully to lies and falshood? The Canon directly forbiddeth the hauing of pictures in the Church. The reason is, because they would not haue that which they worshipped to be painted vpon the walls. They knew it might as well be painted on the wall as any where else, but they were acquainted with no other hauing of pictures in the Church, but onely by painting on the walls. Therefore to exclude them wholy out of the Church, which is the thing that they propound, they giue reason of an vndecencie and vnfitnesse, that that which is worshipped should be painted on the wals. Bellarmine therefore seeing well that none of those answers can satisfie any reasonable man that readeth the Canon it selfe, thought it best for a farewel to disgrace the Councel in such sort as I haue before shewed; and much better should M. Bishop haue done the same, and acknowledged that the Councel speaketh against them but they regard it not, then thus to seeke to smother a truth with a manifest and wilfull lye.
10. W. BISHOP.
The second obiection is out of a post-script of Epiphanius letter, vnto Iohn Patriarke of Ierusalem, in which is written, as M. Perkins falsly reporteth: that it is against the authority of Scripture, to see the pictures of Christ, or of any Saint to hang in the Church.
Answer. It is there only, to see the picture of a man. Now that he should meane of Christ or of some Saint, is only gathered, yet M. Perkins makes no bones to thrust them both into the Text: euen so do we thinke that some old enemie of images added that post-script vnto Epiphanius letter. Our reasons are, because it hath no coherence with the former letter or stile. Againe, in the seuenth Councell, when all that could be found out of antiquitie, was cited against images, no tidings there of this place, which if it had bene true, might haue bene one of the principall. Thirdly, in the same Councell, Act. [...]. other two places brought, as it were out of Epiphanius workes, were found to be none of his: And for images was [Page 1174] alledged, that Epiphanius owne disciples erected an image to their maister, and set it in the Church; which they would neuer haue done, if he had taught them to be against the Scripture so to do.
M. Perkins obserues a speciall reason in Epiphanius other counterfeit testimonie: That images must not be suffered in the common house, because we must carrie God in our mindes. To which we answer, that images must be suffered in all places, that we may the better carrie God in our hearts, being by the sight of them, both often put in minde of him, and much moued to honour and loue him.
R. ABBOT.
That all this answer is but a meere shift, appeareth by Alphonsus de Castro, who confesseth that Epiphanius did hold this errour, as he calleth it, against images, as did also after him Serenus Bishop of Massilia, in the time of Gregorie the great, but maketh this excuse for them,Alphon. adu. haeres. lib. 8. tit. Imago. Res non erat adeò aperta nec de illa re, quod sciā, vnquā ecclesia illo tēpore definierat: quapropter liberū tunc erat eis [...]itra haeresis notam ita sentire. that the matter was not then so manifest, neither had the Church at that time defined any thing of it, and therefore it was free for them, without any note of heresie to be of that minde. I pray thee, gentle Reader, here to obserue, that the worshipping of images was no point of Christian faith or doctrine in the time of Gregorie the great, that is, for sixe hundred yeares after the time of Christ, and that it was free for men without being questioned of heresie, all that while to speake against it. Hereby then esteeme who they are that are to be accounted new maisters, bringers in of new doctrines, and setters vp of new religions in the Church of Christ. M. Bishop is loth to deale plainly as Alphonsus did, and therfore will by no meanes haue it thought that Epiphanius was of that minde, but bringeth vs certaine woodden deuices, to perswade men that he meant some other matter, or rather that the testimonie alledged, is none of his. Maister Perkins briefely alledgeth that Epiphanius saith, it is against the authoritie of the Scriptures, to see the image of Christ, or of any Saints hanging in the Church. Maister Bishop saith, that it is there onely, to see the picture of a man: that hee should meane of Christ or of some Saint, is onely gathered, and both are thrust into the text. Whether it be so or not, let it appeare by Epiphanius himselfe.Epiphan. epist. ad Ioannē Hierosolymit. Inueni ibi velum pendem in foribus eiusdē ecclesia tinctū et depictū & imaginem habens quaesi Christi vel sācti eu [...]usdā; nō enim satis memini cu [...]s imago fuerit. Cū ergò vidissem in ecclesia Christi cōtra authoritatem scripturarū hominis pendere imaginem, scidi illud & magis dedi cōsilium custodibus eiusdem loci vt pauperē mortuum eo obuoluerent & efferrent, &c. I found there (in the Church at Anablatha) a veile [Page 1175] hanging at the dores of the Church died and painted, and hauing the image as it were of Christ or some Saint, for I do not well remember whose image it was. When therefore I saw that contrary to the authoritie of the Scriptures, there was the image of a man hanging in the Church, I cut it, and aduised the wardens of the place, that they should burie some poore man in it. It is here very euident, that of the image of Christ or of some Saint, he saith that it is against the authority of the Scriptures, to see the image of a man hanging in the Church. M. Bishop would seeme to be blinde, but indeed he saw this well enough, and therfore seeketh other shifts, because this could not serue. He would make vs beleeue that some old enemie of images added that post-script vnto Epiphanius letter, calling that a post-script which is a iust and substantiall part of a letter or Epistle, & seeking to haue it accounted an addition by another man, which all copies both of Epiphanius his workes in Greeke, and Hieromes translation of that Epistle into Latine, doe vniformly deliuer as written by Epiphanius himselfe. But yet it shall not be amisse to consider his reasons. First, it hath no coherence with the former letter. As though it were so strange a thing to write of two matters in one letter, whereof the one hath no coherence with the other. But otherwise all things very iustly accord. The thing was done as Epiphanius and Iohn the Bishop of Ierusalem, to whom the Epistle was written, were going together to Bethel. It was in the diocesse of the said Iohn. Epiphanius had promised the people of the place, to send them another veile for that which he cut. He sendeth it to the Bishop, and requesteth him to cause the same to be receiued by the ministers of the place, and them withall,Ibid Et dein ceps praecipere in ecclesia Christi istiusmodi vela quae contra religionem nostram ventunt, non appendi. to giue charge that such veiles which make against our religion be not hanged vp in the Church of Christ. Thus therefore hauing other occasion to write to Iohn Bishop of Ierusalem, to cleare himselfe as touching some grieuances which the said Iohn had conceiued against him, there was apparent occasion and reason of the adding of this matter. As for the difference of stile, it is a very fond and friuolous allegation, there being no manner of ground whereupon he should conceiue it, or whereby he can affirme it. His second reason is, because in the seuenth Councell when all that could be found out of antiquity was cited against images, there was no tidings of this place, which might haue bene one of the principall if it had bene true. But therein againe his maister doth exceedingly abuse him. [Page 1176] For in the Councell of Constantinople related by that seuenth Councell, and to whose citations it is that Bellarmine referreth that speech, there are set downe but onely eight authorities or testimonies of former antiquitie, and that eight testimonies are not all that can be alledged out of antiquity against images, I hope M. Bishop will easily conceiue and finde by this discourse. Yea, and the Fathers of that Councell professeSynod. Constā tino. tom. 5. apud Nicen. 2. Act. 6. Ex multis pauca testimonia coll [...]cauimus [...]reliquis quae infinita sunt vole [...]tes supersedimus, vt qui velint ipsi requirant. to set downe but few testimonies of many, willingly passing ouer the rest which, say they, are infinite, that they who will may search them themselues. And as touching Epiphanius citing one place out of them, they adde,Jbid. Idem in alijs quoque sermonibus suis de Imaginum subuersione multa dixit quae studiosi quaerentes facilè inuenient. The same Father in other of his Sermons, hath said many things for the casting downe of Images, which they that are studious by search shall easily finde. It appeareth therefore that those Fathers had no meaning to bring all that might be brought, and it is a wilfull falshood to say that they did so. And that there was more to haue bene alledged out of Epiphanius, it is plaine, not onely for that he callethEpiphan. de haer. cap. 1. Nondum erat inuentum aliquod aliud quàm sola scortatio & excogitatio simulaechrorum. Sic in Ancorato. the deuising of images, a whoredome or fornication, and setteth it downe for a matter of the Carpocratian heresie, that amongst other they worshipped the image of Christ, as before was said, but also for that he condemneth the Collyridian heretikes for making the image of the virgin Mary, and offering to it, whose heresie for that cause he callethJdem haer. 79. Huius simulachrisicae haeresis radicibu [...] excisis, &c. Et post. Simulachrificum hoc studium & diabolicus conatus. Praetextu enim iustitia semper subiens hominum mentē Diabolus, mortalem naturam in hominum oculis deificans, statuas humanas imagines praeseferentes per artium varietatem expres sit. Et illi quidem mortus sunt qui adorantur: ipsorum verò imagi ne [...] quae nunquā vt [...]erunt, &c. adorandas introducunt, adulterante mente à solo & vno Deo, velut commune scortum ad multam multiplicis coitus absurditatem irritatum, & quod temperantiā legitimi coniugij vnius viri detriuit. the image-making heresie, or an heresie giuen to making of images, and calleth the desire of making images a diuellish practise. For the diuel, saith he, stealing into mens minds vnder pretence of righteousnesse, deifieth the mortall nature in the eies of men, and by variety of artes frameth standards bearing in shew the images of men. And they verily who are worshipped are dead, but they bring in their images to be worshipped which neuer were aliue, the mind going a whoring from the true and only God, euen as a common strumpet absurdly desiring variety of carnall cō pany, & is past being content with the lawfull mariage of one man. Hereby appeareth the falshood of that which Epiphanius the deacon in the place here cited by M. Bishop, saith as touching this Epiphanius the Bishop, that in his booke against heresies, he set downe none as touching images; when as expresly he cōdemneth in those heretiks the making of the image of the virgin Mary, as I haue said, and offering to it, as their manner was to offer to it a cake; whence they had that name of Collyridians giuen to them. And hereby may be conceiued [Page 1177] what account we are to make of M.B. third reason that in the same Councell other two places were brought as it were out of Epiphanius works, which were found to be none of his. Where M. Bishop turneth one place into two, and the same one more likely to be forged by him that mentioneth it, if it were forged, then by any man else. The words are cited as out of an Epistle of Epiphanius to Theodosius the Emperour, in the end wherof he saith these words were;Synod. Nicen 2 Act. 6 Epiphan. resp tom. 5. Saepe cum comministris meis de ablatione imaginū egi, sed ab iijs nō receptus sum, ne (que) vel in pauci [...] vocem meam audire sustinuerunt. I haue often dealt with my fellow Ministers for the taking away of images, but I haue not bene accepted of them, neither would they suffer, that in some few words I should speake vnto thē. These words, or rather the whole Epistle Epiphanius the deacon affirmeth not to haue bene written by the other Epiphanius, but alledgeth nothing to proue it so. Only like a wily Sophister he reckoneth vp of the Bishops that liued in the time of Epiphanius diuerse chiefe men, as Basil; Gregory Nazianzene, Gregory Nyssene, Chrysostome, Ambrose, Amphilochius, and Cyril, so carying the matter, as if these were the men with whom Epiphanius had dealt, and hereupon inferring that if these so worthy men would not yeeld to him for the taking away of images, thē there should be no reason now to take them away, whereas he had no reason at all, whereupon to imagine that these or any of these should be the men whom Epiphanius meant. Now beside that Epistle, he importeth that some other writings there were alledged of Epiphanius directed against Images, which, that being the readiest way to put them off, he without any proofe at all affirmeth to be counterfeit, but seeing we haue found him false as touching those workes which he confesseth to haue bene written by Epiphanius, we can giue him no credit for the deniall of the rest. Whatsoeuer they were we see they haue taken course to make thē away, and indeed what hath lien in them they haue laboured to suppresse whatsoeuer most clearely did make against them, and in place thereof to f [...]ist in bastards and counterfeits such as are fit to serue their turne, but are altogether vnworthy of them whose names they are forced to beare. The last reason of Epiphanius his scholers, erecting an image to him, and setting it in the Church, of what waight it is may be esteemed by that that hath bene said. It resteth only vpon the credit of Epiphanius the Deacō, & that is little in this case. Epipha. the Bishop of Cyprus liued 400 years before this Epiph. the deacō, that is, before the time of that 2. Nicen Councell. If they wold haue bin beleeued [Page 1178] as touching a matter foure hundred yeares before, they should haue brought meete proofe and testimonie thereof, which sith they did not, wee cannot hold it for truth, inasmuch as otherwise wee finde them so many waies culpable of vntruth. But whereas Maister Bishop saith, that those Schollers of Epiphanius would neuer haue done so, if he had taught the same to be against the Scripture, it is his bare presumption, & not any necessary conclusion, because though Moses had taught the children of Israel from God, that they should make no Idols or worship them, yet when he was but a little gone from them, they made them, yea Aaron himselfe made for them a golden Calfe. As touching the other sentence of Epiphanius cited by Maister Perkins out of the Councel of Constantinople it is this;Synod. Constantinop. apud Nicē. 2. Act. 6 Estote memores dilecti filij ne in ecclesiā imagines inferatis, ne (que) in sanctorum caemeterijs eas statuatu; sed perpetuò circū ferte Deum in cordibus vestris. Quinetiam ne (que) in domo cōmmuni tolerentur. Ne (que) enim fas est Christianum per [...]culos suspensū teneri sed per occupationē mētis. Be mindfull beloued sonnes, not to bring Images into the Church, neither to set them in the Churchyards, but alwaies carie God about in your hearts. Yea, let them not be suffered in the ordinarie house, for it is not fit for a Christian man to be holden by the eies, but by the occupation of the minde. M. Bishop answereth, that Images must be suffered in all places, that we may the better carie God in our hearts, being by sight thereof put in minde of him. But how vaine this answer is hereby appeareth, for that wee finde in the Scriptures, that the setting vp of such Idols is propounded to be theDeut. 4.23.25. forgetting of Gods couenant, and the corrupting of our selues, but finde it no where commended in the Scripture, to be a meanes of remembring him. He hath set before vs the heauen and earth as a glasse, wherein we may beholdRom. 1.20. his power and Godhead, and thereby be moued to make enquirie after him. He hath giuen vs his word to answer vs what is needefull when we enquire of him. He hath appointed the Sacraments for seales of that grace and mercy, that hee hath reuealed in his word. He setteth the spectacles of his prouidence, and mercie, and iudgement continually before our eies. By these meanes he hath taught vs to be put in minde of him, and to learne to carie him in our hearts, but to be put in minde of him by an Image, it is onelie a vaine and friuolous pretence of Idolaters, and no direction or instruction of the holy Ghost. It is enough for vs, that the people of God who were to remember God as well as wee, yet neuer found it lawfull to set vp an Idoll to remember him thereby.
11. W. BISHOP.
Now I come vnto a third point, which M. Perkins maketh the second of our difference; that images may be not onely made and set in churches, but also worshipped.
M. Perkins holds the contrary: and his principall ground is the second commandement; which containes (saith he) two parts. The first forbids the making of images to resemble God: the second, the worshipping of them or God in them, in these words, Thou shalt not bow downe to them.
Answ. If it be onely forbidden to make the image of God, and to adore it, then the making and worshipping of the image of Christ, or of any other creature, is not there prohibited: and so this second commandement more then thrise alledged, will not serue the turne against any other Image but God onely. And in plaine reason, according also to M. Perkins his owne confession, the commandements of the first table touch onely our dutie towards God, that we giue him all his due honour, and do not giue any part thereof vnto any thing else whatsoeuer. Wherefore diuine and godly worship is onely there spoken of, and not such worship as we giue vnto any creature, or to the picture of it. And consequently there is nothing there against the worshipping of our holy images.
Obserue that there is a soueraigne worship due to God as to the creator and gouernor of all the world, and to giue this to any creature is idolatry. Another honour, by infinite degrees inferiour, yet absolute in it self, is ascribed vnto Angels, and men as creatures endued with reason, and made after the likenesse of God, and to exhibite this to whom it is due, is ciuilitie and not idolatry. This honour may be deuided into two parts, because these creatures are like to God, as wel in their naturall powers and qualities, as in their supernatural. And that honor which is giuen to man or Angel, in respect of any natural qualitie, may be called morall or ciuil: but that which is attributed vnto them in regard of their supernaturall gifts, may wel be called religious and spirituall, because it is due vnto thē onely for their spirituall and religious qualities.
There is a third kind of worship, yet meaner then the other, which is a kind of dependant and respectiue worship; as when a seruant is honoured or cherished, not for his owne but for his masters sake. And this is that worship which we allow vnto images, which for the Saints sake whom it doth represent, we do either reuerently regard, or take off our hat, or bow [Page 1180] our knee vnto it. This third kind of worship being all we allow vnto pictures, were he not that vnderstands it more then halfe franticke, that should thinke it a great desparagement vnto the incomprehensible worship of God, that to one of his seruants pictures I should yeeld some such pettie reuerence: or that God should forbid this in the forefront of his ten commaundements? nothing lesse.
R. ABBOT.
It is true that the commaundements of the first table do touch onely our duty towards God, requiring that we giue him all his due honor, and do not giue any part thereof to any thing else whatsoeuer. Therefore the second commandement for preseruing entirely the honour of God forbiddeth the making of any image whereby to represent or resemble him, and not onely so, but any image whatsoeuer to bow downe to it or to worship it, yea & not only the making and worshipping of Images, but also the worshipping of the creatures themselues, any whatsoeuer either in heauen or earth. Both the words of the commaundement and the Scriptures of particular lawes that are referred vnto it, do plainly shew that all these things are to be vnderstood therein. Now then seeing the law saith both of images and of creatures, Thou shalt not bow downe to them nor worship them, it must follow that they who make the images of Saints and doe bow downe to them and worship them, do trespasse against this commandement, and therefore the commandement is by M. Perkins rightly and well applied against Popish Images. But M. Bishop telleth vs, that onely diuine or godly worship is there spoken of, and not such worship as they giue to any creature or to the picture of it. And we acknowledge that onely diuine and godly worship is there spoken of, but diuine or godly worship we say is all manner worship pertaining to godlinesse and religion, and therfore that they in giuing religious worship to Saints and to their images, do contrary to the commaundement giue vnto them diuine and godly worship. But M. Bishop with a distinction of worship taketh vpon him as do his fellows to mock God, and albeit they commit all absurdity of idolatry yet by a school-trick will make him beleeue that they do him no wrong at all. He telleth vs of a soueraigne worship due to God, and [Page 1181] of ae religious or spirituall worship due to Angels and Saints, and of a dependent and respectiue worship due to Images. But what, is not the soueraigne worship of God a religious and spirituall worship? or what do they make of their worship of images? is there no religion therein, and do they account it onely a profane and carnall seruice? If on all parts there be religious and spiritual worship as he wil not deny, what a wise part doth he play to giue vs a distinction of three members whereof one comprehendeth all? Well, howsoeuer he fumble in his termes, yet we must take vpon vs to vnderstand his meaning well enough, namely that they make three kinds of worship, one belonging to God, another to Angels and Saints, and a third to Images. They are wont to make but two kinds, latria to God, and doulia to Angels and Saints, and both these seuerally to be performed to their images, and we can hardly take M. Bishops word for any warrant that they are now minded otherwise. It hath bene their common rule, thatThom. Aquin. p. 3. q. 25. art. 3. ex Damascen. Honor imaginis ad prototypum peruenit. the honor of the image redoundeth to him whose image it is. Therefore Thomas Aquinas resolueth thatJbid. in corp. Eadē reuerentia exhibetur imagini Christi & ipsi Christo. Cum ergo Christus adoretur adoratione latriae consequens est quòd eius imago sit adoratione latriae adoranda. the same reuerence is giuen to the image of Christ and to Christ himselfe, and because Christ is to be worshipped with the worship of latria (that is, diuine and godly worship) it followeth that his image also is to be worshipped with the same worship of latria. Therefore Andradius saith as hath beneSect. 1. before shewed, We denie not but that we worship the crosse of Christ with this worship of latria. So then inasmuch as the Saints are to be worshipped with the worship of doulia, therefore they hold that their Images are in like sort to be worshipped. Bellarmine simpereth somewhat at the matter, and telleth vs, thatBellarmin. de Imag. sanct c. 23 Admitti potest imagines posse coli impropriè & per accidens eodem genere cultus quo exemplar ipsū colitur. it may be admitted that improperly and accidentally images may be worshipped with the same kinde of worship wherewith their principals are worshipped: but one of his fellow Iesuites affirmeth simply and plainely, thatAzor. In [...]itut. lib. 9 cap. 6. Constans est Theologorum sententia imaginē eodem honore & cultu coli quo colitur id cuius est imago it is the constant opinion of their Diuines, that the image is worshipped with the same honour and worship wherewith he is worshipped whose image it is. M. Bishop therefore, but onely that he hath the countenance of so great a Cardinall as Bellarmine, might haply receiue a checke for doing some disgrace to holy Images, by putting them to a lower and inferiour kinde of worship then the common opinion of their Diuines doth attribute vnto them. Which indignity he maketh the greater by making images as seruants or seruing men to them whose images they be, to Christ and his Saints, [Page 1182] or to God if they be images of God. As when a seruant is honoured not for his owne but for his masters sake: so is that worship (saith he) which we allow to images, which for the Saints sake whom it doth represent, we do either reuerently regard, or take off our hat, or bow our knee vnto it. But what reason is it to make seruants of them who are more trimly decked and more loftily set vp then euer their masters were? A seruant is to be regarded for his masters sake, but what reason is there to giue to the seruant that honour that appertaineth to the master, yea which the master hath holden vnlawfull to be done vnto himselfe?Athanas. contra Arian ser. 3. Petrus adorare volentem Corneliū inhibuit, &c. Angelus quoque Ioannē in Apocalypsi se adorar [...] volentem non admisit, &c. Quocirca solius numinis est adorari, neque id ab Angelis ignoratur, qui quanquā caeteros gloria transcendunt creaturas tamen se esse, neque in classibus adorandorum sed adorantiū agnoscūt se comput [...]ri debere. Peter forbad Cornelius (saith Athanasius) when he was about to worship him, saying, For I also am a man. The Angell also when Iohn would worship him, suffered him not, saying, See thou do it not, for I am the fellow-seruant of thy brethren the Prophets, and of them that keepe the words of this booke; worship God. Wherefore it belongeth to God onely to be worshipped, sayth he, neither are the Angels ignorant thereof, who albeit they exceed others in glorie, yet acknowledge themselues to be creatures, and that they are to be reckoned in the ranke of them that are to worship, and not of them that are to be worshipped. Now if Angels and Saints haue refused to haue worship done vnto them, because they are but men and fellow-seruants with vs to God, how may it be thought lawfull for vs to do it to their seruants, that is, to idols and images, as to their seruants for their sakes? Surely we cannot see how this by any reason can stand good. Albeit we hold it also an vnmannerly and rude part in M. Bishop thus to thrust seruants vpon them without their will. Where doth it appeare vnto him that they haue promised entertaiment to any such seruants? what couenant haue they made with them? what wages do they pay them? what seruice doe they require of them? nay what seruice should they expect of senslesse blockes,Psal. 115.5.6. Reuel. 9.20. which haue eyes and see not, eares and heare not, hands and handle not, feete and walke not, throate and speake not, which cannotMat. 8.9. go when they are bid go, nor come when they are bid come, nor do what they are bid do. And if they be of no seruice, if they be good for nothing, why are they set forth to vs by a comparison of seruants to be well entertained and vsed for their masters sake? M. Bishop then hath here made a wise hand, to set downe a distinction of worship, the particulars whereof are neither pleasing to vs nor to his owne friends. [Page 1183] Albeit it is withall to be vnderstood, that these distinctions of worship, whether M. Bishops or any others, belong to the theoremes of their schooles, not to the practise of their Churches. They tell vs of diuers kinds of worship in their schooles, when as in their churches there is no difference to be seene; but what they do to God, the same they doe to Saints, the same also to the images of the Saints. Wherein that their absurditie and the vanitie of their distinction may the better appeare, let vs examine what things they are that belong to diuine and godly worship, which they call Latria, which if they be found to giue in common to their Saints and images, then it shall be manifest that their distinction is vsed but onely for a shew to blind the vnaduised and ignorant Reader, but cannot with any intelligent minde acquit them of that idolatrie which we impute vnto them. To diuine or godly worship, Cyril & Austin do reckon to be belongingAugust. de ciu. Dei, lib. 7. cap. 32. Sacra, sacerdotia, templum, altaria, sacrificia, ceremoniae, dies festi, & quicquid aliud ad latriam pertinet, &c. Cyril. cōtra Iuliā lib. 4. Sacrificia, festiuitates, hymni, gratiarū actiones, &c. adoratio, &c. preces, confessiones, celebritates, &c. Vide Aug. de ciu. Dei. lib. 10 cap. 4. sacred deuotions, priesthood, temples, altars, sacrifices and offerings, ceremonies, festiuall dayes and solemnities, vowes, prayers, praises and thanksgiuings, adoration and worship, confessions, all which the diuels did procure to be giuen to them when they sought to draw vnto themselues the honour of God. S. Austin againe expoundeth latria to consistAugus. de ciu. Dei. lib. 10. ca. 1. Vt sacra faciamus & sacrificemus, vel aliqua nostra seu nosipsos religionis ritibus cōsecremus. Hic est enim deitati debitus, &c. Latriam nostri interpretati sunt. in doing sacred deuotions and sacrifices, or consecrating any thing that is ours or our selues by any rites or ceremonies of religion. Now what is there of al these things which they yeeld not to their Saints, and in the name of the Saints to the images of the Saints? They worship them, they pray vnto them, they make confessions and vowes to them, they giue thankes to them for benefites receiued, they performe sacred deuotions and ceremonies to them, and thereto consecrate themselues and their goods, they keepe holy dayes and fasting dayes in the worship and honour of them, they set vp lights before them, they put precious and costly garments vpon them, they make pilgrimages to them, and no end is there of religious rites and duties which with all holie obseruation they yeeld vnto them.Idē. contra ser. Arian. cap. 29. Si aliquibus terrae molibus Spiritui sancto templum fabricaremus, quis dubitaret ei nos latriae seruire? Who doubteth (saith Saint Austine) but that to whomsoeuer we build a temple, we serue him with latria, that is, the worship of God?Jdem. contra Maximin. lib. 1. Si templum alicui Angelo excellentissimo de lignis & lapidibus faceremus, &c. creaturae exhiberemus eam seruitutem quae vni tantum debetur Deo. For if to any of the most excellent Angels (saith he) we should of wood and stone build a temple or church, we should yeeld to the creature a seruice which is due to God only. [Page 1184] But this they did as Erasmus there notethErasm ibid. in margine. Hoc nun [...] fit quibus libet diuis to euery of the Saints, accordingly as Boniface the fourthPlatinan Bonif a Pantheon à Phoca obtinuit con [...]ecrau [...]t (que) in honorem beatae virginis omniū (que) martyrum. consec [...]ated the Pantheon of the Romanes to the honour of the blessed Virgin and all the Martyrs; according as they are taught to pray at comming into a Church,Horae virg Mariae secund. vsum Serum. Sancti dei in quorum honore & commemora tione haec sancta dedicata est Ecclesia & haec altaria consecrata, &c. O ye Saints of God, in the honor and remembrance of whom this church was dedicated and these altars consecrated, &c. Where it appeareth also that they consecrated altars to the Saints and to their honour, yea insomuch that in Churches they had many times their peculiar chappels and altars, and Priests, our Ladies chappell, our Ladies altar, our Ladies Priest, and so for other Saints, whereas S. Austin also testifieth, that to be honoured with anAug. de verb Do. ser 6 Quòd pro nomine accipiant illam statuam, ara testatur. Quid illic faciat ara si illud nō habetur pro numine? altar is a thing proper to God onely. Albeit here they except that they offer not their sacrifice to any but to God only, namely that in their masse they do not say,Triden. concil. sess 6. cap 3 Vnde nec sacerdos dicere solet, offero tibi sacrificiū Petre vel Paule, &c. We offer vnto thee O Peter or Paul, but reserue this as peculiar to him onely who hath crowned them. A goodly matter, that of all the worship that belongeth to God they keepe one onely act or office entire vnto him. Albeit here they do but halt and dally with God, because howsoeuer they pretend to offer to God onely, yet they professeBellarmin. de sanct. beatitud. cap. 7. Sacrificia tam Eucharistiae quaem laudum et precum i [...] eorum honorem Deo publicè offeruntur. to offer to God in honour of the Saints: and whereas our Sauiour Christ hath instituted that sacrament to be celebrated as a diuine and godly worship, 1. Cor. 11 24.25. in remembrance of him, they herein ioyne the Saints in fellowship with him, and professe the same holy celebration to be performed and doneConcil. Tridēt. vt supra. In honorem & memoriam sanctorum ecclesia missas celebrare consueuit in remembrance of them. And yet it is to be obserued further that sacrifice is not to be vnderstood onely of propitiatory sacrifice, as they affirme their masse to be, but of all consecrated and holy offerings, concerning which generally God hath said,Exod. 22.20. He which sacrificeth or offereth to other gods but to the Lord onely shall be slaine. WhereLyra. ibid Per immolationem hic prohibitam intelligitur prohibita oblatio, libati [...], [...]hurificatio, & talia quae fiebant in templo ipsi Deo directè. by immolation or sacrifice (saith Lyra) is vnderstood to be forbiddē oblation, drink offering, burning of incense, and such other things, which in the temple were done directly to God himselfe. Hereby then it is plaine that all manner of religious and holy offering is to be accounted a peculiar honour of God alone, and therefore did Epiphanius condemne the Collyridian heretickes as making a god of the Virgine Marie, in that by way of deuotionEpiphan. haeres. Panem proponunt & offerunt in nomen Mariae, &c. Sanctum erat Mariae corpus at non Deus, &c. they offered a cake vnto her or in her name. [Page 1185] But this the Church of Rome doth, and teacheth men to do; they offer to their idols and images all manner offerings of gold and siluer, and iewels, and whatsoeuer else may serue for the vse of them who make their profit of those offerings, and therefore cannot be cleared of offering sacrifice to the Saints and their images, that is, of giuing them in this respect also the worship that belongeth to God only. Thus asProu. 30.2 [...]. the harlot in the Prouerbs eateth and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I haue committed no iniquitie, so the harlot of Rome going a whoring from God, bestoweth vpon her idols all the worship & honour of God, and doth to them all that she doth to God, and in the meane time pretendeth that it is not diuine or godly worship, but onely an inferiour kind of worship that she doth assigne vnto them. Which because it is more manifest then that it can be denied, the Valentian Iesuite to take away the inconuenience thereof arising, that they are guiltie of Idolatry, frameth vs a new definition of Idolatry, that it is not the giuing of the worship of God to a creature, butGreg. de Valē. de idololat lib. 2. cap. 1. Idolatriae genuina ratio creaturae diuinū honorem habere sicut Deo. the giuing of the worship of God to a creature as to God, therby thinking that they are to be acquitted of idolatry, for that albeit they giue diuine honor and worship to their images, which he could not denie, yet they giue it not to them as taking them to be Gods. But S. Austin simply saith, thatAugust. de Trin. lib. 1. cap. 6. Idololatrae dicuntur qui simulachris eam exhibent seruitutē quae debetur Deo. they are called Idolaters who giue to Images that seruice that is due to God, which they doing by his own confession, must consequently be affirmed to be idolaters. Neither cā the distinctions vsed by M. Bishop and the rest, whatsoeuer colours they set vpon them, excuse them in this behalf, because howsoeuer they terme it an inferiour worship which they do to Saints and Images, yet it is religious worship or worship of religion, and worship of religion is peculiar to God alone.August. contrae Faust. lib. 14. cae. 11. Apostolus & creaturam laudat, & ei tamen cultum religionis exhibere vetat. The Apostle (saith S. Austine) forbiddeth that worship of religion be yeelded to a creature. Jdem. contrae 2. epist. Pelag. lib. 3. cap. 4. Quis dicat non debere obseruare Christianos vt vni Deo religionis obsequio seruiatur. Christians (saith he) are to obserue that with dutie of religion they worship God onely. Therfore he saith as touching the Saints,Idem de vera relig. cap. 55. Non sit nobis religio cultus hominum mortuorum &c. Honorandi sunt propter imitationem, non adorandi propter religionem, &c. Honoramus eos charitate, non seruitute. Let it be no religion with vs to worship dead men; they are to be honoured for imitation, not to be worshipped for religion: we honour them by way of loue, not by way of seruice. To this purpose the same S. Austine very fitly obserueth, thatJbid. Et vni religantes animas nostras, vnde religio dicta creditur. religion is so called of tying our soules to God onely, that we may conceiue that as Lactantius sayth, [Page 1186] Lactan. instit. lib. 1. cap. 20. Religio et veneratio nulla alia nisi vnius Dei tenenda est. no religion or worship is to be holden but of God only. In respect wherof hauing condemned images, he vseth this exhortation, thatIbid. lib 2 cap. 18. Nihil aliud adoremus, nihil colamus nisi solum artificis nostri parentis (que) vnicum numen. we adore nothing, worship nothing but the onely Godhead of our maker and Father. August. contra Faust lib. 20. ca: 5. Solus ille colendas est quo solo fruens beatus fit cultor eius. He onely is to be worshipped, saith S. Austine, in the enioying of whom alone he becommeth blessed that worshippeth him. Origen. contra Cels. lib. 1. Et adhibemus animum qui docet solum hunc colendum esse, caetera nihil esse, aut esse quidem sed honore tantùm digna, non cultu atque adoratione quae nulli creaturae concedi potest abs (que) diuinitatis miu [...]a. We hearken to him (saith Origen) who teacheth vs that God onely is to be worshipped, and as for other things that they are nothing, or that they are indeed, but are worthy of honour onely, not of adoration and worship, which can be granted to no creature without iniury vnto God. Now then what do they but mocke vs in telling vs of a diuers kind of worship to be performed by way of religion to God, to Saints and Images, when as in religion there is no worship to be done to any but to God alone? They tell vs they giue not the same worship to Images or to the Saints as they do to God, when as religion teacheth vs that no worship at all is due either to images or Saints, but to God onely. Albeit they lie therein, as hath bene shewed, inasmuch as by the common opinion of their Diuines, the images of God and of Christ are to be worshipped with diuine worship, because diuine worship is due to them that are represented thereby. Now therefore whereas M. Bishop saith, that all the worship which they do to Images is but reuerently to regard, to put off the hat and to bow the knee to them, he speaketh as a man ashamed of that which euery where and in all places is practised amongst them. And it may be that he speaketh it but onely by equiuocation in respect of the very image it selfe, for inBellarmin. de Imagin. sanctor. cap. 21. In ipsa imagine verè inest aliquid sacrum, nimirum similitudo ad rem sacram, & ipsa dedicatio siue consecratio diuino cultui. Ergo ipse in se & non solum vt prototypi vicem gerunt honore dignae sunt. the very image it selfe (saith Bellarmine) there is some sacred matter, namely the liknesse to a holy thing, and the dedicating or consecrating of it to diuine worship, and therefore Images themselues in themselues are worthy of honor, and not only as they represent or beare the person of the principall. His proposition more fully expresseth the same,Jbid. Imagines Christi & Sanctorum venerandae sunt non solum per accidens vel impropriè, sed etiam per se & propriè, ita vt ipsa terminent venerationem, vt in se considerantur, & non solùm vt vicem gerunt exemplaris. The Images of Christ and of the Saints are to be worshipped not onely accidentally or vnproperly, but properly and in themselues, so as that they determine the worship themselues as they are considered in themselues, and not onely as they supply the place of their principall. Thus haply M. Bishop by a cunning distinction telleth vs that they giue no more worship to images then that which he mentioneth, because in one meaning they giue no more as they are considered [Page 1187] in themselues, but let him make the meaning what he will, he knoweth well that in the deuotion of the people they haue all the same worship and seruice done to them as is done to God himselfe. Albeit that which he himselfe mentioneth is a witlesse, a senslesse and drunken deuotion, like to the superstition that was derided in the Pagans, whoMinut. Felix in Oct. apud Arno. Simulachro Serapidis denotato (vt vulgus superstitiosus solet) manum ori admouens osculū labijs pressit. at the sight of the image of Serapis (or such like) were wont going by to kisse the hand, namely in token of doing reuerence thereto. What a brutish and beastly absurditie is it, that an vnderstanding soule should deiect it self to do reuerence to a block? God hath said, Thou shalt not bow downe to them: and againe teacheth man to say,Esa 44.19. Shall I bow to the stocke of a tree? The Prophet saith of Idolaters,Chap. 2.8.9. They worship the worke of their owne hands which their owne fingers haue made, and a man bowed himselfe, and a man humbled himselfe, therefore spare them not. He denounceth the vengeance of God to them who to stockes & stones, to the works of mens hands will doe euen those pettie reuerences which M. Bishop speaketh of. Therefore whereas he saith, This third kind of worship being all that we allow vnto pictures, were he not that vnderstands it more then halfe frantike, that should thinke it a great disparagement vnto the incomprehensible worship of God, that to one of his seruants pictures I should yeeld some such petty reuerence, or that God should forbid this in the forefront of his ten cōmandements? I answer with his own words, Nothing lesse. We see that like Caiaphas he speaketh the truth, and is not aware. Indeed it is nothing lesse then a franticke humour to be instructed by Gods commaundement, and therupon to deny the doing of any worship to pictures and images; but to affirme the same, and to do such reuerences to pictures, is a plaine token that Idolaters are like the idols which they worship, altogether voide of vnderstanding, and without the light of common sence. Therfore rightly the Prophet saith,Psal. 115.8. They that make them are like vnto them, and so are all they that put their trust in them.
12. W. BISHOP.
But let vs go on with M. Perkins his argument. His second is, The brazen Serpent was an image of Christ crucified, appointed by God: yet when the children of Israel burned insence vnto it, Ezechias brake it in peeces 4. Reg. 18..
Answ. So when Christians generally giue godly honour to images, as those Israelites did to the serpent, let them also be broken by their lawful superiour if no better remedie may be found. But as that very brazen serpent duly worshipped many hundred yeares by the same people before they fell to idolatry, as witnesseth S. AugustineLib. 3. de Trini. cap. 10., where he reckoneth the brazen serpent among those signes which are worthy of religious worship: so good Christians may worship all sorts of holy pictures, so they think no god to dwell in them, nor put any trust in the pictures, but vse them onely to stir vp deuotion, to keepe their minds from wandering after their domesticall affaires, and to conserue the memory of Gods happy seruants.
R. ABBOT.
We are desirous to know where the superiours of the Romish Church haue broken any images, to which godly honour hath bene giuen. That it hath bene giuen to them, it is confessed by Polydore Ʋirgil, as I haue before shewed, acknowledging thatPolyd. Virgil. de inuent. rer. lib. 6. cap. 13. that part of pietie did litle differ from impiety, and that the people did worship images not as figures but so as that they did put more trust in them then in Christ and the Saints to whom they were dedicated. These words they deface and blot out, with many other following which serue to the laying open of this wicked abuse, but of the reforming of any abuse herein cōmitted, we can yet vnderstand nothing. And seeing Greg. de Val. plainly confesseth that they giue diuine worship to Images, as hath bene shewed in the former section, we must take this speech of M. Bishop to be vsed but for a shift without any meaning to haue their idols so roughly dealt with as he pretendeth. Nay as the Pagans were made beleeue thatRuffin. hist. lib. 2. cap 23. Persuaesio dispersa quòd si humana manus simulachrū illud contigisset, terra dehiscens illico solueretur in Chaos, & repentè coelum rueret in praeceps. if the image of Serapis were hurt or touched, all the world would presently be dissolued: so the Romish politicians perswade themselues that their golden world will soone come to nought if once they should offer to lay violent hands vpon their sacred and holy images. As for that which he saith of the brasē serpent duly worshipped many hundred yeares, it is a most impudēt lie, neither is there so much as any shew of any thing whereupon he should so affirme. The childrē of Israel had bin accustomed2. Kings 18.4. to burne incense to it. Ezechias took knowledge of it (which it seemeth some other godly kings before him had not done) & cōdemned it as wicked & vnlawful, & to take away vtterly the occasion of that idolatry [Page 1189] he brake the same brazen Serpent in peeces, calling it in contempt because of the abuse of it, a peece of brasse. That it was worshipped then we find, and for that cause was destroyed, but that it was euer lawfully worshipped, there is nothing to be found. Yet M. Bishop very leudly seeketh to father this conceit vpon S. Austine, Aug. de Trinit. lib. 3 cap. 10. Aliquādo ad hoc fit eadem species vel aliquantulū mansura, sicut potuit serpens ille aeneus exaltatus in eremo, sicut possunt & literae; vel peracto ministerio transitura, sicut panis ad hoc factus in accipiendo sacramento consumitur, sed ista quia hominibus nota sunt quia per homines fiunt honorem tanquā religiosa habere possunt, stuporē tanquā mira non possunt As witnesseth Saint Austine, saith he, where he reckoneth the brazen Serpent among those signes which are worthy of religious worship. The thing that S. Austine saith is this, that to declare somewhat to vs from God sometimes a forme or kinde of thing is made either to abide for a while as might the brazen Serpent that was lift vp in the wildernesse, and as letters or writing may; or else to passe away as the seruice is performed, as the bread made for that vse in receiuing the sacrament is consumed. Hereupon he addeth, But these things being knowne to men because they are done by men, may haue honour as matters appertaining to religion, but wonder as matters of maruell they cannot haue. And what is here now whence M. Bishop should affirme that S. Austine accounted the brazen Serpent worthy of religious worship? What doth he say more of the brazen serpent then he doth of letters and writing, and will M. Bishop say that he will haue letters and writing to be worshipped? Things appertaining to the vse of religion are to be honored by decent and seemly vsage, as our Churches, pulpits, vestiments, cups, books, and such like, and yet they are not to be worshipped. Saint Paul saith,1. Tim 5.17. The elders that rule well are worthy of double honour, and yet we hope M. Bishop will not vpon a good opinion of himselfe take vpon him to be worshipped.August. contra ser. Arian. ca. 23. Honorat omnis qui adorat, non autem adorat omnis qui honorat. Euery one that worshippeth, honoureth, saith S. Austine, but euery one that honoureth doth not worship. Therefore Epiphanius saith of the blessed Virgine,Epiphan. haeres. 97. Sit in honore Maria, Pater & Filius & Spiritus sanctus adoretur. Mariam nemo adoret, Deo debetur hoc mysterium, &c. Sancta est & honorata, at non ad adorationem, Let Mary be in honour; let the Father, Sonne and holy Ghost be worshipped: Let no man worship Mary; this mystery belongeth vnto God. She is holy and honorable, but is not to be worshipped. The brazen serpent then might be honored by being carefully kept, as Manna was for the remembrance of the benefite thereby receiued, but thereupon to assigne to it religious worship is a collectiō somwhat strange. Seeing therefore the brazen serpent was neuer lawfully worshipped, M. Bishop hath no argument from thence to prooue that good Christians may worship all sorts of holy pictures, but M. Perkins argument standeth good, that sith the brazen serpent erected by the commaundement of God himselfe, yet when it was worshipped [Page 1190] was therefore destroyed and abolished; therefore much more all other images being erected onely of humane curiositie without commandement from God are to be defaced and destroyed when religious worship or seruice is done vnto them. As for M. Bishops vses of his images to stirre vp deuotion, to keepe the mind from wandering, to conserue the memory of Gods happie seruants, they are (as I haue before shewed) the vaine pretences of Idolaters, neither is there any good effect to be expected from them, to say nothing that these things are nothing to the point in hand, which is the worshipping of them.
13. W. BISHOP.
Now to the third argument, which is iolly, and worthy the wilde wit of a mad minister. Christ would not so much as bow his knee vnto the diuell, although he would haue giuen him the whole world for doing of it: therfore we must not adore images. True, if the Image were M. Bezaes ensigne, or of their master the diuell, or any of his hel-hounds.
R. ABBOT.
Here M. Bishop was disposed to play the Sycophants part, or else he might haue seene that M. Perkins meaning was otherwise then to frame any such argument as he hath hewed his words to. The point in question is the worshipping of Images. M. Perkins for our principall ground against it, alledgeth the second commaundement. To declare the meaning of the commandement he alledgeth the example of our Sauiour Christ, who when the diuell requireth himMat. 4.9. to fall downe and worship him vpon promise to giue him the whole world, taketh exception against him, not by the indignitie of his person, but by the commaundement of the law, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him onely thou shalt serue, importing thereby, that the law doth forbid the doing of that which the diuel required to any saue to God onely. He reiecteth him, I say, not in the name of a diuell, but generally in the name and condition of a creature, teaching by the law that no creature, none but only God is to be holden capable of that which he demaunded to himselfe. Now then if M. Bishops wits stand right, the argument standeth [Page 1191] good, that sith Christ by the law challengeth to God onely that which the diuel required of him, which was to fall downe and worship him, we are thereby to learne that we are not to fall downe and to worship any creature, not the Saints themselues, much lesse the vile idols that are set vp in their names. Here I know what they are ready to except, that Christ saith not there, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God onely, but Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and leaueth only to the other part, Him only thou shalt serue, as not denying but that other things may be worshipped beside God, but only denying vnto thē the seruice of latria, the word there being [...], whence latria is deriued, which they say is the seruice peculiar vnto God. But how vaine this exception is, appeareth by considering the originall words of the law, which saith in like sort of both,Deut. 10.20. Thou shalt feare the Lord thy God, and thou shalt serue him, adding the word onely to neither part. The name of feare is more generall, and containeth all religion and deuotion towards God, but in steed thereof our Sauiour Christ nameth worship, which is a part of that feare, fitting the words to the present occasion, and yet not forcing the law, because the challenge that God maketh to the whole, must necessarily be vnderstood of euery part. Now whereas the sentences in the law are set downe without the limitation of the word onely, our Sauiour Christ to shew the meaning of the Scripture in such speeches concerning God, addeth that limitation to the latter part, not as to make that onely peculiar to God, and to leaue the former in common to others, but in the one teaching vs what we are to vnderstand in both, because by what reason the one is appropriated to God, by the same is the other also, and leauing vs to conceiue that whatsoeuer God challengeth as a part of his worship and glory, the same is to be giuen to no other beside him. To which purpose Tertullian very wel saith.Tertull aduer. Hermog Veritas sic vnum Deum exigit defendēdo vt solius sit quicquid ipsius est: ita eum ipsius erit si fuerit solius. Truth so requireth in the defending of one God, that what is his, be his alone; for so shall it be his, if it be onely his. And so did Ambrose vnderstand the words of Christ, when he sayth,Ambros. de Spir sanct. lib. 2. cap. 12. Neque adorandum quic quam praeter Deū legimus quia scriptum est, Dominū Deum, &c. We reade that nothing beside God is to be worshipped, because it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him onely thou shalt serue. And to take it otherwise, taketh away the force of Christs exception against the diuell; for it is no sufficient reason to say, I will not worship thee, because it is said, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, if other things may be worshipped beside [Page 1192] God. If to make good the answer of Christ they will rest the strength thereof vpon the latter part of the words, they confound themselues, and make our assertion good. For if in the words of the law [...], Him onely thou shalt serue, be an exception against that which the diuell requireth of Christ, to fall downe and worship him, it must necessarily be granted, that to fall downe and worship, is [...], to performe a seruice of latria; to do that seruice which belongeth to God only. Wherefore wil they, nill they, they must confesse that the law intendeth to say, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God only, and thereof we rightly gather, that because God only is to be worshipped, therefore we may not worship any creature whatsoeuer, but least of all dead and senslesse blocks. M. Perkins wits therefore were not wilde in the propounding of the argument, but M. Bishops honestie failed in the collecting of it, and that because his wits failed for the answering of it. As for his other terms I wil briefly answer him, that M. Beza is there now where he is free from being touched with the barking of such dogs, and that they haue the diuell for their master, to whō that belongeth which S. Iohn saith,Reuel. 9.20: They worshipped diuels and idols of gold & of siluer, and of brasse, and of stone, and of wood, which neither can see, nor heare, nor go, which hath no where to be verified but in the Popish Church: and lastly that they are to be accounted the diuels hel-hounds, who haue giuen themselues wholy to the diuell, as many of M. Bishops holy fathers haue done, and namely for the presentPlatin. in Syluest. 2. Totum se diabolo tradiderat. Pontificatū adiuuāte diabolo cōsecutus est, hac lege vt post mortē totus illius esset Syluester the second for the gaining of the Popedome.
14. W. BISHOP.
M. Perkins his fourth reason. A man (saith he) may be worshipped with ciuill honor, not with religious, which is wholy prescribed in the first table, and yet the meanest man is a more excellent image of God then any painted one.
Answ. A man may be worshipped with religious honor, in respect of his supernaturall gifts, as well as with ciuill honor of his naturall properties, as hath bene before declared: and no other religious honor is either prescribed or proscribed in the first table then such onely as is proper to God.
But (saith he) Thomas of Watering3. Part. qu. 25. art. 3. holds that the Crucifixe is to be adored with the same honor that Christ is. Leauing Thomas of Watering [Page 1193] and of Wapping to them that deserue it: I answer to the place of Saint Thomas of Aquine, that he speaketh (like a most learned Philosopher and Diuine) very profoundly, that the image may be considered in it selfe, and so he saith, it is not to be worshipped at all, or as it doth conuey our mind vnto that which it doth represent: and so because there is but one and the same motion of our vnderstāding and wil towards Christ and the crucifix, we do adore them both at once with the same act of adoration, but in a far different degree, for Christ we adore properly as the true God, but the crucifixe accidentally as a thing ioyned with Christ. Euen as (saith he, expounding himselfe) art. 4. when one doth his homage vnto the king, he worshippeth withall his purple garment, not that any worship is due to the robe, but the whole is giuen vnto the person, which cannot be seperated frō that which is so closely ioyned to the person: euen so the diuine person of Christ is properly adored, but improperly all things conceiued together with it, are said also by that deepe doctor to be adored. He that hath an eare of hearing let him heare: for our purpose it sufficeth to know that he assignes very small worship to themselues.
R. ABBOT.
M. Perkins argueth, that they which wil worship an image of God should rather worship man then any other image, because the meanest man is a more excellent image of God then all the images of God and of Saints that are deuised by men. And if it be vnlawfull with religious honor to worship a mā, then much more is it vnlawful to worship an image that is made by mā. To this M. Bishop ful wisely answereth, that a man may be worshipped with religious honor in respect of his supernaturall gifts. Now we doubt not but he thinketh himself to haue some supernaturall gifts, and is he so very a naturall as to thinke that we may fall downe and worship him in respect of his supernaturals? Cornelius in respect of supernaturall calling and gifts worshippeth S. Peter, and he refuseth it, sayingAct. 10.26. Stand vp, for I my self am a man. S. Iohn in respect of supernaturall gifts worshippeth the Angell, and he also disclaimeth it, saying,Reuel. 19.10. Do it not, I am thy fellow-seruant, worship God. What, is M. Bishop so witlesse as to thinke that Cornelius tooke Peter to be a God, or that Iohn tooke the Angell so to be? No, but they tooke them to be excellent seruants of God, and in that respect worshipped them; yet they renounced [...] [Page 1194] being done in that respect, and giue vs to vnderstand, that religious worship is not to be giuen to Apostles because they are but men, nor to Angels because they are but fellow-seruants, but is proper to God onely. It sauoureth therefore of a very natural wit, to say that a man may be worshipped with religious worship in respect of his supernaturall gifts, and because there is no religious worship but what is due to God onely, therefore very idlely doth he say that there is no other religious worship either prescribed or proscribed in the first table then such onely as is proper to God. There is no other prescribed, because in right there is no other, and that is proscribed and condemned when it is giuen to any other. But specially is it condemned when it is giuen to stocks and stones, to pictures and images, and therefore iustly doth M. Perkins censure Thomas Aquinas for affirming very impiously and idolatrously that the Crosse is to be worshipped with godly worship, euen with the same that is due to Christ himselfe. M. Bishop seemeth here to shew some signe of grace, and to be ashamed of this damnable and wicked position, and faine would salue the matter, but it will not be. Thomas Aquinas propoundeth the question,Thom Aquin. sum. p. 3. q 25. art. 4. Vtrum crux Christi sit aedoranda adoratione latriae? &c. Illi exhibemus cultū latriae in quo ponimus spem salutis. Sed in cruce Christi p [...]nimus spem salutis: cantat enim Ecclesia, O Crux, aue, spes v [...]ica, &c. Ergo crux Christi est adoranda adoratione latriae. Whether the crosse of Christ be to be worshipped with the worship of latria? He determineth that it is, because we giue the worship of latria to that wherein we put the hope of our saluation. But we put the hope of our saluation in the Crosse: for the Church (sayth he) singeth, All haile, O Crosse, our onely hope, at this time of the passion; To the godly increase righteousnesse, and to the guiltie grant forgiuenesse. Therefore the Crosse is to be worshipped with latria, that is, the worship that is due to God. Marke it, gentle Reader, that they put the hope of saluation in that crosse to which they say, All haile, O Crosse, &c. and therefore do worship it with latria, with diuine and godly worship. M. Bishop maketh the matter somewhat daintie with his distinction of properly and vnproperly; but Thomas like a plaine meaning man speaketh downe-right, albeit otherwise he be as full of distinctions as any other. As for that which M. Bishop sayth, it is a tale which he hath learned out of Bellarmine, and putteth it out vnder Thomas Aquinas his name, but Thomas himselfe sayth nothing to that effect, whose name notwithstanding must sway more then Bellarmines can doe. His resolution more largely and distinctly set downe is this, [Page 1195] thatJbid. in corp. Creaturae insensibili non debetur honor vel reuerentia nisi ratione rationalis naturae, & hoc dupliciter, vno modo inquantum repraesentat rationalem naturā, alio modo inquā tum ei quocun (que) modo coiungitur. Primo modo cō sueuerunt homine [...] venerari regis imaginem, secūdo modo eius vestimentum. Vtrun (que) autem venerantur homines eadem veneratione qua venerantur & regem. to a thing without sense, a reuerence may be due in respect of a reasonable nature two manner of waies; first in that it representeth the same reasonable nature; secondly, in that it is in any sort ioined to it. The first way, saith he, mē are wont to worship the Kings image, the second way the Kings garment; but they worship both with the same worship wherewith they worship the King himselfe. Here is good stuffe, but yet it is such as Thomas his head could deuise to set vp the crosse to be worshipped like a God. A prety probleme might be moued hereupon, and worthily debated, if there had happened to be a lowse in the Popes garment somewhat neerely ioined to him, when Thomas should come to worship him, whether he should be said to worship the Popes lowse, and that with the very same worship as the Pope himselfe. If being ioyned in any sort to that which is worshipped, do put that that is so ioined in case to be worshipped alike, then surely the Popes lowse must be worshipped if he happen to haue one, as by the same reason must also the wormes that breede in their rotten woodden gods. But to apply this to the crosse he saith:Ibid. Si ergò loquamur de ipsa cruce in qua Christus crucifixus est, vtro (que) modo est à nobis veneranda, vno scilicet modo inquantum repraesentat figuram Christi extensi in ea, alio modo ex contactu ad mē bra Christi & ex hoc quod eius sā guine est perfusa. Vnde vtro (que) modo adoratur eadē adoratione latriae, et propter hoc etiā cruc [...]n [...] alloquimur & deprecamurqua [...] si ipsum crucifixum. Si verò loquamur de effigie crucis Christi in quacun (que) alia materia. &c. Si [...] veneramur crucem tantùm vt imaginem Christi quam veneramur adoratione latriae. If then we speak of the very crosse wheron Christ was crucified; we are to worship the same both waies, namely one way as it representeth the figure of Christ extended vpon the crosse; another way for touching the members of Christ, and for being embrued with his bloud. Whereupon in both respects it is worshipped with the same worship as Christ himselfe, that is, with the worship of latria, and therefore doe wee speake and pray to the crosse as to Christ himselfe that was crucified. But if wee speake of the image of the crosse in any other matter, as stone or wood, or gold, or siluer, we then worship the crosse, onely as the image of Christ, which wee worship with the worship of latria. We heard before of Helena, that when shee found the crosse whereupon Christ was crucified, shee worshipped not the crosse,Ambros. de obit [...] Theodosij Supra sect. 1. because that, saith Ambrose, had bene a heathenish errour, and a vanity of vngodly men, but she worshipped onely him that died vpon the crosse, but Thomas if she had liued in his time, would haue taught her a new point of diuinitie, that in two respects before mentioned she should haue worshipped that crosse with the very worship of Christ himselfe, and in one respect euery crosse that is made in likenesse of that crosse. Thus the Popes Angelicall Doctor hath determined; this the Church of Rome hath beleeued; this the common opinion of their diuines as [Page 1196] we see before, hath maintained, and this the people accordingly haue practised. Now this can by no meanes be excused of idolatry, for it is idolatry to giue the worship of God to that that is no God. But the crosse is no God, and therefore it must needes be idolatry to giue to the crosse the worship of God. Of God it is said as touching diuine honour and worship, Him onely thou shalt serue. Now as S. Austine saith,Aug. cont. ser. Arian. ca. 29. Hanc seruitutē non exhibebintus Filio side Patre dictum est. Et illi soli seruies; aut non exhibebimus Patri si de Filio dictum est. Et illi soli seruies, &c. If it were said of the Father, Him onely thou shalt serue, we might not giue this seruice to the Sonne, or if it were said of the Sonne, Him onely thou shalt serue, we might not giue it to the Father. If then by these words vsed concerning the Father, there should be an exception against the Sonne, who yet is the liuely and substantiall image of the Father, and the same that the Father is, how much more when it is said of one God, the Father, Sonne, & holy Ghost, Him onely thou shalt serue, are we to take it for an exception against a senslesse and dead image, that no diuine worship or seruice be done vnto it? Bellarmine therefore after so many ages, seeing that this can by no meanes be acquitted of idolatry, though he could not reforme it in the Church, yet hath shewed his good will according to the old manner of the Pagan Philosphers, to salue it in the schooles, telling vs, thatBellarm. de Imag. sanct cap. 25. Cultus qui per se & proprie debetur imaginibus est cultus quidā imperfectus qui analogicè & reductiuè pertinet ad speciem cultus eius qui debetur exemplari, &c. Imaginibus Christi non dibetur latriae verae & simplicitèr, sed cultus sine cōparatione inferior qui tamen ad latriā reducitur sicut imperfectum ad perfestum. the worship that is giuen to images, is not the same that is giuen to the principals, but onely by a kind of analogie or proportion is reduced to it, and therefore that to the images of Christ (or to the crosse) there is not to be giuen latria (the worship of God) but an vnperfect kind of worship, which is reduced to latria, as that that is vnperfect to that that is perfect. This is his owne new deuice, and their schooles before knew not this tricke, or at least approued it not, yet he saith, thatIbid. Fortè Thomas & Bonauē tura & a [...] hoc solum dicere volutrū [...], &c. quòd si ita est omnes conuenimus, perhaps Thomas, & Bonauenture, & others meant in that sort, and then, saith he, we all agree. He saith but perhaps, but knowing well that it is past perhaps, and very certaine that Thomas neuer had any such meaning, as appeareth also very plainely by his words. Now M. Bishop willing to gratifie the Iesuites whom he so lately persecuted, leaueth Thomas and followeth Bellarmines deuice, yet so as that being carefull to saue the credit of their deepe Doctor as he calleth him, he setteth it downe in Thomas his name. Albeit to say the truth he doth not well accord either with the one or with the other, for whereas he saith that the Image being considered in it selfe, is not to be worshipped at all, he contrarieth Bellarmine, who, as appeareth before, assigneth a worship to Images as they are considered [Page 1197] in themselues, and not onely as they respect their principals. For the rest, Thomas saith indeede, thatThom. vbi supra art. 3. in corp. Motus animae in imaginē inquantum est imago est vnus & idem cū illo qui est in rem. there is the same motion of the soule towards the Image, as towards that whose image it is, whereof it followeth as Maister Bishop saith, that they are worshipped both at once with the same act of adoration. But whereas he saith that that is in a farre different degree, Thomas was neuer so absurd as to think, that in one and the selfe same act there can be a different degree, and therefore absolutely concludeth as I haue before alledged, that the same reuerence is due to the image of Christ, and to Christ himselfe. Maister Bishop addeth that they adore Christ properly as the true God, but the crucifixe accidentally as a thing ioined with Christ, but Thomas maketh that a reason why the crosse is worshipped with the very same worship as Christ himselfe,Ibid. art. 4. ad 2. Crux Christi etsi non fuerit vnitae verbo Dei in persona, fuit tamen ei vnita per repraesentationem & contactum. because by representation or touching it is vnited vnto Christ, being in this respect much more iustly to be condemned of idolatry in thus worshipping the crosse, then Nestorius was for worshipping the sole manhood of Christ, because albeit Nestorius acknowledged not any substantiall or personall vnion betwixt the godhead and the manhood, yet he acknowledged a farre greater vnion then that which Thomas assigneth betwixt Christ and the crosse. And here it were worthy to be enquired, what manner of vnion or coniunction this is that they tell vs of, by what bond it holdeth, what effects it worketh, whether it be any offering of violence to Christ, when the woodden Roode is rotten and worme-eaten to hew him in pieces, and cast the same into the fire, and so disunite the things that were before vnited? But Maister Bishop somewhat resolueth vs of this matter, teaching vs to conceiue of Christ and the crucifixe, as of the King and his purple robe; the woorst is, that he saith that there is not any worship due to the robe, whereas Thomas out of his idle dreames, hath before told vs, that wee worship the Kings garment with the same worship as the King himselfe. So then the matter is come to a faire passe, that there is no worship at all due to the Crucifixe, because there is none due to the Kings robes, and then what is it that we dispute of all this while? He telleth vs, that the worship of the King cannot be seperated from the robe that is so closely ioyned to his person. But what, is the Crosse or Crucifixe as closely ioyned to Christ as the robe is to the King? If [Page 1198] downe before the crosse: but if Christ be in heauen and the crosse vpon the earth, then is this a poore & simple defence of their worshipping the crosse. The diuine person of Christ, he saith, is properly adored. True, but that diuine person of Christ is in heauen, and why are they not content to worship him properly where he is? Why do they vnder a foolish pretence of a Kings robe, bring in an improper worshipping of that, which being here vpon the earth, is so farre and so wholy disioined from him? Will not M. Bishop thinke him either a foole or a mad man, who finding the Popes robes in his Castle of S. Angelo, will kneele downe to the robes, and make his request to them when the Pope himselfe is in his Lateran consistorie? Surely euen so must we thinke that they egregiously play the fooles who stand babling to a crosse here on earth, when their suite is to Christ himselfe sitting aboue in heauen. Thus we haue giuen him an eare to the hearing of all this, but wee haue therein heard what he saith out of Bellarmine, not what Thomas Aquinas saith, but by Thomas his owne words wee say still that he ascribeth the same worship to the crosse, as he doth to Christ himselfe.
15. W. BISHOP.
Lastly, M. Perkins saith, without quoting any place, that Augustine and Gregory in plaine termes deny images to be odored, and so do we too, taking adoring as they do for the worship that is proper to God.
R. ABBOT.
Saint Austine saith that by the commaundement of God,August epist. 119. cap. 11. Prohibetur coli ali qui in fig [...]ne [...]tis hominum Dei similitudo. Wee are forbidden to worship any similitude or image of God that is deuised or framed by man. Hee notethIdem de morib. eccles. Cathol cap. 34. Noui midio [...]esse sepulchorum es pictura [...]ū adoratores, &c. Quos & ipsa [...]o demnat ecclesia, &c. worshippers of pictures and reliques to haue bene then condemned by the Church. He commendeth Ʋarro the old Romane a heathen man, forIdem De ciu. Dei. lib 4. cap 31. Castiùs existiniat sine simula [...]ris obseruari religionem Quis non videat quantum propinquauerit veritati? thinking that religion is more purely obserued without Images, and affirmeth that therein he drew neere to the knowledge of the truth. Hauing in another place shewed how a shadow of the wisedome of God appeareth in men, in making the pourtraitures and images of the creatures which he hath made, and namely of men he addeth;Idem in lib. 83 quaest. 78. Qui talia opera etiam coluerunt, qu [...]ntum deuiauerint à veritate hinc intelligi potest, quiasi ipsa anim [...]hum corpora celerent quae mu [...]tò excellentiùs faebricata sunt & quorum sunt illa [...]itamenta, quid eis infaelicius diceremus? As for them who haue [Page 1199] worshipped such, how farre they haue gone away from the truth, may hereby be vnderstood, because if they should worship the very bodies of those liuing creatures, which are much more excellently made, & wherof those images are but imitations, we would pronounce them to be most vnhappy. In a word, those discourses which he vseth to shewIdem in Psal. 113. Jlla causa est maxima impietatis in sanae quòd plùs valet in affectibus miserorum similis viuenti forma quae sibi efficit supplicari quàm quòd manifestū est eam non esse viuentem vt debeat à viuēte cō temni. Vide ibid. plura, & epist. 49. the certaine danger of superstitious fancies, arising of the resemblances of images to the formes and shapes of men, do fully and without exception determine against all vse of Popish images. As for Gregory, he had some speciall cause giuen him, fully to signifie his mind as touching this matter of images, and albeit he approued the historicall vse of them in the Church, yet he absolutely condemned the worshipping of them. Serenus the Bishop of Massilia, seeing the people to worship images, brake them and defaced them. Gregory hearing thereof, writeth to him thus,Gregor. lib. 7. epist. 109. Dudū ad nos peruenit quòd fraternitas vestra quosdam imaginum adoratores aspiciens, easdem ecclesiae imagines confregit at (que) proiecit. Et quidem zelū vos habuisse nequid manufactū adorari possit laudauimus, sed frangere easdem imagines non debuisse iudicamus. Id ircò enim pictura inecclesiijs adhibetur vt qui literas nesciunt saltem in parietibus videndo legant quae legere in codicibus non valent. Tua ergò fraternitas & illas seruare, & ab earum adoratu populum prohibere debuit, quatenus & literarum nescij haberent vnde scientiam historiae colligerent & populus in picturae adoratione minimè peccaret. It is lately reported to vs, that your brotherhood beholding some worshipping images, did breake the same images being belonging to the Church, and threw them away. And indeed we commended you for hauing a zeale, that nothing made with hands should be worshipped, but yet we iudge that the images should not haue bene broken. For therefore are pictures vsed in the Church, that they who are vnlearned may by sight read those things at least vpon the walls which in bookes they cannot reade. Your brotherhood therefore should both haue preserued the images, and yet also haue forbidden the people the worshipping of them, that so the ignorant might haue whence to gather the knowledge of the history, and the people might not offend in worshipping the picture. Serenus it seemeth made some scruple of that which Gregory wrote to him; whereupon the same Gregory wrote to him againe to like effect as before, thatJdem. lib. 9. epist: 9. Quia ca [...] adorari vetuisses omninò laudauimus; fregisse verò reprehendimus. &c. Aliud est enim picturam adorare, aliud per picturae historiam quid sit adorandum addiscere &c. frangi non debuit quod non ad adorandum in ecclesijs sed ad instruendas solummodo mentes fuit nescientium collocatum. &c scripturae sacrae testimonijs ostendendum est eis quia [...]mne manufactum adorare non liceat quia scriptum est, Dominum Deum tuum adorabis, &c. he approued his forbidding to haue them worshipped, but did blame him for breaking them. For it is one thing, saith he, to worship a picture or image, another thing by painted story to learne what is to be worshipped. It should not be broken which was set vp in the Churches to be worshipped, but onely to instruct the mindes of ignorant men. You are to shew them by testimonies of holy Scripture, that it is not lawfull to worship any thing that is made with hands, because it is written, Thou shalt worship the [Page 1200] Lord thy God, and him onely thou shalt serue. After other words to the same effect he concludeth,Ibid. Siquis imagines facere voluerit minimè prohibe, adorare vero imagines modis omnibus deuita. If any man will make images, forbid them not, but by all meanes auoid to worship images. Consider here, gentle Reader, whether thou canst finde M. Bishops distinction in these words of Austine and Gregory; whether it be likely that they meant, that with some kinde of worship which is proper to God, Images may not be worshipped, but yet that they haue also their kinde of worship wherewith they are to be worshipped. Thinke with thy selfe whether any Papist would speake as they speake, and if no man would so speake that meaneth as Papists do, then surely these Fathers were farre enough from Popish meaning. Is any man so voide of vnderstanding, that being to shew that Princes are not to be obeied in so high degree as God, will absolutely determine that Princes are not to be obeied? This is the case here; they expresly and without exception, define that images are not to be worshipped, and that the people are so to be taught, that they must not worship images, and would they be so mad as thus to speake if they meant as in Poperie it is, that the people must be taught to worship images? Gregory saith as we see, that they are not set vp to be worshipped, but onely for the instrusting of the ignorant, and must we vnderstand that they are not onely for the instructing of the ignorant, but also to be worshipped. These are impudent shifts, bewraying corrupt and euill consciences of menTit. 3.31. condemned in themselues, and yet wrastling and fighting against themselues. These Fathers knew no religious worship but what belongeth to God, and therefore resolue that to giue worship to images, should be to dishonour God. Concerning Gregories minde of placing images in Churches, I say briefely, that he might by that which then befell, haue somewhat discerned the perill and danger thereof, but if he had imagined the horrible filthinesse and abhomination of idolatrie afterwards thereof ensuing, he would haue changed his minde, and haue regarded the words of him that saith,Leuit. 19.14. Thou shalt not put a stumbling blocke before the blinde, and againe,Deut. 27.18. Cursed be he that maketh the blinde to go out of his way.
16. W. BISHOP.
Hauing now answered to all that M. Perkins obiecteth against the worshipping of images: let vs now examine the reasons, which he maketh in defence of it.
The first by him proposed is this Psalme 98. Cast downe your selues before his footstoole, which was the Arke: now if the Arke were to be worshipped, because it represented Gods footestoole, much more may the image be worshipped. M. Perkins answereth, that the words must be englished thus, Bow at or before the Arke, not to the arke, but to God before the Arke.
Reply. If it were so, yet must they admit that we must kneele, at or before images, so we kneele to honour or pray to God: against which, some of their Preachers do cry like mad-men: but the Hebrew phrase carieth, that we must kneele to the arke, as they who be skilfull in the language do know, and that the arke was worshipped of the Israelites, is otherwise verie euident: for first none, but the high Priest might come into the place where it was: and it was caried before the campe with great solemnity 1. Reg. 4. to search out a resting-place for the whole hoast. And whē they were to fight against the Philistines,Cap. 6. they had great confidence in the presence of the arke: and cap. 6.50000. of the Bethsamites were slaine for seeing the arke; and 2. Reg. 2. Oza was by God smitten to death for touching the arke. Doth not all this conuince in what reuerence the arke was had, euen by Gods owne testimonie?
To this may be added the authority of S. Ierome,Ep. 17 cap. 3. who doth teach that it was the more worshipped for the Cherubins and pictures of Angels, that were erected at the ends of it: whereby he declareth that he thought images worthy of religious worship.
To this we may ioyne that of S. Paul,Heb. 11. that Iacob by faith adored the top of his sonne Iosephs rod: so doth the Greeke text of S. Paul say, as Erasmus also translateth it: The Protestants mangle the text pittifully, to auoide the place: see the Annot. of Rhemes Testament.
R. ABBOT.
This was one of the notable arguments which M. Bishops Nicene Councell vsed for the worshipping of Images, because Dauid saith,Psal. 99.5. Bow your selues to his footestoole. Though it be full simple and slender, yet wee see for want of better they are content to [Page 1202] vse it still. If M. Bishop could shew vs that images are to vs the Lords footestoole, as the Arke was to the Iewes, he would handle vs somewhat shrewdly; but the spite is they want a text for that, and S. Paul moreouer telleth vs that2. Cor. 6.16. the temple of God (which was1. Chron. 28.2. the house of rest for the Arke of the couenant of the Lord, and for the footestoole of our God) hath no agreement with Idols. And therefore wheras vpon M. Perkins answer that they were willed to bow at or before the Arke, M. Bishop inferreth it as to be admitted, that we must kneele at or before images to pray to God, it is a very drowsie conclusion, and fitter to come from the head of an Idoll, then of an vnderstanding man. The Arke was no image, and why then doth he argue thus from the Arke to images? He will say that the Cherubims stoode neere the Arke, namely at each end one, which with their wings ouershadowed the Arke. Be it so, but what is that to his purpose, seeing the Prophet here speaketh not of bowing before the Cherubims but before the Arke? Yea, but saith he, a man could not kneele before the Arke, but he must needes also kneele before the Cherubims. Well and if M. Bishop be in place where he cannot kneele to God, but he must needes haue an image before him, we condemne him not. We cannot kneele to God, but there are manie things before vs, our Churches, our houses, the aire, the heauen, the Sunne, the Moone, the starres, but there is great difference what standeth before vs by casuall or necessary position of place, and what we set before vs by intendment of affection. A man cannot kneele before the King, but they must needes be before him that are about the King, as must also the seate or the horse whereon the King sitteth, & yet we do not say that he kneeleth before them that are about the King, or before the Kings seate or his horse, because he hath no intention therof or of them, but only of the King. The Arke was the place, whereat God had promised to the Iewes his presence amongst them. They kneeled before the Arke to kneele to God there present, and to pray to him. The Cherubims were placed by the Arke, but their kneeling had no reference to the Cherubims, but to God only,Numb. 7.89. Psal. 80.1. sitting betweene or vpō the Cherubims. Take away the Arke and there was no kneeling before the Cherubims, but though the Cherubims were away (as it is thought they were long time after the taking of the Ark, til by Solomon they were renewed) yet there was still kneeling before the Arke. Now if M. [Page 1203] Bishop could proue that we haue the like promise of gods special presence at their images & idols as the Iewes had thereof at the Arke, there were some reason whereupō to argue, that we are to kneele at or before Images, as they were to kneele at or before the Arke. But vnlesse he do so, we must still thinke they are not mad men, that cry out against such as pray at or before Images to pray to God, but rather iudge thē men sober and well aduised, in that they condemne such mad fooles, whoOrigen. contra Cels. lib. 6. Incrudiussimos dicimus quos non pudet alloqui res inanimas. talke to dead things, and Jbid. lib. 1. Qui Deos manimes accedūt, perinde faciunt ac si fabulentur cum parietibus. babble to the wals, as Heraclitus the Philosopher said, when they take vpon them to pray to God. That there is no vse of images for prayer to God, I refer him to those speeches of Arnobius and Lactantius which I haue before set downe in the fift Section. But to put his argument yet somwhat further out of ioynt, it is to be remembred which hath bene before noted, that the Arke or footstoole of God, whereto the Prophet willeth them to bow, was a thing wholy remoued out of sight. It stood in the innermost part of the Temple which was Sancta sanctorum, the holiest of all, whither the high Priest onely went in, and that once onely in the yeare, and before which there was a veile or curtaine drawne, that the Priests themselues coming into the holy place had no sight of it. Whereby it is manifest, that their bowing to the Arke was a farre other matter then M. Bishop would haue to be done to their images. He would thinke hardly to haue this heauenly shew (as before he hath tearmed it) locked vp and imprisoned in the darke, so that men should haue no sight of it, and so much the rather, for that their Nicene Councell full wisely and learnedly concluded the setting vp of images out of those words of Christ,Mat. 5.15. No man lighteth a candle to put it vnder a bushell, but on a candlesticke. Very impertinently therefore doth he bring those words of Dauid to approue their kneeling at or before images to pray to God Albeit he is not therewith contented, but will further haue it proued, that we must kneele to the images themselues: for the Hebrew phrase, saith he, carieth, that we must kneele to the Arke, as they who are skilfull in the language do know. But the skilfull in the language do also know, that it is no otherwise said, Bow your selues to his footstoole, then it is said afterwards in the same Psalme, Bow your selues to his holy mountaine. The phrase is one and the same, and if by the one he will say, that they were to worship the Arke, then by the other also he must say, [Page 1204] that they were to worship the mountaine. If the latter do not proue the worshipping of the mountaine, then the former doth not proue the worshipping of the Arke. And indeed the phrase importeth no other, but as we are wont to say, to kneele to the East, that is, towards the East: or to lift vp his eyes to heauen, that is, towards heauen: and they are thereby taught to bend and direct themselues in their worship and deuotion towards mount Sion, and the Arke and Temple seated thereupon, as the place where the Lord had promised to dwell, and frō thence to heare their prayers when they shold call vpon him. Which they were not onely to do when they were present or neare at hand, but also when they were remoued further off. Thus Solomon prayeth for them,1. King. 8.44. being gone out to battell against their enemies, when they shal pray towards the city which thou hast chosen, and towards the house which I haue built for thy name, then heare thou in heauen their prayer. So beingVer. 48. captiues in their enemies land, when they shall pray towards the Land which thou gauest vnto their fathers, and towards the city which thou hast chosen, and the house which I haue built for thy name, then heare thou their prayer and supplication, &c. Thus Daniel in the captiuity of Babylon, though both the city and Temple were destroyed for the time, yet because of the promise of God:Psal. 132.14 This is my rest for euer, here will I dwell for I haue a delight therein, therefore didDan. 6.10. set open his chamber window towards Ierusalem, and kneeling vpon his knees three times a day prayed and praysed God. This was their kneeling to the Arke and to mount Siō, and M. Bishop in arguing hereupon, that they worshipped the Arke, dealeth as absurdly as the Pagans did of old with the Christians, who because the ChristiansTertul. Apol. cap. 16. Solem credunt Deum nostrum, &c. Inde suspicio quod innotuerit nos ad Orientis regionem precari prayed to or towards the East, thought they worshipped the Sunne, and gaue out that they made the Sunne their God. The Christians worshipped Christ onely in bending themselues towards the East, and so the faithfull Iewes in bending or bowing towards the Arke, intended the worship of God onely, and therefore a senslesse part it is to alledge those wordes of the Prophet for the defence of the worship of Popish idols. And if they would proue the worshipping of any thing thereby, or the praying at or before any thing, it should be the worshipping and praying before that that was prefigured by the Temple and the Arke. The Temple one way was a figure of heauen, [Page 1205] as before was shewed, wherein Gdd doth dwell, and hathDan. 7.10. thousand thousands of Angels standing before him, and tenne thousand thousands ministring vnto him. M. Bishop then should by his course of interpretation conclude from the Prophets words, that we should worship heauen. But he should rather conceiue, that as we worship and pray towards heauen, but yet do not worship heauen or pray to heauen, so did they also worship and pray towards the Temple and the Arke, but did not worship or pray to them. Another way the Temple was a figure of the Church of Christ, and of euery faithfull man:1. Cor. 3.16. Know ye not, saith the Apostle, that ye are the Temple of God: and againe,2. Cor. 6.16. ye are the Temple of the liuing God. The Arke whereat and whereby he is present with vs, and dwelleth in vs, is the faith of Iesus Christ ourRom. 3.25. [...]. propitiatorie and mercy-seate, and by his presence the Angels also attend vpon vs,Heb. 1.14. being ministring spirits sent foorth for their sakes that shall be heires of saluation. Now therefore M. Bishop shold rather proue by the Prophets words our kneeling in our prayers before a faithfull man, or worshipping a faithfull man, then our kneeling before an Image, or worshipping an Image, and if it be absurd thereby to affirme the worshipping of a liuing man in whom God dwelleth, much more the worshipping of a dead and senslesse blocke, which hath no fellowship with God. Yea and if by those words it were warranted to set vp the images of dead men, and to worship them, what was the cause that the Iewes conceiued not so much? Why were they without that heauenly shew, as M. Bishop in the height of his earthly wisedome calleth it? If they neuer conceiued it, neuer practised it, what shall we but take them for cousiners and deceiuers, who offer this violence to the Scriptures, and most impudently wrest thē to the maintenance of that filthinesse and abhomination which expresly they condemne? But yet Master Bishop telleth vs, that it is otherwise very euident, that the Israelites worshipped the Arke. And how I pray you? First, none but the high Priest might come into the place where it was. Well, and what then? It was carried before the campe with great solemnitie to search out a resting place for the whole hoast. True, and what more? When they were to fight against the Philistines, they had great confidence in the presence of the Arke. There was great cause why they should so, carrying [Page 1206] themselues respectfully towards God, because it was the token that God had giuen them of his presence amongst them: let vs heare the rest. Fiftie thousand of the Bethsamites were slaine for seeing the Arke. It is true indeed that for looking into the Arke so many of thē were slaine: is there any thing yet behind? Oza was by God smitten to death for touching the Arke. Well and what of all this? Doth not all this conuince in what reuerence the Arke was had euen by Gods owne testimonie? As if to proue M. Bishop to be a profound Clearke, a man should say: He hath learned a little Rhetoricke, and lesse Logicke, and is per saltum a Doctor of Diuinity, and per inopiam a Priest, and doth not all this conuince that he hath some learning? Witlesse cauiller, is there any thing in all those allegations that importeth the worshipping of the Arke? Nay marke (gentle Reader) that whereas he propoundeth to prooue, that the Arke was worshipped, he maketh his conclusion, that the Arke was had in great reuerence. But they had the temple also in great reuerence, and the altars, and the offerings, and al things that by the law were cōmanded to be holy, and will he thereof inferre, that all these were to be worshipped? They were to haue the Priests in great reuerence, and specially the high Priest, and shall we therefore say that they worshipped the Priests? What is this reuerence but a religious respect and care of the sacred and due vsage of holy things according to their kind? Thus are we to haue our Churches in reuerence with those vtensils and implements that belong to them, that they be had and vsed with that decencie and seemelinesse as fitteth to things that serue for holy ministrations. As for Hierome M. Bishop wholy abuseth & falsifieth his words: for he saith nothing at all of worshipping the Arke for the Cherubims and pictures of Angels that were erected at the ends of it (this is a very wilfull and impudent forgerie) but he saith, thatHieron. ad Marcel. vt cont n [...]gret Bethleem Ʋenerabantur quondam Iudaei Sancta sanctorū quia ibi erant Cherubim, & propitiatorium & arca testamē ti, Manna, virga Aaron, & altare aureum. the Iewes of old reuerenced the Sancta sanctorum, because there were the Cherubims and the mercy-seate, and the Arke of the Testamēt, and Manna and Aarons rod, and the golden altar. He knew well that if he had reported Hieroms words aright they would not sound for his purpose, but to frame them to his turne, he changeth the reuerencing of the holy place, because of the Cherubims and the Arke, into worshipping the Arke because of the Cherubims, as if worship were performed properly to the Cherubims, whereasOrigen. contra Cels. lib. 5. Coelestes Angelos nemo adorat qui se legi Mosis subdedit. by the lawe of [Page 1207] Moses, as Origen saith, no worship was done to the Angels themselues, and much lesse to the Cherubims which represented the Angels. The word venerari which Hierome vseth, albeit it be often vsed for worship and seruice done to God, yet is of so large signification, as that it is yeelded to all those things to which we yeeld any reuerend and dutifull respect. So dothAugust. de doctr. Christ. li. 3. cap. 9. Sicuti est baptismi Sacramentum & celebratio corporis & sanguinis Domini Quae vnusquisque imbutus agnoscit vt ea nō carnali seruitute sed spirituali potius libertate veneretur. Saint Austine vse the word of the reuerence that we vse to the Sacraments, not onely the Lords Supper, but also the Sacrament of Baptisme. So doth Ambrose say, thatAmbros de ijs qui imitantur mysterijs cap. 8. Melchisedec protulit ea quae Abrahā 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 Gen. 23.7. adored the Princes of the Hittites. The Israelites are said1. 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 [Page 1208] whence those words seeme to be taken,Hieron. quaest. [...]i [...]r in Genes. Jn hoc loco quida [...] frustra si [...]am ado [...]asse Iacob summitatē 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 quā rogauerat, adorauerit Deum contra caput lectuli sui. Sanctus quippe & Deo deditus vir oppressus senectute sic habebat lectulum positum vt ipse tacentis habitus, abs (que) 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 Gen. 47.31. Vulgat. Quo iurante adorauit Israel Dominū 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 thē. 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 [Page 1209] 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 cō 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 cō 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, and affirmeth that so it is in the Greeke text. We deny it, and say that that translation is false, because it wholy leaueth out the Preposition [...] in the Greeke, answerable to the Preposition [...] which is vsed in the Hebrew, there being no probabilitie or likelihood of reason, why they should so do. The Hebrew Preposition [...] amongst other significations importeth at, vpon, neare to, towards, ouer against. The word rosch signifieth the head, the top, the highest or vppermost part of a thing. Symmachus therefore translateth the Hebrew words, [...], vpon the beds head. Aquila thus, [...], vpō or at the top or vppermost part of the bed, as if a man would say, vpon his pillow at the beds head. Hierome in Latine, as we see before, translateth one where contra caput lectuli, ouer against his beds head: another where, conuersus ad caput lectuli, turning towards the beddes head. Accordingly the Septuagint though differing in the signification of the last word, yet translate the former, [...], at or vpon the [Page 1210] toppe. And of their Translation S. Austine mentioneth diuers translations into Latine, all expressing the Preposition,Aug. in Gen. quaest. 162. Super caput virgae vel in capite, siue in cacumine vel super cacumen, at or vpon the toppe. Seeing therefore they will make vse of the Preposition in translating from Hebrew into Greeke and Latine, and from Greek into Latine, what reason shold we haue in translating from Greek into English to neglect the same Preposition as if it were not there at all? They all agree thus farre; He worshipped at, vpon, towards the head or the toppe, and therefore teach vs to disclaime them that say, he worshipped the toppe. Now then because the Greeke word [...] signifieth a staffe, and better fitteth to the former words, then to translate it a rod, therefore we translate the words, He worshipped, namely, God, vpon the toppe of his staffe, that is, as we say to expresse the meaning more plainely, leaning vpon his staffe. He worshipped God inclining or bowing towards the staffe which he had in his hand, resting himselfe vpon it, and staying himselfe thereby. And that M. Bishop may know that we are not the deuisers of this translation, let him vnderstand that the old Syriacke Interpreter, as appeareth by Tremellius, translated in the same sort:Tremel. vers. ex Syriaca translatione Heb. 11.21. Adorauit super summitate baculi sui: he worshipped vpon the toppe of his staffe. So Theodoret expounding Genesis according to the Septuagint, albeit he referre the adoration to Ioseph in both respects before mentioned, which we haue seene before that Hierome wholy condemneth, yet as touching the meaning of the latter words saith, thatTheodoret. in Gen. quaest. 108. Sedit & baculo innitebatur dextra apprehēdens summitatē eius. Iacob sate vp and leaned vpon his staffe, taking hold of the top thereof with his right hand. S. Austin yet further iustifieth vs in this behalfe, saying, that whereasAug. in Gen. quaest. 162. Quod habent Latini codices, Et adorauit super caput virgae eius, nonnulli codices emendatiùs habent, Et adorauit super caput virgae suae. in the Latine bookes it was read, Et adorauit super caput virgae eius, he worshipped vpon the top of his rod, (that is, of Iosephs rod:) many had it more truly: Et adorauit super caput virgae suae: he worshipped vpon the top of his owne rod. Which obseruation of his is of great moment for the discerning of the truth as touching this point. If that which is here said be vnderstood of Iacobs rod, then Master Bishop knoweth well, that that which he fancieth hath no ground at all. But that S. Austine saith is the true reading, not of Iosephs rod, but of his owne rod, notIbid. Fallit eos Graecum verbum quod eisdem literis scribitur, siue eius, siue suae sed accentas dispares sunt. [...], but [...], as the common Greeke text readeth at this day, and by the great LinguistAr. Montan. text Graec interlinearis. Arias Montanus is written in that sort. Now according [Page 1211] to this reading Saint Austine saith, thatAug. ibid. Facilè intelligeretur senem qui v [...]rgam ferebat eo more, quo illa aetas baculum solet, vt se inclinauit ad Deum adorandum, id vtique fecisse super cacumen virgae suae, quam sic ferebat vt super eam caput inclinando ad [...] raret Deum. the meaning is very plaine, that the old man Iacob carrying or holding a rod in such sort as old age is wont to do a staffe, as he bowed himselfe to worship God, did it vpon the top of his rod which he so carried, as that bowing himselfe vpon it, or ouer it, he might or did worship God. Here is therefore nothing but the carrying or holding of a rod or a staffe to leane or to rest vpon, in such sort as old age is wont to do, thereby to stay himselfe as he inclined or bowed himselfe to worship God. And this construction is no whit empaired by the other reading, because by infinite examples it is manifest, that the Pronoune [...] is vsed also in the reciprocall signification as [...] is, and serueth to returne that whereto it is added, as belonging to the subiect whereof the matter present is affirmed. But if notwithstanding they will refuse that reading, and say that they will not take it to be meant but of Iosephs rod, yet Saint Austine there also excludeth them from their purpose, not reading as they do, He worshipped the toppe of Iosephs rod, but He worshipped vpon the toppe of Iosephs rod, and adding, to shew what might then be the meaning of it:Ibid. Quid est ergo, Adorauit super cacumen virga eius, id est, filij sui Ioseph? An fortè tulerat ab eo virgam quando ei iurabat, idem filius & dum eam tenet post verba iurantis nondum illa reddita mox adorauit Deum? Non enim pudebat eum ferre tantisper insignae potestatis filij sui vbi figura magne rei futurae praesignabatur. Whether haply had he taken the rod of Ioseph, when the same Ioseph sware to him, and whilest he yet held it after he had taken his oath, and not yet deliuered it, foorthwith worshipped God. For he was not abashed so long to beare or hold the ensigne of his sonnes power, where the figure of a great matter to come was foreshewed. Thus euery way Saint Austin challengeth the adoration and worship to God, and teacheth vs, that if it be spoken of Iosephs rod, yet it shall import that Iacob hauing in his hand the rod or scepter, or mace, which was the ensigne of Iosephs authoritie in Egypt vnder Pharao, did leane or bow himselfe thereupon to worship God. In a word therefore here is nothing any way to proue the religious adoration and worship of any creature, but most fantastically of all other is it alledged for the worshipping of Images. He further referreth vs to the Rhemish Testament, but he should withall haue confuted Doctor Fulkes answer to it, if he would haue had any thing there to be beleeued. There is nothing there said of this matter, but what is here alreadie answered.
17. W. BISHOP.
The second reason is taken out of Exodus 3. where God said to Moses, Put off thy shoes, for the place where thou standest is holy. Now if places be holy and to be reuerenced by reason of the presence of Angels, why not, aswell the Image that representeth an Angell or some Saint, which is equall to Angels. M. P. his answer rather confirmeth than solueth this argument: for he saith, that the ceremonie of putting off his shooes, was commanded to strike Moses with a religious reuerence; not of the place, but of the person there present, which was not God, but an Angell, as the text there expresseth. Exod. 3. The place then being holy, required the reuerend respect of putting off his shoes, and the reuerence done to the place, struck Moses with a religious reuerence of the Angell speaking in the person of God: euen so holy pictures being first duly reuerenced, do strike men with a religions regard of the Saint represented. To this, let vs annexe that dayes be truly called holy and worshipped, as the first and last dayes of the feast of Easter be: Exod. 12.16. & the vestments of Priests Exod. 28.5.2., because they are dedicated and employed to holy vses: euen so Images which are made in honour of God and his Saints, and erected to moue and teach vs to embrace heauenly courses.
R. ABBOT.
The place where Moses stood was holy, dayes were called holy, the Priests vestments were holy, therefore Images are holy and must be worshipped. The Sunne shines in the colehouse, and the Moone in the Mustard pot, therefore all M. Bishops wit lieth in his left elbow. Do these men deserue any other but scorne and contempt, who bring vs reasons in no other sort, then as if they were outright either mad or drunke? What is the medius terminus (I maruell) that should cō uey holinesse to Images from those things which he mentioneth? The place where Moses stood was holy, as Origen rightly saith:Origen. in Ios. hom. 6. Per seipsum non erat locus sanctus, sed quia Dominus stabat cū Moyse praesentia Domini sanctificauerat locum. not of it selfe, but because the presence of God had sanctified the place. M. Bishop saith, it was not God but an Angell, but he speaketh therein falsely and ignorantly. It was an Angell indeed, but it wasMal. 3.1. the Angell or messenger of the Lords couenant, Ios. 5.14. the Captaine of the Lords hoast, the second Person in Trinitie, the Sonne of God, vsually [Page 1213] termed an Angell in those apparitions, because he tooke vpon him the office of an Angell, to do the messages of the Godhead vnto men.Euseb. hist. lib. 1. cap 2. Sa [...]è fas non est visiones Dei in Scripturis traditas Angelis illis inferioribus ac ministris Dei tribuendas esse suspicari. Surely (saith Eusebius) it is not lawfull to thinke, that the apparitions of God deliuered in holy Scriptures, are to be attributed to the inferiour Angels which minister vnto God. Therefore he expoundeth them, and namely, this to Moses asAmbr. in Psa. 43. Quis est in rubo visus Moysi nisi rimogenitus Dei filius. Sic in Epist. ad Col. c. 1. Ambrose also doth of Christ the Sonne of God, and proueth by the very plaine text, that the Angell there mentioned was God:Exod. 3.4. When the Lord saw that Moses turned aside to sce, God called vnto him out of the middest of the bush, saying, Moses, Moses: And he answered, I am here. Then he said, Come not hither, put off thy shooes from thy feete, for the place where thou standest is holy ground. Moreouer he said, I am the God of thy Fathers, the God of Abraham, &c. Then Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to looke vpon God. ThusAct. 7.30. the Angell speaking to Moses in the bush, as S. Steuen termeth him, is called by our Sauiour Christ,Mar. 12.26. God speaking to Moses in the bush. I did amisse therefore to terme Master Bishop ignorant in this behalfe, for he could not but know the matter: I should rather haue termed him impudent, that to make an aduantage and yet nothing woorth, wold contradict that which the Scripture so expressely saith. As for daies they were appointed by God to be holy in respect of being applied to holy vse, but that those daies were called worshipfull, it is but M. Bishops deuice, because he would haue vs to take him for a worshipfull wise man. So the vestiments of the Priests were holy, because, as he saith, they were dedicated and employed to holy vses. Let all these things be taken for graunted, as they are: but what of all this to the holines of Images? Surely we do not know, but they may as well conclude that the Popes excrements are holy, the parings of his nailes, and the pollings of his head, or whatsoeuer other filth or foolerie they will commend to vs. No maruell if there were that holinesse in theVide Hospinian. de orig Monachat. lib. 3. ca: 12. Franciscan Friars weed, as that men desired as a matter of great safegard to be buried therein: or that the Franciscans breeches should be of great vertue to yeeld women speedy trauell, for daies and vestiments of old were holy, and the place where Moses stood was holy ground. But it is further to be obserued, that though all those things which Master Bishop nameth were holy, yet none of them is found to haue bene worshipped. Moses did not worship the holy ground. The Israelites did not worship the holy daies, [Page 1214] nor the Priests garments. The Temple was holy, the altar was holy, the offerings were holy, the Priestes were holy, and many other things, and yet they worshipped none of them: how then come we here to the worshipping of Images? Well, we must learne it our selues if we can, Master Bishop can say no more then he hath done. But it should be very strange, that we should see more therein then the Church of the Iewes could euer see: they read and knew all those things to be holy which Master Bishop nameth, and yet they could neuer find the worshipping of Images. He telleth vs of the Cherubims which God commaunded to be set wholy out of sight, or were vsed as the pictures of Lions, and Bulles, and Flowers, and Trees for the garnishing of the workes of the Temple, and the fashion whereof no man doth know, as before was said, but what was the reason that knowing those Scriptures whereof we speake, they could neuer light vpon Master Bishops heauenly shew of the Images of dead men?Aug. de ciuit. Dei. lib. 4. ca. 31. Sine simulachris castiùs dij obseruarentur. Cuius sententiae suae testem adhibet inter caetera gentem Iu [...]eam. Ʋarro the heathen Romane alledgeth them for example, that religion is more purely and holily obserued without Images. Tertullian mentioneth out of Cornelius Tacitus, that when Pompey ouercame the Iewes, andTertul. Apolo. cap: 16. Tacitus refert C [...]. Pompo [...]um cùm Hierusalem cepisset, praeterea (que) templum adisset speculandis Judaicae religionis arcanis, nullum illic simulachrū reperisse. entred into the Temple to view the secrets of their religion he found no Image therein. King Agrippa telleth Caligula, that in itPhilo de legat. ad Cai [...]n. Nullū ibi simulachrum vel in occulto vel in propatulo. there was no Image, neither secretly nor openly, in respect whereof being strictly holden as a point of their religion, he disswadeth the same Caligula from attempting to set vp his Image therein as he went about to do. Clemens Alexandrinus saith, thatElem. Alex. in Protrept. Qui nō opera hominum aurea, aenea, & argentea, & eburnea, lignea, & lapidea hominum qui mortui sunt adorant simulachra, quae inan [...] consilio adorantur ab hominibus, sed fanctas vlnes tollunt ad coelū. &c. the Iewes worshipped not mens workes of gold, of brasse, of siluer, of Iuorie, of wood and stone, namely, the Images of dead men, which men vpon vaine perswasion worshipped, but did holily lift vp their hands to heauen. This the Iewes practised, this they most religiously obserued, and what should be the reason hereof, if the Scriptures which Master Bishop alledgeth, do make for the defence of the worshipping of Images? Surely, because they did thus for the keeping of the commaundement of God, we must necessarily take Master Bishops worshipping of Images to be the inuention of the Diuell.
18. W. BISHOP.
The third reason proposed by M. Perkins in fauour of the Catholikes is: It is lawfull to kneele downe to a chaire of estate, in the absence of the King: Therefore much more to the Images of God and his Saints in heauen glorified, being absent from vs.
To this he answereth, that it is but a ciuill worship to kneele to the chaire of estate, and that very commendable, to shew our loyaltie vnto our Prince: but kneeling vnto the Images of Saints is religious, and therfore not alike.
Reply. He proposeth our argument to the halfes, or else this answer had bene preuented. For thus runneth our reason: As the chaire of estate is to be worshipped with ciuill reuerence, in respect of the tēporall Prince whom it representeth: euen so the Images of holy personages that raigne now in heauen, are to be worshipped with a holy and religious kinde of curtesie: for as Temporall honour is due vnto a Temporall Prince, so religious and spirituall honour, is due vnto spirituall and most holy personages. And as a good subiect testifieth his loyaltie and good affection towards his Prince, by honoring his regall throne: So doth a good Christian giue testimonie of his dutifull, both estimation and deuotion toward those heauenly creatures, by giuing honour vnto their Images. At leastwise, why do not the Protestants exhibite ciuill reuerence aswell vnto the representations of Gods Saints, as to the shadowes of the secular Maiestie? vnlesse it be because they are fallen out with the Saints of God, and are become adorers of sinfull men.
R. ABBOT.
We may here conceiue that images are brought to great distresse, in that from arguments in the schooles they are faine to flie to the ceremonies of the Court. It should seeme strange that formalities obserued to Princes in their Courts for maiestie and royall state, should be made patternes of religious deuotions to be practised in the Church. But a man in danger of drowning is glad to catch at euery twigge, and this desperate cause of Images hauing [Page 1216] no manner probabilitie of any approued reason or example for the iustifying of it, is glad to shift any way, and setteth foorth shadowes and ghostes to make shew of armed and fighting men. M. Bishop saith that M. Perkins answer had bene preuented, if the argument had bene well proposed, but now that he hath proposed it, what doth it containe but onely a begging of that to be graunted him which is denied in M. Perkins answer? The thing that he should haue proued is, that there is a like respect of religious worship to Saints, as of ciuill reuerence to Princes, and he onely affirmeth it, but reason he hath none. But to take such stuffe as he bringeth vs, first, we tell him that the chaire of estate is not bowed vnto for that it representeth the Prince, as he very idlely and fondly dreameth, but for that it is the Princes seate, it being holdē for a matter of princely maiestie, that there be a reuerence performed to those things which serue in speciall manner for the Princes vse. In which sort at the Princes table, though the Prince not yet come vnto it, yet the seruice is done vpon the knee, as with bowing and obeisance also at the tables of inferiour States, where we suppose M. Bishop is not so madde as to thinke that either the meate▪ or the table, or any thing else doth represent them in respect of whom this duty is performed. On the other side, no such duty is done to the Princes image, because it is not a matter of the Princes vse, and if we should see M. Bishop kneeling to it, we should either thinke him drunke, or take him for a foole. No argument therefore can be drawn from the honour done to Princes, to approue the honour that is done to Saints, because in that kind wherein it is required to be done to Saints, it is absurd and ridiculous to be done to Princes. Yea M. Bishop may as wel conclude, that the Saints should haue their cloth of state, and carry scepters in their hands, and that our Lady the Queene of heauen, as they call her, should haue Ladies to beare vp her traine, because Kings and Queenes haue so, as that we are therefore to kneele to Saints images, because we kneele to the cloth of state. Well, yet Master Bishop telleth vs, that as temporall honour is due to a temporall Prince, so religious and spirituall honour is due vnto spirituall and most holy personages. But vainely and absurdly: for how should his proportion stand, when he putteth Princes on the one side, and subiects on the other? Let him say as he should say, As temporall honour is due to a temporall Prince, [Page 1217] so and much more religious and spirituall honour is due to him, who spiritually, and in way of religion is our Soueraigne and Prince. If he can prooue, that the Saints are appointed to be spiritually our Kings and Soueraigne Lords, he saith somewhat; otherwise his proportion halteth, and goeth so lame, as that it cannot carry him whither he would faine goe. He telleth vs, that they now raigne in heauen: but we answer him, that they raigne, and are Kings spiritually in heauen, by hauing a victorie and triumph ouer their spirituall enemies, not by hauing a dominion and soueraigntie ouer vs. We are taught to acknowledge the Saints and Angels for ourReu. 6.11. & 9.10. brethren and fellow-seruants, who because they are no other, therefore will not take vpon them to be our Lords, neither can we without offence [...]ender our seruice and deuotion to them. Therefore S. Austine saith, as we haue seene before,Aug. de vera relig. cap. 55. sup. We honour them not by seruice, but by loue: they are to be honoured by imitation, not to be worshipped by religion. And of the Angels Origen saith, thatOrigen. contra Cels. lib. 5. Hoc nobis Angelos Dei reddit satis propitios vt libentèr pro nobis faciant omnia quòd benè affecti sumus erga Deū, & quod Filium eius verbum cō plectimur, &c. contendentes indies ad clariorē eius notitiā, &c. Et paulo ante: Ne quis audeat preces offerre nisi soli Domino Deo qui vnus omnibus abundè sufficiat, per Seruatorem nostrum Dei Filium, &c. this is it that gaineth their fauour to vs, and maketh them willingly to do all things for vs, when they see vs well affected towards God, and that we embrace his Sonne Iesus Christ, striuing daily to grow more and more to the knowledge of him, but no man may dare to offer his prayers but onely to the Lord God, who is abundantly sufficient for all, by our Sauiour the Sonne of God. Now therefore as seruants and subiects to their fellow-seruants and subiects yeeld affection and loue, but none setteth vp to other a royall throne to honour them as Princes, so we giue our loue and affection to the Saints, we testifie and commend their vertues, we lay before vs their good example, we acknowledge their blisse, we desire and long for the fruition of their companie: but we make them not our spirituall Princes and Soueraignes: and therefore we giue them no dutie or seruice of religion, which is the royaltie of God, knowing that they would hide their faces, and exceedingly abhorre to haue the same offered vnto them. And hereby we see how idlely M. B. goeth on in his tale, that as good subiects testifie their loyaltie and affection towardes the Prince, by honouring the regall throne, so good Christians giue testimony of their dutifull estimation and deuotion towards those heauenly creatures by giuing honour vnto their Images. For neither haue we the conditiō of subiects in respect of the Saints, neither do we owe any such deuotion or duty to them, neither [Page 1218] haue the images that are set vp in their names that reference to them, as the royall throne hath to the Prince. We honor the chaire of estate, because of the Princes vse therof for maiestie and state: but seeing the Saints are in heauen, what haue they to do with blockish idols here on earth, or if they were vpon the earth? what vse should they haue of them? And therefore it is an idle and fond question which he asketh, why we yeeld not ciuill reuerence to the representations of Gods Saints, aswell as to the shadowes of secular maiestie, because we haue no ciuill conuersation with the Saints, as we haue with Princes, neither is there any ciuill vse of those counterfeit idols, as there is of the Princes chaire of state. Neither are we therfore fallen out with the Saints, as he vainely cauilleth, but rather we labour to be, and hope to be the same that they are. And because we hope so to be, and are neither so impious nor so foolish, as to think that men hereafter should set vp idols to vs to worship vs thereby, therefore we hold it for impietie and folly to vse any such superstition to the images of the Saints. As for Princes though they be sinfull men, yet we haue learned of Christ concerning them,Mat. 22.21: to giue to Caesar the things that are Caesars, and as they are vnto vs the shadowes of the maiestie of God, so to giue vnto them ciuiliy some shadowes of the honour that belongeth vnto God.
19. W. BISHOP.
M.P. makes a third point of difference, that we may not worship God in any such image in which he hath apeared vnto men. In this we do not differ, vnlesse he takes it otherwise thē he deliuereth it. Those images we hold more reuerēd then any others, as representations nearer approching vnto the Diuinity, yet because they do not expresse the Deitie, God is not directly apprehended nor worshipped in them, but onely by collection, as for example: The forme of a graue old man in Daniel, doth not represent Gods person, but we gather by that auncient forme Gods eternity, wherby we arise to a more perfect cōceit of God, whō we adore: now other images of Christ and his Saints, do carry our minds directly vpon their proper persons, whome in their images we adore and worship after their degrees. But we worship images with farre meaner reuerence than any of the Saints, in regard onely, that they do represent such personages, and [Page 1219] do induce vs more to loue and honour them, and do stirre vp our dulnesse more often and ardently to honour God in the Saints, and the Saints in their degrees: as also to imitate their holy example as hath bene said more then once, that all may vnderstand how farre off we are frō giuing Gods honour vnto either Saint or Image. But this point of difference is made to bring in a common argument of theirs, to wit, that the worshipping of the golden Calfe is condemned as flat idolatrie: Exod. 32. and yet the Israelites worshipped not the Calfe but God in the Calfe. To which we say, they did not worship the true God in the Calfe, but the God of the Egyptians, which was taken by them to haue the shape of a blacke Calfe with white spots. See S. August.Lib 18. De ciuit. cap. 5. And therfore making the golden Calfe to represent this false God, and attributing their deliuerance vnto that supposed God, 1. De nat. Deor. Verse. 4: and not vnto the God of Israel, committed idolatrie, which the text proueth most manifest, these be thy Gods that brought thee out of Egypt. M. Perkins answereth, that the meaning is nothing else, but that the golden Calfe was a signe of the presence of the true God: such glosses without any authority of the auncient Fathers is ridiculous, being against the plaine text: but saith he, we must not thinke thē so mad, as to take a Calfe made with their eare-rings to be their God, no: but we may well think them so vngratefull vnto the true God their deliuerer, that they did ascribe their deliuerance not to him, but vnto that God which the Aegyptians serued, whose pourtraiture was that Calfe.
R. ABBOT.
It is one speciall faculty that men attaine vnto by Romish learning, that they are able at any time by a distinction to mocke God. Let God say what he will, they will say the contrary, and yet by a distinction they will make it good. God commaunded his people that they should make no mannerDeut. 4.16. figure, or forme, or image, whereby to represent or worship him. Accordingly the faithfull obserued, and did throughout all their generations; they abhorred alwaies in any meaning to set vp an image vnto God. They dedicatedPhilo de legat. ad Caium. Vt eximium fanum dicaretur inuisibili Deo sine vlla effigie. their temple vnto God without any image, saith Philo. Thomas Aquinas saith of that time of the old testament, thatThom. Aquin. summ. part. 3. quaest. 25. art. 3. Jpsi vero Deo cùm sit incorporeus nulla corporalis imago poterat poni; quia vt dicit Damasc. insipientiae summae est & impietatis figurare quod est diuinum. Sed quia in nouo testamento Deus factus est homo, potest in sui imagine c [...]rporali adorari. to the true God being incorporall or without body, no corporall or bodily image might be set vp, and to that purpose citeth out of Damascen, that it is a point of extreme folly [Page 1220] and impiety to figure that that is diuine, and therefore in the new testament approueth no images of God, but as God was made man, that is, the images of Christ. So M. Bishops Nicene fathers, albeit they were idolaters as well as Aquinas and Damascen, yet they condemned the making of images to the godhead, as before hath bene shewed, and approued onely the images of Christ, & of the Saints. M. Bishop now telleth vs that they were all fooles, and made a needlesse scruple for want of the knowledge of his distinction; for though God be not directly to be apprehended or worshipped in an image, yet by collection he may, as by the forme of a graue old man we gather Gods eternity, saith he, and thereby arise to a more perfect conceipt of God, whom we adore. Thus for want of his learning they wanted the meanes to arise to the more perfect conceipt of God, because they feared to picture God in the forme of a graue old man. But I haueSect 4. & 7. before shewed that this impious dreame of his accordeth with the conceipts of prophane Philosophers, who did not thinke that their images did or could expresse the deity, but they vsed them onely as steps, whence by collection they might ascend to the contemplation of the diuine power. It hath bene there also declared, that it is wholy wicked and vnlawfull in any signification or meaning to take vpon vs by an image to represent God. Whereas he seeketh out of Daniel to approue this forme of a graue old man, he dealeth lewdly therein, Daniel there saith ofDan. 7.9. the Auncient of daies, his garment was white as snow, & the haire of his head like the pure wooll, but of a graue old man he saith nothing. Of our Sauiour Christ appearing to S. Iohn it is also said,Reuel. 1.14. His head and his haires were white as white wooll and as snow; and will M. Bishop be so fond hereupon, as to picture our Sauiour Christ like a graue old man? Old age also importeth not eternity, as he fancieth, but rather decaying & declining; and therefore is very vnfit to signifie the infinite being of the euerliuing God. But leauing that to the wisedome of God, why he hath thought good thus or thus to appeare to men, we hearken to his commandement, who saith that in the giuing of the law he appeareth in no likenesse, because he would haue no image or likenesse set vp vnto him. We follow also the example and practise of the faithfull people of God, who albeit they did reade of these apparitions of God, yet neuer durst presume thereupon to make any Image, whence they might by collection arise to the more perfect conceipt of him. [Page 1221] As touching their worshipping of the Images of Christ and his Saints, and that by vaine pretences they bestow vpon Saints and their Images the worship due to God onely, enough hath bene already said. So hath it bene also plainly declared alreadie, thatSupra. Sect. 5. the Israelites in worshipping their golden Calues, intended to worship the true God, and Maister Bishops assertion that they meant thereby to worship the God of the Aegyptians, is but vpon his owne word, and therefore we reiect it as a dreame. Bellarmine in this matter waueth too and fro, he saw the truth plainly enough, and therefore is forced to confesse, thatBellarmin. de Imag. sanct. cap: 13. Dicunt nec improbabiliter admitti posse quòd Iudaei in idolo putauerint se colere Deum verum. it is not vnlikely which Abulensis and Caietan, and other of their writers say, that it may be admitted that the Iewes in the idoll did thinke to worship the true God; but yet loth to stand to this, as being too directly against his purpose, he commeth in with perhaps this and perhaps that, and sheweth that indeede he knew not what to say. But what sence is there in that Maister Bishop saith, that the Israelites should imagine that the God of the Aegyptians deliuered them out of the land of Egypt? If they had caried the opinion of many Gods, it was more probable and likely for them to thinke, that the God of the Egyptians would rather haue done a fauour to the Egyptians then to them, and therefore would rather haue kept them in Egypt, then haue deliuered them from thence. They afterwards went a whoring after other Gods, the Gods of the Sidonians, the Ammonites, the Moabites, and others, and yet to none of them did they euer ascribe the deliuerance out of the land of Egypt, and how then is it likely that they should ascribe it to the Egyptians God? And if they had meant to worship the Egyptians God, there is no question but they would haue worshipped him in the same manner as the Egyptians did. But the Egyptians worshipped their God not by a golden Calfe, but by a liuing Calfe, which was to be of a certaine colour and certaine markes, whichLudou. Vin. Annot. in Aug. de ciu. Dei. li. 18. cap. 5. they so much regarded, as that when that Calfe or Bullocke was dead, they went vp and downe with great mourning and lamentation till they had found another coloured and spotted in the same sort. Seeing therefore this was a matter of so great moment, they would by no meanes haue neglected it if they had meant to worship the Aegyptians God. How much ra [...]her should wee thinke that they intended by their golden Calfe to worship their owne God for [Page 1222] receiuing of him the like benefit, as for which the Egyptians worshipped their imagined God by a liuing calfe?Ruffin. hist. lib. 2. cap. 23. Apin feru [...]t cū famis tēpore fru nenta apud Alexandriā defecissent, ex proprio affaetim ciuibus ali menta praebuisse. Quo defuncto in honorem eius instituerunt Mē p [...]s templum, in quo bos quaesi indicium optimi agricolae nutritur, &c. King Apis in a time of great dearth and famine, greatly relieued the Egyptians, and specially the citie of Alexandria; whom being dead they for that cause honoured as a God for reasons diuersly coniectured, naming him Serapis. For the worshipping of him, they made speciall choise of a calfe or bullock, as fittest for memoriall of the benefite for which they honoured him, because men are specially sustained and fed by the labour of the Oxe. The Israelites at that time in more miraculous manner, receiued the like benefit at the hands of their God. He fed them with Manna from heauen when they had no meanes at all to prouide themselues bread. Aaron therefore being required to make them Gods, being vndoubtedly more intelligent, then either to impute their deliuerance to the God of the Egyptians, or to thinke God to be like a calfe, yea and not being ignorant of the construction which the Egyptians made of their Calfe, made a golden calfe, onely as a signe and memoriall of the God by whom they were nourished and fed, whence according to M. Bishops rule they might by interpretation and collection, arise to the remembrance and conceipt of God. Hauing then made the Calfe, he saith, These are thy Gods, O Israel, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, in no sort referring them to the God of the Egyptians, but remembring them thereby of their owne God, who by Moses brought them out of the land of Egypt. Which he doth by that rule which M. Perkins mentioned out of S. Austine, thatAug. ad Simplic. lib. 2. q 3. Solent imagines earum rerū nominibus appella [...]i quarum imagines sunt. Images are wont to be called by the names of those things, whereof they are images. For the rest I referre thee, gentle Reader, to that that is said before. As for that which he saith, that the Egyptians tooke their God to haue the shape of a blacke Calfe with white spots, if some other man had said it, I should haue said that he had spoken like a Calfe. He quoteth S. Austine for witnesse of it, but S. Austine saith no such thing. He saith thatAug. de ciuit. Dei. li. 18. ca. 5. Apis being king of the Argiues, came into Egypt, and dying there became Serapis the greatest of all the Gods of the Egyptians. He noteth out of Varro, that he was called Serapis of the coffin wherein he was buried, being worshipped in his coffin before any temple was built for him; the coffin being in Greeke [...], which being added by way of composition to Apis, made Serapis, and by change of a letter was turned to Serapis. He saith that it was decreed, that [Page 1223] no man vpon paine of death should say that he was a man, and that in all temples where Isis and he were worshipped, there stoode an image at the dore which had the finger laied to the mouth, as requiring silence, that no man should say that they were men who were there worshipped. He addeth, thatIlle bos quem mirabili vanitate decepta Aegyptus in honorē eius delicijs affluentibus alebat, &c. Apū vocabatur. the Egyptians daintily kept and fed the bullocke in the honour of Apis or Serapis, but that they tooke Serapis their God to be like a blacke calfe with white spots, neither he, nor Tully, nor any other euer imagined, till Maister Bishop by a mischance lighted vpon it in a dreame.
20. W. BISHOP.
But now before we end this question, I must let you vnderstand what worthy men they were that first began to wage battell against images: they were the Iewes in their Talmud. Ord. 2. tract. 1. dist. 2. See Synod. 7. act. 5. A barbarous Persian Xenias, as witnesseth Nicephorus Lib. 16. cap. 27. Then Mahomet the great God of the Turkes. Alcoran. ca. 15. & 17. with such like infidelds, sorcerers, and the scum of the earth.
See Card. Bellarmine de Imag. lib. 2. cap. 6.
I will with one or two testimonies of the auncientest Fathers finish this controuersie. Lactant. In car. de pass. Christ. Kneele downe and adore the venerable wood of the Crosse.
Hierom, in vita Paulae: She adored prostrate before the Crosse, as if she had seene Christ hanging on it.
Basil against Iulian cited, act. 2. Synod. 7. I honour the history of the Images, and do properly worship them.
Finally, in the 7. generall Councell holden 900. yeares past, they are condemned of heresie, that deny the vse and worshipping of holy Images.
R. ABBOT.
Maister Bishop in this worthy conclusion will tell vs what worthy men they were that first began to wage battell against Images, and first nameth vnto vs the Iewes in their Talmud. But hee sheweth himselfe a very simple man to goe about to perswade vs, that the Iewes in their Talmud were the first oppugners of the worshipping of Images, vnlesse hee had shewed vs withall, that their forefathers before the Talmud had entertained and practised the same. It was but a thing mistaken by him; they were [Page 1224] the Iewes indeede that were the auncient oppugners of Images, but those Iewes were Moses and the godly Kings of Iudah, Asa, Hezechias, Iosias, and such other, together with the Prophets of God, who denounce the wrathfull vengeance of God against this filthy and abhominable pollution of the true worship of God. If those faithfull people of God had worshipped Images, M. Bishop had had somewhat to say of the Iewes later detesting and abandoning of them; but because there is no example found of any godly man that euer did so or so taught, we thereby vnderstand, that what the Iewes do or haue done in that behalfe, they haue done it by obseruing constantly so farre forth the doctrine and practise of their godly fathers. The Turkes also do that which they do in respect of Gods commandement. They acknowledge the law of the tenne commandements to be of God, and finding the worshipping of Images to be therein condemned, they accordingly detest it. And in this respect Poperie hath lien as a stumbling blocke in the way both of Turkes and Iewes, and hath caused them to fall into the greater hatred and despite of the name and faith of Christ, and set a barre against them to keepe them frō entring into the Church of Christ. They know that the worshipping of Images is condemned of God, and therefore seeing the profession of the name of Christ to be ioined to worshipping of Images, they haue wholy deemed the same to be sacriledge & enmitie against God, and haue shunned it accordingly. This scandall God hath in part reuenged already, by deliuering those Easterne Churches where this idolatry was first established, by cruell destruction into the Turkes hands. The Church of Rome hath seene it, and it is verified in her which Saint Iohn prophecied,Reuel. 9.20. The remnant of the men which were not killed with these plagues, repented not of the workes of their hands, that they might not worship diuels and idols of gold, and of siluer, and of brasse, and of wood, and of stone, which neither can see, nor heare, nor goe. Therefore God hath giuen ouer that filthy whore to all abhomination and vncleannesse both spirituall and corporall, and will in due time performe that which he hath foretold, concerning a perpetuall desolation to befall vnto her. As for Xenaias or Xenias the Persian, if he were otherwise faultie, he was iustly for that to beare his iudgement; but in oppugning the worshipping of Images, if he did so, he did the part of a iust and faithfull man. I referre the Reader [Page 1225] to that before hath bene said, concerning him inSect. 12. answer of the Epistle to the King. But now that Maister Bishop hath thus brought in by way of contempt, Turkes, and Iewes, and a barbarous Persian, waging warre against Images, we would looke that he should bring vs glorious troupes of the auncient Fathers, speaking in fauour of them. Behold, gentle Reader, the wretchednesse of a damnable and wicked defence. He hath here offered vs the verse of a Poet, the fact of a woman, and a counterfeit sentence not found in Basils workes, but fathered vpon him most impudently foure hundred yeares after his decease. Surely if Poperie had bene the religion that was professed of old, there could not haue wanted many and most pregnant testimonies for that which they now practise. But there are none; they are put to a miserable shift to get any thing that may giue but some shew of grace to that which they defend. But such as they are let vs examine what they say. First Lactantius by a Poeticall fiction bringeth in our Sauiour Christ hanging in ruefull plight vpon the crosse, and there calling to man to behold and consider him in that state,Lactan. carm. de pass. Christi. En aspice crines sanguine còcretos & sanguinolenta sub i [...]sis Colla comis spinis (que) caput crudelibus haustum Vndi (que) diua pluens vinum super ora cruorem, Cō pressos speculare oculos et luce carētes Afflictas (que) genas, arentem suspice linguam Felle venenatam & pallentes funere vultus, Cerne manus clauis sixas tractos (que) lacertos At (que) ingens lateri vulnus, cerne inde fluorem Sanguineum f [...]ssos (que) pedes artus (que) cruentos: Flecte genu lignum (que) crucis venerabile adora Flebilis, innocuo terram (que) cruore madentē Ore petens humili lachrymis s [...]ffunde subortis, &c. To behold his haire and his necke all imbrued with bloud; his head all rent with thornes, and shedding or distilling the warme bloud vpon his sacred face, his eies closed together and warning light, his cheekes buffeted, his tongue dry and poisoned with gall, his countenance pale like death; Behold, saith he, my hands pierced with nailes, my ioints racked and drawne foorth, a great wound in my side, and a streame of bloud issuing from thence, my feete bored through, my members all bloudie. Hereupon follow the words which Maister Bishop citeth, Kneele downe and with weeping adore the worthy wood or tree of the crosse, and humbly kissing the ground bedewed with innocent blould, wash it with thy teares. Where we see all framed to Poeticall manner of speaking, and may easily perceiue that the Author intendeth no more, but that beholding by the spirituall contemplation and meditation of faith, the bitternesse of the passion of Christ for our sakes, wee should in heart and affection euen fall prostrate before him, as hanging vpon the Crosse, and kisse the ground bedewed with his most sacred and innocent bloud. Wee can no more suppose now the reall adoring of the Crosse, whereof hee speaketh▪ then wee can suppose the ground now really moisted with the bloud of Christ, and therefore can no otherwise take it, but that hee referreth our meditation [Page 1226] to the Gospell, whereGal, 3 1. hauing Christ described before our eies as crucified amongst vs, we should in minde and deuotion as it were kneeling before his crosse, humble our selues to him. But that Lactantius was very farre from worshipping spiritually the very wood of the crosse, he plainly enough sheweth when he resolueth itLactano institut. lib. 5. cap. 9. Nesciunt quaētū sit nefas adorare aliud praeterquā D [...]um. to be a thing vnlawfull to worship any thing beside God. Yea, and we haue heard before out of Ambrose concerning the crosse of Christ, euen the very crosse whereon hee was crucified, that to worship it wereSupra Sect. 1. Ex Ambros. heathenish errour and the vanity of wicked men. Whereby wee learne to esteeme of that which Maister Bishop further citeth of Paula a noble gentlewoman of Rome, of whom Hierome reporteth, that trauailing to Hierusalem, and comming to the place where Christ was crucified,Hieron. in Epitaph. Paulae. Prostrata ante crucem quasi pē dentem hominū cerneret adorabat. falling prostrate before the crosse, shee worshipped as if she had seene the Lord there hanging before her. He telleth vs that she worshipped, but he doth not tell vs that she worshipped the crosse. The present conceipt of the place was a motiue vnto her there to fall downe to worship Christ in heauen, but of worshipping the crosse there is nothing said there, much lesse of any thing that should induce vs to the worshipping of Maister Bishops Images. Nay Hierome saith,Hieron. ad Ripar. [...]du Vigilant. Ne solē quidem & lunam, non Angelos, nō Archangelos, nō Cherubim, omne nomen quod nominatur in praesenti seculo & in futuro colimus et adoramus. We worship neither Sunne, nor Moone, nor Angels, nor Archangels, nor Cherubim, nor Seraphim, nor any name that is named in this world, or in the world to come. The words cited vnder the name of Basil, can haue no more credit then they haue who are the reporters of them, which is none at all. They are alledged out of the second Nicene Councell, and the Councell it selfe is brought as a witnesse of the worshipping of Images, but how base account is to be made of that Councell I haue before giuen to vnderstand in answer of the Epistle. Albeit that thou maiest, gentle Reader, more particularly vnderstand the truth of that censure, it shall not be amisse somewhat further to note the originall and processe of the said Councell. It hath beene before shewed, that in the time of Gregorie Magnus Bishop of Rome, which was about sixe hundred yeares after Christ, Serenus the Bishop of Massilia seeing the people to worship the Images in the Church, in great zeale brake the Images in peeces, and threw them out of the Church, that there might be no occasion there left of any such abhomination. [Page 1227] Gregorie hereupon wrote to Serenus, and though he disliked his breaking of them, yet commended him in that he could not endure the worshiping of them. This was then the doctrine of the Church of Rome, that howsoeuer Images might be vsed historically for remembrance, yet by no meanes might men performe deuotion or worship to them. But whilst vnder pretence of that historicall vse they attained to high and honourable place in the Church, and were gloriously set foorth as great ornaments thereof, Satan hereby tickled the fancie of the people, and bred in them an itching humour of damnable superstition, which grew more and more, till Idolatry was openly practised by the worshippe of them, and the Bishop of Rome, who before had giuen sentence to the contrary, became the maine champion to fight for the maintenance of this abuse. This we find to haue come to passe about an hundred yeares or very little more after the time of Gregory, at which time the Emperors of Constātinople with the most of their Bishop [...], mightily opposed themselues against this new deuotion, and by their edicts caused Images wholly to be defaced and abandoned out of the Churches. The pursuit of which cause whenSigebert. Chrō. anno. 725. Paulus Diacon. de gest Longo. li. 6 cap. 49. Leo Isaurus verie earnestly followed, Gregory the second swaruing frō the steps of the former Gregory, tooke vpon himZonar Anna. tom. 3. Synodico anathemate obstrinxit. &c. to excommunicate the Emperor and all that tooke part with him in destroying of Images. Gregory the third his successour went further, and assembled a Councell at Rome, and there decreed the worshipping of Images, and hauing so done, renewed the former excommunication, and added thereto a sentence of depriuation, and by rebellion and treason found the meanes to alienate from the Emperour whatsoeuer▪ there was then in Italy remaining to him. Against that Romane councellZonar. ibid. et Sigebert. an. 755, Constantinus Copronymus the son of Leo about the yeare of our Lord 755. assembled at Constantinople a Councell of the Easterne Bishops, to the number of three hundred and thirtie, which wholly determined against the worshipping of Images, thinking also the vse of them in any sort to be not onely vnnecessary, but altogether vnlawfull and contrary to the word of God. The detestation that they had conceiued of the impious and wicked abuse, made them for the auoiding thereof to prohibite that vse which was lawfull, as a man desirous to make a crooked rod straight, bendeth it too farre the other way. But this determination of that Councell [Page 1228] appeased not that contention, the humour of superstition being restlesse and endlesse, neuer ceasing if it be able to stirre, till it gaine strength for the vpholding of it selfe. So it was, that to Leo the sonne of Constantinus Copronymus was maried Irene a proud and wicked woman, who vpon the death of her husband, abusing the minority of her sonne, tooke vpon her selfe the gouernement of the Empire, and being of a womanish affection delighted with babies, about foure and thirtie yeares after that Councell of Constantinople that generation of Bishops being in a manner quite worne out,Func. commē. in Chronel. anno 787. 788. she commaundeth another Councell in the same place, the Bishops by that time being well fitted for the doing of that which she desired to haue effected. The cause of their assembly being publikely knowen, namely that it was for the bringing in againe of the worshipping of Images, the people of Constantinople gathered themselues together, and threatned to do some violence to them it they should conclude any such matter. This feare hindered them from proceeding according to that they had purposed, and hereupon Irene dissolued that meeting for that time, and the next yeare after caused the same to be renewed at Nice in Bithynia, where the first great and famous Councell was holden against Arius the hereticke vnder Constantine the great. But we may here easily conceiue a great difference in course of proceeding betwixt that former and this latter Councell. The former Councell continued for the space of three yeares and more, long time and deliberation being taken for debating and discussing to the full the points of question that should be decided in it. This latter continued but onely twentie dayes, being begun 8. kalend. Octob. and being ended 3. Id. Octob. so that they seeme to haue before determined what to conclude, and for no other cause met together but onely to say what they had determined. The President of this Councell who managed the whole busines thereof was one Tharasius, who of a courtier and a souldiour, contrarie to the canons of the Church, was made Bishop and Patriarch of Constantinople, a man verie vnfit and vnwoorthie for such a place. According to the weakenesse of the head was the proceeding and behauiour of the whole bodie, wickedly abusing the Scriptures, wresting and peruerting the sentences [Page 1229] of the fathers; no reason so foolish but they admire it, no lye so grosse but they applaude it, nothing there read vnder the name of any famous author, but it is certainly true; no man may speake against it. The first action being spent in receiuing of penitents, who were a remainder of the former Councell, and now for keeping of their places recanted what they had there said, they come in the second to the reading of the letters of Adrian Bishop of Rome, which being done, they all professe their consent to that which he wrote, and so an end. In those letters he singularly abuseth Constantine the great, fathering vpon him a tale of a leprosie, and that whē he had appointed the murthering of infants, that he might haue their bloud to bathe himself in for the curing of it, Peter and Paul appeared to him in his sleepe, and recommended vnto him the baptisme and faith of Christ, and that by meanes thereof he should obtaine his health; that to this end they willed him to send for Siluester the Bishop of Rome, who lurked in secret for feare of falling into the persecutors hands, to whom whē he was come, he declared this whole matter, & asked him (if we wil belieue this notable cosiner) what kind of gods he thought those two to be, namely Peter and Paule, that had appeared to him? that Syluester telling him they were [...] no gods, but seruants and Disciples of Christ, caused their Images to be brought foorth, which when he saw, he saied, these are they whom I saw in that vision; (an excellent skill in the Image-maker, that he could light so iust vpon the visages of them that were dead almost three hundred yeares before:) that hereupon Constantine was baptized at Rome, and restored to his health, and did set vp many goodly Images of Christ and his Saints in the Churches there. With this most impudent and shamelesse forgerie, so plainely contradicted byEuseb. de vita Constant. lib. 4. cap. 62. Eusebius his storie of the life of Constantine, byAmbros. d [...]. obit. Theodos. Ambrose, byHieronym. in chronico. Hierome, bySocrat. lib. 1. cap. 26. Socrates, byTheodoret. lib. 1. cap. 32. Theodoret, bySozomen. lib. 2. cap. 32. Sozomen, who all declare that Constantine was baptized at Nicomedia amidst many Bishops there, and that newly before his death, which wasSo it is by the computation of Funccius; but Sozomen. hist. lib. 1. cap. 16. saith that Iulius the second after Syluester was Bishop of Rome at the time of the Nicene Councell; which being so, Syluester must be dead at least thirtteene yeares before Constantine was baptized. seuen yeares at least after the death of Syluester; with this leud tale, I say, Adrian [Page 1230] maketh his onset for Images, & then proceedeth to the contaminating and prophaning of the Scriptures, alledging that God made man according to his Image, as if thereupon it should concerne vs to make images and worshippe them; that Noe and Abraham set vp altars vnto God; that Iacob erected a stone, and powred oile vpō it, & called it Gods house; that the same Iacob worshipped vpon the top of his rod, as if worshipping of Images were to be prooued by examples of hauing no Images to worship; that Moses made the brasen serpent and the Cherubims, andSi Israeliticū populum per inspectionem oenei serpentis seruatū à sua peste credimus, Christi verò Dei et seruatoris nostri omnium (que) sanctorum figuras contemplantes et venerantes dubitamus nos seruari? if, saith he, the people of Israel were saued from their plague by looking vpon the brasen serpent, doe we doubt but that we are saued beholding and worshipping the Images of Christ and of all the Saints? as if there were the like reason of that which God in one kinde for speciall cause commaundeth, and that which in another kinde man of his owne head fondly presumeth without God. For further proofes he citeth out of the Psalmes,Psal. 95. vulga. Confession and beauty are before him; Psal. 25.8. Lord I haue loued the beautie of thy house, and the place of the tabernacle of thy glory: Psal. 26.13. My face hath sought after thee, thy face Lord will I seeke: Psal. 44.14. The rich of the people shall make their supplication before thy face; Psal. 4.7. O Lord, the light of thy countenance is sealed vpon vs. Can we hold him for other then a graue and reuerend Prelate, that could dispute so substantially, so wisely, so learnedly for the worshipping of Images? May not we be taken for blinde buzzards, that cannot see the same sufficiently prooued and warranted by these texts? or rather are we not to take him for a lewde cosiner and peruerter of Gods word, who would thus detort and wrest the Scriptures to that whereto they giue no semblance of approbation or liking? As he dealeth with the Scriptures, so doth he with the Fathers. He alledgeth amongst others one place vnder the name of Basil, in which the words are which M. Bishop here citeth, which yet is certaine to haue bene written by another a long time after the death of Basil. Amōgst other words there are these:Confite [...]r deinde sanctam Mariam quae secundum carnem illum peperit hanc Deipara vocans. I confesse holy Mary, who brought forth Christ according to the flesh, calling her (Deiparam) the mother of God; which there is no mā so blind but seeth that they are purposely set down against the Nestoriā heresie, and that without doubt after the time of the Ephesine coūcel when that name of Deipara was first publikely auouched to the churches vse, which was holden about 50. years after Basils time. [Page 1231] Yea and it was yet long after that also before these words were written, inasmuch as there is affirmed the worshipping of images, whereas there is no example of the worshipping of images then to be found in any Church throughout the whole world. Some other of the Fathers he handleth in the same sort, citing them all either falsly or impertinently, whilest either he impureth to them that which they neuer wrote, or impudently forceth to the gracing of the worshipping of images, that which they spake onely of the historicall and ciuill vse. Yet vpon these silly grounds the Councell proceedeth, and they professe their beleefe to beConstant. iuxta teuorem literarū quae ab Adrian [...] &c. missae sunt hominibus consentio, &c. & c [...] hac. fide ad tribunal Christi proficiscar, &c. Elias: perfectò eas adorans; qui verò secus consitentur eos anathematiz [...]. according to the tenour of Adrians letters, perfectly worshipping images, saith Elias Cretensis, and I pronounce anathema to them that professe otherwise: yeaStaurat. Imagines recipio, amplector & honore velut arrbabonē existentes mea salutis; secùs autem sentientes anathematize. I receiue, embrace and honour them, saith Stauratius the Bishop of Chalcedon, as being the earnest of my saluation, and I accurse them that thinke otherwise. See here the worthy companie of M. Bishops learned men, much respecting what the grounds and proofes were that they would conclude vpon. In the third action after the receiuing of some other penitents, they reade the communicatorie letters of Tharasius, lately before chosen Patriarch of Constantinople, to the Patriarchs and Bishops of Antioch and Hierusalem, and their answers to him, wherein they signifie their consent to the worshipping of images. For proofe they care not; it is enough to say they professe it, and the rest of that act is nothing but voyces of approbation of that which they say. In the fourth action they fall roundly to their businesse, and bring foorth their proofes, such as they haue, and happie is he that can bring foorth a place that but speaketh of an image; that is argument good enough for the worshipping of them. First because they would haue it knowne that they had a Bible amongst them, they bring it foorth, and there they reade some few places out of Exodus, Numbers and Ezechiel concerning the making of Cherubims, to which they adde the place to the Hebrewes mentioningHeb. 9.5. the Cherubims of glorie ouershadowing the mercie-seate. Hereupon Tharasius giueth this worthie obseruation,Animaduertamus viri sacerdotes quia vetus Scriptura diuina habuit Symbola, & ex haec assumpsit noua Cherubim gloriae obumbrantia propitiatorium. Sancta Synodus dixit, Rectè domine, itae est veritas. Let vs marke, that because the old Testament had diuine signes, the new hath from thence taken the Cherubims of glorie couering the mercie-seate: the whole Synod answering, Ʋerie right, so the truth is indeed. [Page 1232] A companie of very wise men, that could not see that the new Testament no otherwise speaketh of the Cherubins then as of a matter pertaining to the old, and therefore what should hence be gathered for auouching images in the new? Tharasius goeth yet further,Si vetus Scriptura habuit Cherubim obūbrātia propitiatorium, & nos quoque imagines Iesu Christi et sanctae Deiparae, sanct [...] rum (que) habebimus [...]bumbrantes altariae, If the old Testament had Cherubins couering the mercie-seate, we also will haue the images of Christ and his holy mother, and the Saints to ouershadow our altars. What is a gentleman but his pleasure? We will haue: and is it not a stout reason that because Moses set vp two Cherubims in the tabernacle out of all mens sight saue the high Priests once a yeare, and which we do not find that euer any man did worship, therefore we should set vp the images of Christ and of dead men for all men to looke vpon, and that they may fall downe before them and worship them? They are soone weary of Scriptures, and to the Fathers they go; they bring out of Chrysostom, that the people much delighted and affected to haue the picture of Meletius; and that he himselfe was greatly in loue with a picture describing an Angell destroying an armie of barbarous people: they alledge that Gregory Nyssene and Cyrill say, that they had seene exquisite pictures of Abraham offering vp his sonne Isaac; that Gregory Nazianzone in certaine verses setteth foorth, that a harlot being by a yong man wonne to come vnto him for practise of filthy lust, comming to the doore and seeing the picture of Polemon the Philosopher, went backe as it were ashamed, and left that filthinesse vndone; that Antipater the Bishop of Bostria maketh mention that the woman cured of the issue of bloud set vp an image of Christ; that Asterius mentioneth an image describing the suffering of Euphemia the martyr; all which being admitted for true, yet what is there herein for the worshipping of images? I may not here omit the collection of Theodosius the Bishop of Amorium, which he offereth to the Councell after the allegation of all these things:D [...]ui [...] Apostolus sic docet, Quaecun (que) praescripta sunt, &c. Ipsae igitur sacrae imagines & picturae tum mus [...]cis operibus, tum colorum materia deliniatae in nostrā doctrinā, zelum & typum criguntur & pictae sunt, vt et nos illis conformes, idem certamen apud Deum exhibeamus, &c. The holy Apostle thus teacheth vs, saith he, Whatsoeuer things were written before, were written for our learning: therefore sacred images and pictures both of solide worke and drawne in colours, are set vp for our learning, zeale, and figure, that we being like vnto them may yeeld the like fight with God, that he may place vs in the same state and portion wherein they haue bene, and make vs fellow-heires of his heauenly kingdome. Was not here a man of a quicke nose and a very sharpe sent, that could smell Images in those words of the Apostle? Yea [Page 1233] he would haue vs also like to the Images (for so his words sound) that so it may be verified of vs which the Prophet saith,Psal. 115.8. They that make them are like vnto them, and so are all they that put their trust in them. Well, from hence they go to miracles, that in Caesarea Palestina the reliques of Anastasius being to be brought thither, a certaine woman denied beforehand to worship them. She is thereupon stricken in her loines with intollerable torture and paine, so continuing for the space of foure dayes. Which being ended, in the euening Anastasius standeth by her, willeth her to go to the Church, & there to beg of him to make intercession for her that she might be made whole. As she came neare to the church, beholding the image of Anastasius, she cast her selfe downe before it, and with great lamentation and teares pacified the martyr, and straightwayes rose vp whole and sound. If this be not true, the diuell is a very knaue, and as little to be trusted now as euer he was. The next is reported vnder the name of Athanasius, albeit it is storied by Sigebert, as before I haue noted, as a thing done foure hundred yeares after the death of Athanasius. But these men were their craftsmasters, they knew well that great lies are not easily beleeued but vpon the credite of great names. A Iew forsooth in Beryth hired a house where a Christian had dwelt, who after he had bene there abiding, vpon a time inuited certaine other Iewes his countrimen to dinner: as they sate at table, one of them lifting vp his eyes spied there an image of Christ; a wonderfull matter, that the good man of the house all this while could neuer see it. Well, they raile at him for hauing such an image, they complaine of him to their Elders and chiefe Priests, they excommunicate him, they take the image from thence; they remember what villanie and despight their fathers had done to Christ, and the like they do to the image; at length they cause one to thrust it in the side with a speare, and forthwith streames of bloud and water issued out, insomuch that a whole paile or waterpot was filled with it, and therewith all manner sicke persons that came thither were cured, so as that the Iewes hereat were greatly amazed, and hereby conuerted. Afterwards the Bishop of the place being greatly in doubt what to do with all this bloud and water, at length tooke diuers glasse bottels and sent portions thereof about the world into Asia, Europe and Africa; onely it seemeth there was some default in the messengers, of whom there hath [Page 1234] bene no newes vntill this day, by reason whereof we reade not of any processions or solemnities vsed abroade for the receiuing and entertaining of this woodden blood, nor any miracles done by it in any of those places to which it was sent, otherwise we should wonder that it should be dried vp and no newes now to be heard of it. May we not say of them that receiued these monstrous fables, that2. Thess. 2. God had sent them strong delusion that they should beleeue lies? But here Tharasius very vnwarily tooke a course to marre the miracle-market, and did enough to put his fellowes from the telling of many wonders of their images, but that they had good stomacks, and not easily ouercome with any quaume.Sed quispiam dixerit, Quam. obremmiracula à nostris imaginibus non eduntur? Cui sanè ita sit cum Apostolo responsum, Miracul [...] non credentibus data sunt, sed illis qui in incredulitate versantur H [...] autem qui imaginem ita iractabant erant infideles; qua de causa signum illis datum est à Deo per imaginem. Some man will say, saith he, why are no miracles done by our Images? To whom let vs answer with the Apostle, Miracles are not for them that beleeue, but for them that are in vnbeleefe. They who thus handled that image were infidels, and therefore a signe was giuen them of God by the image. Tharasius knew well enough that there were no miracles done by their images, but yet this could not stop the mouthes of them that came thither prepared to tell lies. Therefore anone out they come with such other like tales of bloud issuing out of the images and reliques of Martyrs, of a man molested and vexed by the diuell, with whom the diuell conditioned to trouble him no more, so that he would giue ouer worshipping the image of our Ladie; of a man cured of a fistula in his thigh by praying to the images of Cosmas and Damianus, the same Saints comming to him that night and our Ladie in the middest, saying to them, See, here is the man, helpe him forthwith: of another who hauing the pictures of Cosmas and Damianus in waxe, could therewith cure the tooth-ach or any other paines; of another who being sodainly taken with an extreame sicknesse and paine, applied to the place where he was pained the image of Christ, and was by and by restored; of a Goldsmith, who at the request of Neanias made a crosse, vpon which when it was set vp, there became miraculously wrought three pictures, and ouer them three names written in Hebrew, Emmanuel in the middest, and on the two sides Michael and Gabriel; of a man troubled with a cruell sore, who being brought into the Church and set vnder the image of Christ, there dropped thence a deaw into his sore, wherewith he was healed forthwith; of an image of our Ladie in Zozopolis, from the hand whereof dropped oyntments for the curing [Page 1235] of diseases. Thus there were present there that knew more then Tharasius did; he knew no miracles done by Images but onely to Infidels, but they knew them very common to Christians also. Amidst these and many other such grosse fooleries, they alledge some names of the auncient Fathers, either counterfetly, as that of Basil mentioned before by Adrian, or impertinently, as of Athanasius and Basil speaking of Images ciuilly and historically vsed, but not saying a word for their worshipping of images. Of a latter generation they bring first Leontius a Bishop of Naples, who they say was about the time of Mauricius the Emperour, but they say it vntruly, as appeareth for that he is so pregnant for Image-worship, which by Gregorie Magnus was in the time of Mauricius so expresly contradicted. This Leontius to serue his turne, openly falsifieth and belyeth the Scriptures, affirming that Solomon in the building of the Temple set vp in it the images of men, and that Ezechiel in the patterne that was giuen him for reedifying the same, was likewise willed so to do, which appeareth by the text it selfe to be altogether vntrue. There were pictures of Cherubims, and Palme-trees, and Lions, and Buls, and flowers for ornament of the workes, as before was said, but neuer was there in the Temple seene the image of a man, saue what by idolaters was brought in. The rest of his discourse serueth to shew the Iew, in what manner and meaning they worshipped images, before he hath shewed him that it is lawfull to worship them at all. They bring further the words of one Anastasius, putting a difference betwixt adoration and latria, making the former common to men and Angels, the other peculiar to God onely; but yet not affirming any thing of either of them to belong to Images. To supplie that, they bring an Epistle of Gregorie the third to Germanus, who some threescore yeares before had bene Patriarch of Constantinople, and was condemned in the former Councell there holden, and three Epistles of the same Germanus himselfe, all by the like arguments and with the same Sophistrie handling this cause of Images, and vnder pretence of vsing them for admonition and remembrance, inferring the worship of them. Which done, vpon these goodly grounds they come for conclusion of that session to pronounce their anathematismes against all them that denie Images to be worshipped.
In the fift session they follow the same course. First they bring in authorities nothing to the purpose, as of Cyril, noting it as an impietie in Nabuchodonosor that he tooke away the Cherubims out of the temple of Ierusalē; and of Simeon the Eremit, complaining to the Emperor Iustinus the yonger concerning the Samaritans spoiling a church, and with indignitie defacing the images that were found in it, which, what do they appertaine to the worshipping of Images? Then they bring in testimonies of no authoritie, the parties being of latter time and interested in this quarrell, as of one Iohn Bishop of Thessalonica, taking vpon him to satisfie a Pagan, and of Leontius before spoken of answering the Iew concerning the meaning of their worshipping of Images, without any proofe that it is lawfull so to do. Indeed plaine it is that the worshipping of Images was a scandall and barre both to Pagans and Iewes to hinder them from admitting the Christian faith. They could not disswade the idolatry of the Pagans, because they themselues changing the persons did the like. They could not perswade the Iewes of the truth of Christian religion, because they knew well that to worship an image is a thing condemned by Gods commaundement. But from thence they proceed to calumniate them that impugned images, first for citing Apocryphal writings, as the Iournals of the Apostles, and of men vnsound in the faith, as Eusebius; and secondly for taking part with euil disposed men, as Xenaias and Seuerus, as if it should be any hinderance to the truth that sometimes vpon occasion euill men become defenders thereof: and thirdly for defacing such bookes as had bene not long before written for defence of such idolatry, wherein whatsoeuer they did, they did it by iust grieuance and caution against the increase and growth of this abhomination. Now this being but a sinister and indirect course, backe they go againe to their trumpe, that is, to miracles, and as if it had bene some perfume to sweeten the roome, they tell againe the tale of the diuell promising not to trouble a man if he would forbeare to worship the image of our Ladie; another of a woman who being greatly grieued at the charges that she had bin at in the digging of a well and could get no water, saw one come to her in her sleepe, who willed her to get the image of one Theodosius an Abbot, which being let downe into the well, the water flowed abundantly: another of an Eremite, who being sometimes [Page 1237] to go from his caue, would pray to the image of our Ladie that his candle might continue burning till his comming againe, and that going sometimes for two or three moneths, sometimes for fiue or sixe moneths, he found it burning in the same sort as he left it. No maruell if they could sca [...]t hold at the hearing of these stories, and therefore they hereupon fall to cursing them that condemned the worshipping of images, and so an end for that time. The sixt action was the reading of an answer formally penned against the acts of the former Councell of Constantinople against images, the examination whereof, because it would be too long, I leaue to the Reade, though what it is may well be esteemed by their proceedings hitherto. The seuenth session which is the last, containeth the Synodicall definition of the Councell for images to be worshipped, and their subscriptions thereto, with their certificate thereof to the Emperour Constantine and his mother Irene the Emperesse, as also to the Bishops of all Churches. Thus thou hast (gentle Reader) a briefe of the comedy of M. Bishops learned Councell, though I confesse I am farre from acting it, to cause thee that mirth that the reading of the Councell it selfe would do. Their speeches are so ridiculous, so vnsauoury, so voide of all Christian grauitie and vnderstanding, as that thou wouldest think they al spake but in a dreame, or as being scant sober to aduise of that they say. Albeit there are two things which I wish thee therein to obserue: first that they approoue no other images but onely of Christ incarnate and of the Saints, and do wholy condemne the making of any images of God, as appeareth by the epistles of Germanus, by the speeches of Leontius against the Iew, of Iohn Bishop of Thessalonica against the Pagan, of Constantine the Deacon the custos rotulorum of the Church of Constantinople in the fourth and fift actions. The second is that they wholy deny to images the worship of latria, which they terme the worship proper to God onely, as appeareth by the epistle of Tharasius to Constantine and Irene in the seuenth act. In both which points the church of Rome hath gone beyond them, not doubting to make images of God the Father in the likenesse of an old man, as M. Bishop hath before acknowledged, and of the holy Ghost in the forme of a Doue, and by the common iudgement of her Diuines hauing affirmed that the worship of latria is to be giuen to the image of Christ and his crosse, as hath bene before shewed, [Page 1238] and by practise yeelded no lesse to the images of all the Saints. Thus haue they exceeded the measure of the idolatrie there decreed, and neuer ceased till the superstitions of the people had in a manner fully matched all the abhominations of Pagan and heathen men. The Councell being ended, a copie thereof was sent to Charles the great, who at that time was king of France. He hauing receiued it, sent it ouer into this land to haue the iudgement of the Church here concerning the matter of it. What followed, let it appeare by the narration of our old English historian Roger Houedon recited also by Mathew of Westminster.Roger. Honed. Annal. part. 1. ann. 792. Carolus rex Francorum misi [...] Synodalem librū ad Britanniam sibi à Constantinopoli directū in quo libro (heu proh dolor) multa inconuementia & verae fidei contraria reperiebantur; maximè quòd penè omnium Orientalium doctorum non minùs quàm trecentorum vel eo ampliùs Episcoporū vnanima assertione confirmatum fuerit, imaginesadoraeri debere, quod omninò Ecclesia Dei execratur. Cōtra quod scripsit Albinus epistolam ex authoritate diuinarum scripturarum mirabil [...]ter affirmatā; illam (que) cum eodē libro ex persona Episcoporum ac Principū nostrorū regi Francorū attulit. Idem habetur apud Mat. West monasteriensem. In the yeare 792. Charles the king of France sent a synodicall booke into Brittaine, which had bin directed to him from Constantinople, in which booke (alas for wo) many things were found inconuenient and contrary to the true faith, specially for that by the agreeing assertion of almost all the Easterne Doctor, being no lesse then three hundred Bishops or more, it was decreed that images ought to be worshipped, which thing the Church of God holdeth altogether accursed. Against which Albinus wrote an Epistle, wonderfully fortified by authoritie of holy Scriptures, and in the name of our Bishops and Nobles caried the same with the booke to the king of France. By this we see what credite M. Bishops Nicene Councell had with the auncient Church of this land, and that he doth but play the Sycophants part in that hee goeth about now so highly to commend the same vnto vs, contrary to so notable a iudgement of our forefathers and auncesters so long ago, yea we see how impudently they lie, in saying that our forefathers from the beginning were of the same religion that the Church of Rome is of now. But that was not all that Charles did; for he caused also a Councell to be assembled at Franckford in Germanie of the Bishops of Italy, France and Germanie, who with common voyce condemned that Nicene Councell, and plainly declared that the sentence thereof for worshipping of images was contrary to the word of God. Abbas Ʋrspergensis speaking of this Franckford Councell, hauing shewed that therein the heresie of Felix was condemned, who held that Christ was but by adoption the Sonne of God, addeth further,Abb. Vrsperg. Chron. anno 793. Synodus et [...]ā quae ante pautos ānos in Constātinopoli co [...]gregata sub Irene & Constantino filio eius septima & vniuersalis ab ipsis appellata est vt nec septima nec aliquid diceretur quasi superuacuae ab omnibus ab [...]icata est. The Synod also which a few yeares before was assembled at Constantinople (for there it was first begun) vnder Irene and Constantine, and by them called the seuenth, and an vniuersall or generall Councell, was by them all reiected as voide, that it should neither be called the seuenth [Page 1239] nor any thing else. So saith Regino also conèerning the same councell, [...] lib. 2. ann [...] [...] Pse [...] [...] Graecor [...]m [...]. pro ado [...] maginibus [...]cerant, a pe [...]ficibus reiecta est. The false Synod of the Greekes which they had caused for the worshipping of Images, was reiected by the Bishops there. The acts of this councell were published in a booke vnder the name of Charles himselfe, as hath bene before said, and a copy thereof was sent to Adrian the Bishop of Rome, who to the Nicene coūcel had binone of the great maisters for the worshipping of Images. He poore man playing the part of an Abbreniator, taking out of the booke what he list, and as he list, taketh vpon him to write an answer to it, some part whereof is still to be seene adioined to thatConcil. tom. 3. edit surij. appen. Nicen. concil. 2. Nicene councell, but it is so pitifull an answer, as may well giue vs to vnderstand what is to be thought of the whole matter. Surius the Friar saw so much very well, but he handsomely to colour the matter saith:Surius. ibid. Lectors. Plerun (que) dum non satis ap tè aduersarijsrespondere imperito lectori videre potest, eostanquā aliud agens egregiè slagellat. Whilest commonly to the vnskilfull Reader he may seeme not fitly enough to answer his aduersaries, he as it were being about another matter scourgeth them notably. This was a Friarly deuice, to make the vnskilfull beleeue that there are some deep mysteries in Adrians words which euery man cannot see, whereas any wise man may see that his answers are most putide and shamefull, and verie vnfitting indeed, as as he saith, to those things which he would seeme to answer. Therefore in fine M. Bishops defence of his Image idolatrie is such as can giue no wise man any iust satisfaction for the approuing of it.
To Doctor Bishop.
Thus M. Bishop, I haue taken paines to giue the Reader a tast of the marrow, and a feeling of the pith of your many large volumes. Wherein if my opinion deceiue me not, he will finde by tast so little sweetnes, and by feeling so little strength, as that he will take you either for a silly and iniudicious man, who are your self abused, or for a wilfull and wicked cosiner, that seeke to abuse others with such base and deceitful stuffe. To touch the reputatiō of your iudgement and learning, I know should be as the handling of a sore, very greiuous to your selfe, and offensiue to your fellowes and seduced followers, whom you haue wonne I know not by what meanes so greatly to admire you. Therefore I will not here question your learning, let it be what it is thought to be; it can be no preiudce to the truth, onely I exhort you to take heed that you be not found with that learning that you haue to fight wilfully against God. You [Page 1240] haue giuen shrewd tokens in sundry places of your booke, of a very malicious and wicked heart, sometimes wittingly and purposely calumniating your aduersarie by false imputations of saying what he saith not, sometimes guilefully concealing for your aduantage many things which he doth say; dissembling allegations and authorities which you could not answer, and answering other some without euer looking what the authors say. I know the blind eateth many a fly, and they who know nothing to the contrary haue takē your arguments and answeres for pregnant and very sure, and your booke hath gone for a great oracle amongst them. But surely he that aduisedly weigheth the course and manner thereof, will easily imagine that in very many places you had one within you to tell you that you did but patch, and palter, and shift, and desperatly shut your eies against the light that most cleerely shined vnto you. It may doubtlesse be said of you which S. Austine confesseth of himselfe whilst he was intangled with the heresie of the Manichees, that youAugust. de duaeb. animab. cōt Manich. Accidebat vt quicquid dicerent mirit quibusdam modis non quia sci [...]bam sed quia optabam verum esse pro vero approbarens. approue the things which you haue bene taught for true, not because you know, but because you wish them so to be. Beware M. Bishop, of doing any thing presumptuously in this behalfe. Remember him that said,Acts. 26.14. It is hard for thee to kicke against the prickes. By beating your selfe against the rocke, you do but harme your selfe; the rocke shall neuer be remoued. Giue glory to God by acknowledging the truth of God, the breath whereof hath already blowne downe the towers of Babel; the sound whereof as of the Lords trumpet hath cast downe the walles of Iericho, and there is a curse laied vpon him that buildeth them vp againe.August. de ciu. dei lib. 6. cap. 1. Ea pu [...]atur gloria vanitatis nullis cedere viribus veritatis. It is the glory of vanity, as S. Austine saith, not to yeeld to any force of truth. But the glory of vanity is but vaine glory, and to take a pride in being constant or rather froward in errour, is the high way to confusion and shame. You may thinke it to be a blot of your credit being a Doctor of diuinity to yeeld that you haue bene deceiued all this while, but it is no blot, M. Bishop, to confesse that degrees and learning are no priuiledge against errour. You haue bene content though with some impeachment, to yeeld to the Iesuites, but it shalbe no impeachment to you to yeeld to Iesus, whose name you with others by your Proctours haue told vs that that hyprocritall vermine doth singularly abuse to the cloaking and colouring of much falsehood and villany. Take experience thereof in your selfe. Whilest you [Page 1241] haue relied vpon Bellarmine the chiefe captaine of them, you see how many lies and false tales you haue deliuered vpon his word, both generally through your whole booke, and specially in your Epistle to the king. Will you be any longer led by them who thus grosly do abuse you? Returne M. Bishop, and be a meanes for others to returne out of the bondage of2. Thess 2. the man of sinne, 2. Tim. 2 out of the snare of the diuell of whom they are holden to do his will. Submit your selfe to that truth which you see, I say you see, that you are not able to resist. I speak not, I confesse, as vpon any opinion or hope that I haue to preuaile with you. I know a dry sticke neuer bendeth till it breake, and I feare you are more dry then that we may looke for any bending of you. I pray God I may haue occasion to say that it was but a false feare, but if not, yet these words of mine shall serue hereafter for witnesse betwixt God and you, and therefore for conclusion I say to you as Cyprian said to Florentius; Cyprian. lib 4. epist. 9 Habes tis literas meas et ego tuas: in die tudicij vtrū (que) ante tribunal Christi recitabitur. You haue my writings and I haue yours: at the day of iudgement both shalbe recited before the tribunall seate of Christ.