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 theÌ„ 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 and so vnderstand that which is said of the slaughter of a Apoc. 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 b 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 and c Hieron in Ier. lib. 4. cap. 19. Ciuitas eorum in aeterâ—os caneres collapsa est usque 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 d Theodoret in Diu. cap. 9. Vsque 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 e Ierem. 19 11. I will breake this citie as a man breaketh a potters vessell that cannot be made whole againe f 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 destroyed g Ioseph le bello Iudaiâ— cap. 18. 2â— 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 h Arias Montan in Mich. cap. 3. Ille quae nunc Hierosolyma dicitur 〈◊〉 Aelâ—o Adriano Athae nominâ— constructâ— â—â—que antiquam faciem ne quâ— situm etiam retinet Quod obscura quaedam illâ—â— 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 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 is i Verse 7â— 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
a maintainer of the true faith be must needes be a scatterer He could not be of Christ that refused them that tooke part with Christ and therefore must be of Antichrist In this respect he renounced Vitalis Milesius and Paulinus because n Erasm schol ibid. they were all either knowne or suspected to be partakers of the heresie of Arius and therefore very deceitfully doth M. Bishop alledge that he would not set vp his rest with his owne Bishop Paulinus who was no meane man but the Patriarch of Antioch as hereby to adde a superioritie to the Bishop of Rome when as there was otherwise so apparant cause why he should refuse so to do In all this therefore Hierome saith no more of the Bishop and Church of Rome then he might haue said of any other Bishop and Church professing true faith and doctrine as the Church of Rome then did but very farre was he from teaching or intending any perpetuall necessitie that all Churches for euer should conforme themselues to the Church of Rome And that he neuer had any such meaning let it appeare by himselfe when being vrged with the example of the Church of Rome he answereth o Hieron Epist. ad Euagr. Quid mihi profers vntus vrbis consuetudinem quid paucitatem de qua ortum est supercilium in leges Ecclesiae vindicas What dost thou bring to me the custome of one citie why dost thou maintaine a paucitie or fewnesse whence hath growne proud vsurping vpon the lawes of the Church He had said a little before p Ibid. Si autoritas quaeritur orbis maior est vrbe Vbicunque fuerit Episcopus siue Romae siue Eugubij siue CoÌ„stantinopoli siue Rhegij siue Alexandriae siue Tanis eiusdem meriti est eiusdeÌ„ sacerdotij Potentia diuitiaruÌ„ pauperiatis humilitas sâ—l linuorem vel inferiorem EpiscopuÌ„ non facit caeterùm omnes Apostolorum successores sunt If we demaund authority the world is greater then the citie Wheresoeuer a Bishop be whether of Rome or of Eugubium whether at Constantinople or at Rhegium whether at Alexandria or at Tanes he is of the same worth and of the same office of Bishopricke Power of wealth or basenesse of pouertie maketh a Bishop neither higher nor lower but they are all successors of the Apostles Thus he spake purposely in derogation of the Church of Rome charging the same with proud domineering ouer the lawes of the Church affirming the authoritie of the Churches through the world to be greater then the authority of the Church of Rome attributing to euery Bishop of whatsoeuer place equalitie in office with the Bishop of Rome because all are alike successors of the Apostles Yea and to shew that the Church of Rome receiued no more by Peter then other Churches did by the rest of the Apostles he saith in another place that q Idem adu Iouin lib. 1. At dicis super PetruÌ„ fit datur Ecclesia liceta idipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat cuncti claues regni coelerum accipiant ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidatur the Church is built vpon all the Apostles and they all receiue the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and the strength of the Church is equally grounded vpon them Whereby it plainely appeareth that Hierome neuer meant to make the Church of Rome any such perpetuall Mistris and ruler of other Churches as M. Bishop dreameth her to be Yea but S. Ambrose further saith I desire in all things to follow the Church of Rome But why did M. Bishop giue ouer there not adde also that that followeth r Ambros de Sacram lib. 3. cap. â— In omnibus cupio sequi Romanâ—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
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 k 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 l 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 body he saith m 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 n Acts 9.4 Saul Saul why persecutest thou me o Origen in Ierem hom 11. Per singulis martyres Iesus coÌ„demnatur Si coâ—emnatur Christianus 〈◊〉 tantiâ—â— 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 termed p Phil. 3.10 Christs sufferings q 2. Cor. â— 10 the death of the Lord Iesus r Heb. 13.13 the reproach of Christ Å¿ Gal. 6.17 the markes of the Lord Iesus therein they are sayd t Ibid. 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 that u Ambros 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 x Respondit Christâ— 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 y Areth. in Apo 11. Extraditione praeâ—â—â— Christi inuariabilitèr in ecclesia receptum est Enoch venturum esse cum â—lia Thesbite that it was constantly receiued that they should be Enoch and Elias But Victorinus who was farre more ancient then Arethas telleth vs otherwise z Victorin in Apoc. 11 apud sixt senens B blioth lib. 6. annot 34â— Multiputant vnum ex hic testibus esse EliaÌ„ alterum aut Elizeum aut Moseâ— sed vtrique mortui sunt Jeremiae autem mors non inuenitur quia omnes veteres nostri tradiderunt illuÌ„ 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 Yet a Hilar. 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 that b Iohn 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 the c Zach. 4.3.12 two oliue branches spokeÌ„ 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 expoundeth d August 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 that e August ibid. Excluditur omnis suspicio quorundam qui putant
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 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 that c Contr. Marc. lib. 3 Illic proâ—uÌ„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 that d Ibid. 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 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 froÌ„ 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 e Contra Marc. lib. 4. Vâ—deamus quod lac à Paulo Corinthij hauserintiad quam regulam Galatae sint recorrecti quidlegaÌ„t Philip penses Thessalonicenses Ephesij quid etiam Romani de proxime sonent quibus Euangelium Petrus Paulus sanguine suo signatum relique runt Haebemus Ioannis alum â—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 vtter f De praescript Foelix Ecclesia cui totam doctrinam Apostolicum sanguine suâ— 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 preached g Act. 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 vpoÌ„ 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
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 whoÌ„ 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 vpoÌ„ 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 froÌ„ 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 m 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 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 n IdeÌ„ cont epist funda cap. 5 Ego verò Euangelio non credereÌ„ nisi me Catholicae ecclesiae coÌ„mcueret 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 though o Rom. 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 p Theodoret hist li. 2. ca. 16. Quota pars tiles orbis terrarum qui solus facis â—â—m homine scelerato Liberius NoÌ„ 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 whoÌ„ it is no small motiue thereunto that the same faith hath found credit entertainment throughout the whole world But the words themselues shall best declare to what purpose they were set down q IdeÌ„ vt supra Si inuonires aliquem qui Euangelio nonduÌ„ credit quid faceres dicenti tibi Non credo Ego verò Euangelio non crederem nisi me Catholicae ecclesiae commoueret authoritas Quibus ergo obtemperaui diceÌ„tibus Credite Euangelio cur eis non credereÌ„ diceÌ„tibus mihi Noli credere Maniâ—haeo Elige quod vâ—lis Si dixeris crede Catholicis ipsi me monent vt â—ullam fidem accoÌ„modeÌ„ vobis c Si dixeris Noli Catholicis credere noÌ„ rectè facies per EuangeliuÌ„ 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 theÌ„ of the catholike Church they giue me warning to giue no trust to you If thou wilt say Do not beleeue theÌ„ 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 whoÌ„ 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 r IdeÌ„ Confess lib. 6 cap. 5 Semper credidi esse te curam nostri gerere etiamsi ignorabam vel quid sentiendum esset de substaÌ„tia tua vel quae
the light thereof Now albeit this be the true light i Ephes 5.13 which maketh all things manifest and the onely sure foundation whereupon we can rest our faith for what is it what the whole world saith if God say not the same yet against the importunitie of the aduersarie and for thy better satisfaction thou shalt see our assertions and expositions throughly munited and fenced with the acknowledgment of the auncient Church Wherein although we cannot but say that by the Fathers and Bishops of those times many things were conceiued and deliuered amisse and are not our aduersaries forced will they will they to confesse the same yet God hath so prouided that his truth ex abundanti is iustified by them and no antiquity or authoritie of humane error hath so defaced it but that still the track thereof euen by thē who somtimes haue deemed somewhat against it is plainly to be discerned Yea in sundry articles of our faith the whole streame of antiquitie runneth so oppositely directly against the doctrine and practise of the Romane church that now is as that we may wōder at their extreme impudency and wilfulnes who against so cleare and euident testimony do still persist in the maintenance thereof Which in some part thou shalt see in the treatise here following and shalt vnderstand according to the occasiō here offered that howsoeuer they cry with wide mouthes The fathers the fathers yet their crie is greater then their strength and that the Fathers haue not left vs vnfurnished either of armour to defend our selues or of weapons to conquer them And the more to secure thee hereof I haue set downe the testimonies of the Fathers for the most part in their owne words either in Latine or translated into Latine or in the Greeke tongue sometimes where I had the copie at hand and saw the Latine translation not fitly to expresse the Greeke I haue had a sincere and faithfull care to deale vprightly herein and not to trouble thee with impertinent allegations but onely such as are pregnant and cleare to that purpose for which they are alledged That God by whose prouidence this seruice hath befallen vnto me make the same profitable both to thee and me and graunt vs by writing and reading to increase in the light and assurance of his truth that we may more and more see and discerne the frauds of these Mountebanks and iuggling Sophisters who by insolent ostentation of words and casting of false and deceitfull colours take vpon them to be able to charme the world and by their wits to iuggle all other men beside their wits treading vnder foote the word of God pretending the fathers names and betraying the faith of the fathers subiecting all religion to their owne fancie and saying after the manner of wicked men k Psal 12.4 With our tongues we will preuaile we are they that ought to speake who is Lord ouer vs And thou O merciful Father who onely art the refuge and dwelling place of thy poore and maligned Church l Psal 68.18 stablish for thy names sake the thing that thou hast wrought in vs go forward with the worke which thou hast so graciously begun to dissolue the captiuity of Babylō and to free the remnant of thy Church from the yoke of the slauerie and bondage of Antichrist that all stumbling blockes of Popish prophanations and idolatries being remoued there may be a way prepared for the returne of the forlorne seede of Abraham into the societie of thy people that thencefoorth we may expect and looke for the comming of thy Sonne Iesus Christ to make an end of these euill dayes and to gather vs euerlastingly to that hope which in him thou hast set before vs. m Apoc. 22.20 Amen Lord. Come Lord Iesus come quickly The speciall Contents of this Booke THat the Church of Rome maketh Christ in effect no Christ pag. 14. c. That Rome is Babylon and the Pope Antichrist pag. 39. Of Free-will Chap. 1. pag. 86. Of originall sinne after Baptisme Chap. 2. pag. 163. Of the certaintie of Saluation Chap. 3. pag. 255. Of Iustification Chap. 4. pa. 379. in which are handled these points 1. That righteousnesse before God is imputed not inherent pag 387. 2. What manner of faith it is whereby we are iustified p. 434. 3. That Faith onely doth iustifie pag. 468. 4. How we affirme it vnpossible to keepe Gods commaundements pag. 550. 5. That our good works are not free from staine of sin p. 573. 6. That true faith cannot be without charitie good works pag. 605. Of Merits Chap. 5. pag. 629. Of Satisfaction Chap. 6. pag. 729. Of Traditions Chap. 7. pag. 839. Of Vowes and namely of the Monkish vowes of chastitie pouertie and obedience Chap. 8. pag. 992. Of Images Chap. 9. pag. 1105. 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 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 glorifie a Extrauag 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 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 to b Prou. 2.15 crooked wayes and leud paths which c Ch. 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 d 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 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
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 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 that a Const â—â—tiens Concil sess 11. Perâ—nâ—cuâ—â— 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 Pope b Bale de Act. Rom. Pontif. in Leo 10. QuantuÌ„ 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 of c Sess 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 them d Erasus epist ad oper Hilarâ— Asseueraus virginem matreÌ„ 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 it be the religion of Thomas Aquinas that holdeth e Thom. 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 the f Sent 4. dist 13. Maister of the sentences who cannot tell what the dogge eateth or the religion of them that say as g Vt 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 of h Pigh 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 the i Colon. in Antididag Diuines of Colein who with k Pigh 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 of l Osor de Iust lib 9. Osorius condemning the doctrine of S. Austine concerning predestination or the religion of m Baron Annal lib. 6. Caesar Baronius who acknowledgeth the same to be true Whether it be the religion of n Alfons 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 maintaining o Declarat 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 of p Dureus 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 of q Andrad 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 their r Alfons de Caestro aduersus haer lib. 1. cap. 7. Thomists and Scotists and Occamists haue bene deuided one from another in the bosome of their
of the points in question laying open the absurditie of Poperie and clearing the doctrine on our part from those lies and slaunders wherewith in corners you labour to depraue it might seeme verie likely to drawe many to the knowledge and approbation of the truth It should seeme there was some sore for that both you and your friend were so carefull to apply a plaister but your plaister by the grace of God wil make your sore a great deale worse when men shall further see how sincerely he hath dealt to deliuer truth out of the word of God and doctrine of the ancient Church and what base geere you haue brought as the marrow and pith of many large volumes for the contradicting and oppugning of it The more and greater the points are of difference betwixt the Church of Rome and vs the more doth it concerne your Catholikes if they tender their owne saluation to looke into them which if they doe they will cease to thinke basely of our religion and will begin to honour it and imbrace it as the truth of God They will see that there is in it a true reformation indeed a iust departure from the horrible idolatries and superstitions of the Romish Sinagogue and it shall grieue them that they haue so long dishonoured God by holding fellowship with him who hath no true fellowship with Iesus Christ That you thinke basely thereof M. Bishop we wonder not He that doateth vpon a harlot is wont to scorne and thinke basely of honest matrons The Scribes and Pharisees thought basely of our Sauiour Christ no maruell if you doe the like of the Gospell of Christ who liue and thriue by traditions as they did As for old rotten condemned heresies how silly a man you haue shewed your selfe in the obiecting thereof it hath appeared partly alreadie in the answer of your Epistle and shall appeare further God willing in the answer of your booke and wee will expect hereafter that you learne more wit then to babble and prate of heresies you know not your selfe what THE THEAME OF M. PERKINS Prologue And I heard another voyce from heauen say Go out of her my people that you be not partakers of her sinnes and receiue not of her plagues Reuel 18.3 M. BISHOPS ANSWER TO M. Perkins Prologue Sect. 1. THe learned know it to be a fault Exordium Coâ—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 Vnlesse they will be partakers of their sinnes and consequently of their plagues This shall yet appeare more plainely in the examination of this Chapter Where I will deale friendly with my aduersarie and aduantage him all that I can that all being giuen him which is any way probable it may appeare more euidently how little he hath to any purpose out of this place of the Apocalipse whereof all Protestants vaunt and bragge so much both in their bookes and pulpits Well then I will admit that in the 17. and 18. Chapters of the Reuelation by the whore of Babylon is vnderstood the Roman state and regiment which in lawfull disputations they are not able to proue the most iuditious Doctor S. Augustine and diuerse others of the ancient fathers with the learned troupe of later interpreters expounding it of the whole corps and societie of the wicked And as for the seuen hils on the which they lay their foundation they are not to be taken literally the Angell of God in the very text it selfe interpreting the seuen heads of the beast to bee aswell seuen Kings as seuen hils But this notwithstanding to helpe you forward I will grant it you because some good writers haue so taken it and therefore omit as impertinent that which you say in proofe of it What can you inferre hereunto Marry that the Roman Church is that whore of Babylon Faire and soft good Sir how proue you that Thus. The whoore of Babylon is a state of the Roman regiment ergo the Roman Church is the whoore of Babylon What forme of arguing call you me this By the like sophistication you may proue that Romulus and Remus were the purple Harlot which to affirme were ridiculous or which is impious that the most Christian Emperours Constantine and Theodosius were the whoore of Babylon because these held also the state of the Roman Empire and regiment To make short the feeble force of this reason lieth in this that they who hold the state and gouerne in the same kingdome must needs bee of like affection in religion which if it were necessarie then did Queene Marie of blessed memorie and her sister Elizabeth carrie the same minds towards the true Catholike faith because they sate in the same chaire of estate and ruled in the same kingdome See I pray you what a shamefull cauill this is to raise such outcries vpon A simple Logician would blush to argue in the parâ—â—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 Jâ—â—â—n that she had before his dayes
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 which z Apoc. 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 that a Sander 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 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 that b Hieron adu Iouâ—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 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 c Thom. Aquin. in 2 Thes cap. 2. Lect 1. Quomodo est hâ—c quia iamdus genteâ— Ã Romano imperio recesserunt tamen necdum veniâ— Antichristâ—â— Dâ—cendum est quâ— I◠〈…〉 cessauit sed est commâ—taâ—â—â— de temporalâ—â—â— spirituale â—deo dâ—cendam est quoâ— discessio à Romano imperio debâ—â— intelligi non solum à temporâ—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 Wheâ—e if he had not
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. 1â— that she hath made al the world drunk with the wine of the wrath of her fornication yet addeth that she hath committed fronication 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 â—â—eb lib. 4. hist caâ— 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 that a Aug. de e◠〈…〉 cap. 3. V◠〈…〉 ac 〈…〉 c. Mag◠〈…〉 praesumpâ—um non pâ—sse 〈◊〉 defensâ—â—â—â— vâ—â—â—â—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 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 name b Origen 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 c 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 d Cap 18.3 All nations haue drunken of the wine of the wrath of her fornications e 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 that f Hâ—â—ron in Dan. 7. Câ—nctâ—â— religionem suae subâ—â—cret poâ—â—â—â—ati he shalâ— 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 g Decretal de â—aerâ—â— cap. Ad alâ—oâ—enaâ—m Vniuersos que de sacramento corâ—â—â—â— sanguinis Domini vel de baptismate seâ—â— peccatorum confessione matrimonio vel reliqâ—â— ecclesiasticis Sacramentu aliter sâ—ntire aut docere nâ—n meâ—â—unt quam sacrosancta Romana Ecclesia praedicat obseruat vinculo perpetuâ— Anathematis â—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 h 25. q. 1. Generali Constituâ—mus vt execrandum anathema sit quicunque regum seu episcoporum vel poteÌ„tum deâ—â—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 i De maior obed cap Vnam sanctam Subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus dicimus definimus pronunciamus â—â—mnò esse de necessitate saluâ—â— 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 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 called k Apoc. â—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 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 describing a Apoc 17.3.7 the woman to be sitting vpon the beast in respect whereof the Rhemish Diuines do name b Rhem. TestaÌ„ Annotat. Apoc. 131. the whore and the beast and Antichrist all as one So Ferus their Preacher of Mentz saith c Ferus in Mat. 24. Abhominationem disolationis quae est regnuÌ„ Antichristi Ioannes in Apocalypsi nunc quâ—deÌ„ per Bestiam cui draco potestatem suam dedit nunc per mulierem bestâ—â— 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 d Ver. 13. These haue one mind and shall giue their power and authoritie to the beast Hereupon it shall follow that together with the beast e Ver. 14. they shall fight against the Lambe that is against Iesus Christ Afterward it shall come to passe that those ten kings f 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 g Ver. â—7 For God hath put 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 could not be but that in
hos duos testes duos vn oâ— esse ante aduentum Christi coelum in nubibus ascendisse Quomodo autem potuerunt habitantes terram de duorum nece gaudere â—um in vna ciuitate marerentur munera inuiceÌ„ mittere si tres dies sunt quo antequaÌ„ 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 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 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 shall a 2. 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 b Bernard in Cant. ser 32. Ministri Christi sunt seruiunt Antichristo They are the ministers of Christ and they 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 c Ibid serpit hodie putidatabes per omne corpus ecclesiae et quo la tâ—uâ— eo desperatitâ— coque perititiosius quo interâ—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
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 Vitalie I refuse Meletius I take no notice of Paulinus he that gathereth not with thee scattereth that is he 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 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 Proctor a Watsons 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 cōfession 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 Church and Pope of Rome He hath alledged S. Bernard before and he is answered before Further he bringeth Irenaeus saying b Iren. lib. 3. ca. 3 Ad hanc Ecclesiam propter poteâ—tiâ—â—em principalitatem necesse est omnem conuenire Ecclesiam hoc est eos qui sunt vndique fideles â—n qui semper ab 〈◊〉 qui suâ—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 theÌ„ that are about her Which words he alledgeth but drawes no direct coÌ„clusion from them nor indeed can do but by begging that which is in question betwixt vs. It was necessarie in the time of Irenaeus that euery Church should accord to the Church of Rome because therein the tradition and true doctrine of the Apostles had bene faithfully preserued but will M. Bishop hereof simply conclude that it is now also necessarie for euery Church to accord with the Church of Rome It is a question now whether she retaine the doctrine and tradition of the Apostles nay it is out of question that she doth not so and therefore her former commendation is no argument that we should approue her now Ierusalem was c 2. Chron. 6.6 the city which the Lord did chuse to place his name there She was a faithfull citie so long necessarie it was that all other cities shold conforme themselues to her But d Esa 1.21 of a faithfull citie she became a harlot and departed so farre from her former steps as that she crucified the Sonne of God and killed his Saints and in the end it was said of her by a voyce from God as Iosephus recordeth e Ioseph de bello Iudaicoâ—â— 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 coÌ„tinued it was necessarie for al Churches to accord with her as for her to accord with all other Churches that had done the like But she is since become an vncleane filth prostituted to all manner of fornications embrued drunken with the bloud that she hath sprit so that now the voyce of God calleth to vs in like sort concerning her Go out of her my people Neither hath M. Bishop any better helpe by that that he will further alledge that Irenaeus mentioneth a potent principalitie of that Church For that potent principalitie was not intended by Irenaeus for any supremacie of the Church of Rome but imported onely an honour yeelded vnto it in respect of the imperiall state of the citie of Rome which we know men of inferior townes are wont to yeeld to them that are of high and honorable cities only for the preheminence of the place But if the Church of Rome had had any such potent principalitie as M. Bishop intendeth in respect whereof all other Churches shold yeeld subiection and obedience vnto her then would not f Jren. apud Euseb hist eccles lib. 5. cap 23. Polycarpus the Bishop of Smyrna haue refused to yeeld to Anicetus the Bishop of Rome in matters of difference betwixt them as Irenaeus sheweth he did before his time neither would g Ibid. cap. 22. Hieron in Catal. Script Eccles in Polycrate Polycrates the Bishop of Ephesus and Metropolitan of the Asian Churches haue resisted Victor in the time of Irenaeus neither would h Cypr ad Pompeium contra Epist Stephane Cyprian haue contradicted Stephanus neither would Aurelius and Austin and the rest of the Fathers in the Councell of Carthage haue i Concil Carth. 6 Aphrican cap 101. c. withstood the claime of the Bishop of Rome for authoritie to receiue appeals made from them to him neither would those sixe hundred and thirtie Bishops in the Chalcedon Councel haue yeelded to the Patriarch of Constantinople according to a former decree of a councell of k Conc Constantinop 1. cap. 2. Constantinople an equalitie of priuiledge and prerogatiue with the Bishop of Rome The matter is very plaine l Conc l. Chaâ—cedon Act. 15. ca. 28. Antiquae Romae throno quòd vrbi ilâ—a imperaret iure Patres priuâ—legiae tribuere Et eadeÌ„ consideratione moti 150 Dei amantissimi Episcopi sanctissimo nouae Romae throno aequalia priuilegia tribuere rectè iudicantes vrbem quae imperio Senatu honerata sit aequalibus cum antiquissimo Roma priuilegijs fruatur etiam in rebus ecclesiasticis non secus ac illaÌ„ extolli magnificari secundaÌ„ post illam existentem The Fathers say they haue yeelded priuiledges to the sea of old Rome because that was the Imperiall citie And the hundred and fiftie Bishops of the Councell of Constantinople being moued with the same consideration haue yeelded equall priuiledges to the sacred sea of new Rome that is Constantinople rightly iudging that the citie which is honoured with the Empire and Senate and enioyeth equall priuiledges with old Rome should also in ecclesiasticall matters be no lesse extolled and magnified then it is being the next vnto it Thus they acknowledge the principalitie of the Church of Rome to be nothing else but in respect that that citie was the seate of the Empire and therfore Constantinople being become the seate of the Empire and in respect thereof being called New Rome they gaue to the Church of Constantinople equall dignitie and principalitie with the Church of Rome leauing to the Bishop of Rome onely precedence of name and place The Legates of the Bishop of Rome would faine haue had it otherwise but the whole Councell approued the decree Now by that that hath bene said to Irenaeus the answer is plaine to that that M. Bishop further citeth out of Hierome The true faith and doctrine of the Godhead of Christ was then maintained by the Church of Rome against the remainder of the infection and poyson of the Arian heresie Hereupon Hierome writeth to Damasus Bishop of Rome to be aduertised of the vse of some words that concerned that point He commendeth the Church of Rome m Hieron ad Damasum Apud vos solos incorrupta Patrum seruatur haereditae for that the inheritance of the Fathers that is the true faith was preserued vncorrupt with them onely For this cause doth he bind himselfe to the communion and fellowship of Damasus Vpon the rocke of that faith which the Church of Rome stil held he knew the Church to be built In respect of this faith he that went out of that house that is left the communion of that Church because thereby he renounced the truth he became prophane In the same respect he that gathered not with Damasus being
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 it m Prosper de lib. arbit Nullius authoritatis testimonium de libello Pastoris as a testimonie of no authoritie albeit Antiquitie had n Ruffiâ—â—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 o Aug. de bono perseuer cap. 19. Istitales tantique doctores dicentes non esse aliquid de quâ— tanquam de nostro quod nobis Deâ—◠〈◊〉 â—edâ—rit gloriemur nec ipsum cor nostrum cogitationes nostrariâ— potestate nostra esse tetum dantâ—s Deo atque ab ipso nos accâ—pere confitentes vt permansuâ—â— conuertamur ad cum vt id quod bonum est nobis quoque videatur â—â—â—um quod velimus illud vt honoremus Deum recipiamus Christum vt ex indenotis efficiamur deuâ—â—i religiosi vt in ipsam Trinitatem â—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 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 as p Sect. 6. before was shewed in the answer to M. Bishops Epistle they shal easily be recoÌ„ciled to the truth Therfore iâ—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 q Origen contra Ceisum lib 7. Nostrum propositum non est sufficiens ad hoc vt mundum cor habeamus sed Deo est opus qui tale nobis creet ideâ—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 r Jbid. Bonitate ac humanitate Dei diuina ipsius gratia conceditur cognitio Dei duntaxat his qui ad hoc praedestinatâ— sunt vt cognito Deo dignè viuaÌ„t 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 Å¿ Jn Mat. cap. 13. Quod gloriatione dignum est id nostrum non est sed domoÌ„ 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 t In Cantic Homil 4. Seâ— quia hoc naturae bonuÌ„ 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 takeÌ„ 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 Valentinus and Basilides who thought that men by an essential state of nature were some good some euill some faithfull and some vnfaiâ—hfull so as that the will of man is nothing at all either way yet reserueth due place to the grace of God saying u Clem. Alexan. Stromâ—t lib 5. Oportet mentem habere sanam c. ad quod maximè diuina opus habemus gratia rectaque doctrina castaque 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 x Augu. de corrept grat ca. 1 Liberum arbitrium ad malum ad bonuÌ„ faciendum confitendum est nos habere sed in ma lo faciendo liber est quisque iustitiae peccati auteÌ„ seruâ—â—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 wâ—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 that y Rom 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 made z Iren lib. 3. ca 1. Euangelium nobis in Scripturis tradiderunt Apostoli columnaÌ„ fâ—â—d amentuÌ„ fâ—aci nostrae futurum the pillar and fortresse of our faith neither doubt we to say of them that they were in darknesse where the a Esa 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 the b Aug. contra 2. Epist Pelag li 3 cap. 9. Excogitaverunt Maâ—â—chaeoruÌ„ detestabili nomine imperitos quos potuerint dâ—terrere ne aduersus eoruÌ„ 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 the denying of Free will They called them Manichees and of theÌ„selues said c Ibid. lib. 2. ca. 1 Pro Catholica fide contra Manichaeorum sicut loquuntur profa nitatem consensionem Orientalium EpiscoporuÌ„ 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 d Ibid. cap. 2. Manichaei negant homini bono ex libero arbitrio fuisse initria malâ— Pelagiani dicunt etiam hominem malum sufficienter haebere liberum arbitrium ad faciendum praeceptuÌ„ 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 e 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 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 the a Institut 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 that b Ibid. 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
shalt be saued This whether spoken publikly or priuatly the conscience of the hearer apprehendeth 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 that n Rom. 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 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 o 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 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 p 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
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 vâ—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 theÌ„ that iustificatioÌ„ is a thing to be receiued the same must needs be performed properly by faith but not by charity because charity is no instrumeÌ„t to receiue But yet faith receiuing all of God vseth charity as the meanes to make returne of it selfe to God againe and by charity as a working hand performeth all the duties commaunded of God to the honour and glory of God This therefore the Apostle intendeth in the place alledged that faith hauing alone iustified vs by receiuing the gift of righteousnesse which is by the merit of Iesus Christ doth not stay there but goeth forth by charity to serue God to serue one another and to shew our selues thankfull vnto God And wonder it were that the Apostle hauing before professedly disputed the matter of iustification and referring the same wholy to faith should here crosse all that he hath before said and tell vs that not onely faith but loue also must concurre to make vp our iustification before God Marke it well gentle Reader that where the Apostle purposely speaketh of the meanes of iustification M. Bishop can finde nothing to proue that we are iustified by loue nothing pleaded but onely faith but here where the Apostle describeth only the condition of the faith by which we are iustified here he will finde somewhat whereby to plead against the Apostles former doctrine yea and will proue that loue hath not onely a part but the chiefest part in our iustification and that faith is rather the instrument or handmaid of charity How much is he beholding to his Maister Bellarmine that hath taught him such a trick and furnished him with a deuice which neuer any Father Greeke or Latine neuer any translatour could light vpon till his admirable wit had found it out We may well thinke that such a head could not but deserue a Cardinals hat Forsooth the text proueth that life and motion is giuen to faith by charity But how so a Bellarm. de iustific lib. 2. cap. 4. Marry the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being passiue doth plainly shew that faith is moued led and guided by charity But what must we M. Bishop vpon Bellarmines word and yours take this without any further authority or warrant so to do Indeede it is true that the Greeke word sometimes is taken passiuely but by the Apostle is more often vsed in the actiue signification and in this place was neuer before by any Father Greeke or Latine taken otherwise Yea the spite is that the vulgar Latine interpreter to whom they are tied by the Councell of Trent crosseth this deuice for he readeth as we do Fides quae per charitatem operatur faith which worketh by loue But there is a tricke to salue that to for saith Bellarmine b Jllud operatur passiuè accipiendum est non aâ—â—iuè the word operatur must be taken passiuely not actiuely Now what blockheads were the Diuines of Rhemes that could not see so much or would omit so materiall a proofe against the heretikes for they haue translated as we do faith which worketh by loue But they were bashfull they thought Bellarmine could carie out the matter with his name and countenance but it would be condemned for a great fault in them Better it is for some man to steale a horse then for another to looke ouer the hedge They knew well that euerie child would crie out vpon them for lewd men if they had translated operatur passiuely in as much as neither their owne interpreter in any other place nor any other Latine author hath euer vsed it in that sort Againe they saw that a very grosse and palpable absurdity would thereupon haue ensued which on their owne part cannot be denied For if they had translated faith which is wrought by loue then it would haue followed that loue by which faith is wrought must needes be before faith whereas they all acknowledge that faith hath the first being according to that which M. Bishop a little c Sect. 20. Ex August de praedest sanct ca. 7. before alledged out of Austine faith is giuen first by which we obtaine the rest Which being a principle in diuinitie and accorded on both sides they could not tell how to make good if they should haue said that faith is wrought by loue Now M. Bishop though for the rest he would aduenture vpon his Maisters credit yet durst not follow him so farre as to translate operatur passiuely but onely beateth about the bush and telleth vs that the Greeke sheweth that faith is moued led and guided by charity Wherein he doth wrong to the Rhemists his country-men to whom for countries sake he should haue done that honour to stand to their translation Yea and he abuseth his Reader in that he doth not directly translate the place which if he had done he durst not translate it to giue that meaning that
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 that y Tit. 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 z Aug. de pec mer. remis l. 2 c. 8. Primittat sp nunc habemus vnde iaÌ„ filij Dei reipsa facta sumas in cateris verò spe sicut salui sicut innouati ita filij Dei re autem ipsa quia nâ—ndum salus ideò nonâ—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 a 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 b 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 c De bapt cont Donat. lib. 1. c 4. Nondum in re sed in spe He hath not yet done it really but in hope d 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 e 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 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 a Cap. 3. secâ— 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 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 theÌ„ 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
Ibid. Conuersus quisque ad Dominum DeuÌ„ 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 Å¿ Basil in illud Attende tâ—bi JmpiuÌ„ est dicere spiritus praecepta seruari noÌ„ 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 the t Gal. 5.17 flesh lusteth against the spirit so that we cannot do the 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 u Aug. de sp lit cap. 35. Siue exemplo est in hominibus perfecta iustitia tamen impossibilis non est Fiâ—ret enim si tanta voluntas adhiberetur quanta sufficit tantae res Effet autem tanta si nihil eorum quae pertinent ad iustitiaÌ„ nos lateret ea sic delectarent animuÌ„ 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 x 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 qucquaÌ„ etiam hoc corruptibile induere incorruptionem atque hic inter homines morituros eum iubere viuere minimè morituram vt tota penitâ—â— vetustate consumpta nulla lex in membris eius repugnet legi mentis deumque vbique praesentem ita cognoscat sicut eum sancti postea cognituri sunt quis demens audeat affirmarâ— 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 to be satisfied with that righteousnesse with the tast onely whereof he now prouoketh rather then asswageth our hunger and thirst Euen y Ibid. Primum praeceptuÌ„ 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 speÌ„ 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
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 as r Hieron 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 sinne Å¿ Heb. 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 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 t 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 and u 1. 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 caÌ„not 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 answered a Sect. 22. before The faith of which he speaketh is not 〈◊〉 true iustifying faith but onely the outward profession of the doctrine of faith That is plaine by the second b 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 it c Ibid cap. 28. Fides qua creditur Christum esse filium Dei viâ—i Et cap. 29. Fides qua coâ—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 shall d Habac. 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 e August Enchirid cap. 5. Si diligenter quae ad Christum pertinem cogiteÌ„tur 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
c 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 are d Rhem. 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 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 e 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 f Ruard Tapper in explic art Louan tom 2 art 9. Absit vt iusti vi tam aeternam expectent sicut pau per eleemosynam Multò namque gloriâ—sius est ipsoâ— quasi victores triumphatores eam possidere tanquam palmaÌ„ 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 g 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 h Chap. 11.6 If it be of grace it is not of works otherwise grace is no grace i 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 that k Rom. 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 l 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 m Rom. 5 2â— 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 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 n Luk. 19.22 Out of thine
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 satisfactioÌ„s 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 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 SacrameÌ„ts 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 shewed e Of 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 satisfactioÌ„s 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 froÌ„ eternall punishment but yet being not yet throughly scoured to Purgatory he must go Now then in what sort and to what end doth Purgatorie apply vnto him the satisfactioÌ„ 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 satisfactioÌ„ of Christ Riddle this riddle he that can for M. Bishop cannot do it yet he telleth vs further that our satisfactioÌ„s 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 declaratioÌ„ is such as that we may see in him that which Hilary said of the Arian heretikes f Hilar. de Trin. lib. 6. Ingerunt nomina veritatis vt virut falsitatis intrâ—â—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 g Tertul. aduers Valent. Sanctis nominibus titulis argumentis verae religionis vanissima turpissima sigmenta coâ—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 h 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
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 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 him y Tho. Aquint supplem q. 12. art 2. ad 1. Satisfactio est quaedaÌ„ illatae iniuriae recoÌ„pensatio 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 z Phil. 1.7 the confirmation of the Gospell a Ver. 12. the furthering of the Gospel b Ver. 17. the defence of the Gospell c Ver. 20. the magnifying of Christ d 2. Cor. 1.6 If we be afflicted saith he it is for your coÌ„solation 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 coÌ„ceiued 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 e Tis. Aquin in 1. Cor. cap. 1 lect 2. Hoc proprium est Christo vt sua passioâ—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 nâ—bis salutifera non solum per modum exempli sed etiaÌ„ per modum meriti efficaciae inquaÌ„tuÌ„ eius sanguine redempti iustificati sumus c. Sed passio aliorum nobis est salutifera solùm per moduÌ„ 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 that f Idem p. 3. q. 48. art 5. arg 3. Non soluÌ„ cassio Christi sed etiam alioruÌ„ sanctorum preficua fuit ad salutem nostram vt Col. 1 Gaudeâ— in passionibus meis pro vobis c. Dicendum quod passiones sanctoruÌ„ proficiunt Ecclesiae non quideÌ„ per modum redemptionâ—â— 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 g 2. Tâ—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 h In â— Tim. 2. lect 2 Sed nunquid sufficit Christi passio Dicenduâ— quòd siâ— effectiâ—â— sed passio Apostoli dupliciter expiediebat Primo quia dabat exâ—mplum perfistendi in fide Seâ—undo quia confirmabatur fides ex hoc indâ—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 i Ambrosâ—n Psal 43. Petrus pro Ecclesia multa toleraâ—â—it Multa etiaÌ„ Paulus raeterique Apâ—stoli pertulerunt cùm caederentur vâ—rgis cùm lapidarentur cùm in carceres truderentur Illa enim tolerantia amurtaruÌ„ vsu periculorum Doâ—â—ni fundatus est populus ecclesia incrementum est consecâ—â— cùm caeteri ad martyrium festinarent vilentes per illas passiones nihil Apostâ—lorum decessisse virtutibus sed etiaÌ„ propter hanc breâ—em
enforcing vpon them whatsoeuer it pleaseth to deuise for the seruing 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 coÌ„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 teaching h Act. 15.1 of iustification by the workes of the law i Col. 2.18 the worshipping of Angels k Ibid. ver 23. the not sparing of the body nor hauing of it in honour to satisfie the flesh to which we may adde the l 1. 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 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 as m Tertull. de Coron militis Noui pastores corum in pace leones in praelio ceruâ—s c. Non dubito quoslam sarcinas expedire fugae accingi de ciuitate in ciuitatem nullaÌ„ aliam Euangelij memoriaÌ„ 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 n Planè superest vt martyria recusare mediteÌ„tur qui prophetias musaeÌ„ 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 o Maximè illud oppâ—nunt Vbi auteÌ„ prohibemur ne coronemur c. Vbi scriptuÌ„ 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 that p Hanc 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 q EtiaÌ„ 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 it selfe in that he maketh it r Annon putat omni fideli licere concipcie constituere dunta aeat quod Deo coÌ„gnat quod disciplinae coÌ„ducat quod saluti proficiat c Salus traditionis respectu quocunque 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 maketh Å¿ Confirmata coÌ„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 that t De virgin velan Consuetudo fâ—rè initium ex ignorantia vel simplicitate sortita in vsum per successionem corroboratur na aduersus veritatem vindicatur Custome coÌ„monly hauing his beginning of ignorance or simplicity is by succession strengthened to common vse and so is maintained against the truth well obseruing withall that u Ibid. Dominus noster Christus veritatem se non consuetudinem cognominatuit c.
Quodcunque aduersus veritatem sapit hoc erit haeresis etiam vetus coÌ„suetudo 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 baptisme x AquaÌ„ 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 nameth y Heb. 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 of z De 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 for a Jnde suscepti lactu mellis conâ—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 describeth Dionys Ecclesiast hierarch cap 4. the ceremonies of the Church maketh no mention of it c Lauacro quotidâ—â—â—o 〈◊〉 die peâ— tot 〈◊〉 mâ—lâ—â— abstinemus Die dominico reiunium nefas ducimus vel de geniculis adorare Eadem immunitate 〈◊〉 in Pentecosten vsque 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 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 d Eucharistae SacramentuÌ„ in teÌ„pore victas c. etiam anielâ—canis caetibus nec de aliorum quam praesidentium manu suntimus To receiue the Sacrament at the hands of the Bishop or Ministers is the institutioÌ„ 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 e Oblationes pro defunctis pro natalitijs annua die facimuâ— Offerings yeerely made for the dead and for birth-daies were first brought in by the heretike Montanus to whom now Tertullian had addicted himselfe and of whom the ecclesiasticall historie testifieth that f Euseb hist eccl lib. 5. cap. 16. Sub praetextu nomine oblationum munerum captationeÌ„ artificiose coÌ„mentus 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 Christians g Origen in Iob. lib 3. Nos noÌ„ natiuitatis dieÌ„ celebramâ—s sed mortis c in Leâ—iâ—t hom 8 Nemo ex omnibus sanctis inuenitur dum festuÌ„ c. egisse in die natalis suâ— 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 h Calicis aut panis etiam nostri aliquid in terraÌ„ decuti anxit pa timur Not to endure to haue any part of the Sacrament fall to the ground is a part of that i 1. 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 k Iohn 6.12 nothing should be lost The vse of l Ad omneÌ„ progressum atque promotum ad omneÌ„ aditura et exituÌ„ ad vestitum calceatum ad lauacra ad men sai ad lumina ad cubilia ad sedilia quaecunque nos conuersatio exercet frontem crucis signaculo cerâ—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 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 a 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 Sauiour * Hec quia ex Scriptures non habet authoritatem eadem facilitate conteÌ„nitur 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 b 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 c Hieron aduer Heluid Naetum DeuÌ„ 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 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 d OrigeÌ„ in Mat. tract 26. Venit ad nos traditio talis c. Such a tradition hath come to vs and Basil e Basil de humana Christi gener Zachariae historia quadaÌ„ qua ex traditione adnos vsque peruenit A storie of Zacharie by tradition hath come to vs and in like manner Theophylact f Theophyl in Math. cap. 23. Habetâ—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 that g Hieron adu Lucifer Luciferianus dixit c. Nam multa alta quae per traditioneÌ„ in ecclesijs obseruantur authoritateÌ„ 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 of h Velutin lauacro ter caput mergitare deinde egressos lactis mellis praegustare concordiaÌ„ 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
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 Vincentius 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 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 that h Apoc. 14.8 she should make all nations to drinke of the wine of the wrath of her fornications i 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 had k Gregor 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 corrupting l Erasm 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 shamefully m Ludou Viues de caus corrupt art Adscripta sunt Origeni Cypriavo Hieronymo Augustino quae ipsis nunquam ne per quiâ—tem quidem in mentem venerant indigna non solùm tantia ingenijs atque illa eruditione sed etiam seruis corâ— 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 Vincentius 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 that n Chrysost oper imperf in Math. hom 49. Ex quâ— 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 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 faine o Index Expur in castig BertraÌ„ CuÌ„ in Catholicis veteribus alijs plurimos feramus errores extenuemus ex cusemus excogitato commento persaepe negemus et commodumijs sensuÌ„ 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
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 e 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 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 a-againe 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 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 professeth a Cōcil 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 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 that b Bellarm. de sacram lib. 2 ca. 25. Omnium cōciliorū 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 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 c 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 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 that d Rom. 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 e 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
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 huÌ„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 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 n 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 plerique eam vel Barnabae vel Clementis arbitrentur nihil interesse cuius sit cùm Ecclesiastici viri sit quotidiè Ecclesiarum lectione celebretur Quòd sicam LatinoruÌ„ consuetudo non recipit inter Scripturas Canonicas nec Graecorum quidem Ecclesiae Apocalypsim Ioannis eadem libertate suscipiunt tamen nos vtraque suscipimus nequaquam huius temporis consuetudinem sed veterum scriptoruÌ„ 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 discerned * 2. 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 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 were o Ruffinan exposâ—symb apud Cyprian Haec sunt quae Patres intra Canonem concluserunt ex quibus fideâ— 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 calleth p Alij libri sunt qui non canonies sed ecclesiastici à maioribus appellaâ— 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 them q Cateras Scripturas Apocryphas nominaruÌ„t 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 were r Sect. 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 that Å¿ Hieron in Prolog Galeata Fuâ—â—â— 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
stand good because nothing letteth but that Moses might commit to writting all that faith that Iob receiued by tradition Iob was g Ambros 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 bene i Sect. 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 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
mentall reseruations to lye to periure forsweare theÌ„selues 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 coÌ„pared 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 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 thereto f Ephe. 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 g 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 h 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 these i Acts. 20.30 any arise speaking peruerse things to draw Disciples after them the rest are warned k Ver. 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 theÌ„ 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 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 l 〈◊〉 17.8 9. 2. â—â—â—on 1â— 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 in m Euseb de vit Constant li 3. ca. 13. Prolatas sententias sensiâ—â— excipete vitissim ferre openi virique parit c. quid ipse sentiret eloquâ— Constantine the great in the Councel of Nice in n Synod in Trullo per tot Praesidente eodem piâ—ssimo Impeâ—tore c. Conueniente Synodo secu dum Imperialem sanctioneÌ„ Constantine the fourth in the sixt Synod at Constantinople in Trullo in o Toletaâ— concil 3. Princips omnes regâ—raâ—â—â— sui pontifiâ—es in vnuÌ„ conuenire mandauit c. pâ—â—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 coÌ„mitted 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 not p Ezech. 13.3 to follow his owne spirit nor q Ierem. 23.16 to speake the vision of his own hart but out of
Church nor Councell can define any thing but as shall be pleasing to the Pope The Church cannot erre the Councell cannot erre but the reason is because the Pope cannot erre Set aside the Pope and the Church may erre and the Councell may erre but the Pope onely cannot erre This is a drunken fancie witlesse senslesse such as the auncient Fathers neuer imagined or dreamed of nay vnworthy whereof there shold be any question whether those godly Fathers approued it or not If we would argue froÌ„ the temporall state as M. Bishop doth what state is there or hath bene that maketh one man Iudge and interpreter of all lawes He nameth it to haue bene so in the old Testament amongst the Iewes but either he knoweth not or impudently falsifieth the storie in that behalfe For the law of Moses did not make the high Priest alone a Iudge but onely as elsewhere it is expounded l 2. Chro. 19.11 the chiefe of them that were appointed Iudges for al matters of the Lord. There was a whole Councell to which those causes were referred and by common consultation and iudgement things were agreed vpon and the sentence accordingly pronounced by the Priest He had not to say I determine thus or thus but as we haue example in the Gospell he said m Mat. 26.66 What thinke ye as being to haue consent of the rest before he could giue a sentence Therefore Moses setteth all downe in the plurall number as of many n Deut. 17.8.9 If there arise a matter too hard for thee c. thou shalt come to the Priests of the Leuites and to the Iudge that shall be in those dayes and aske and they shall shew thee the sentence of iudgement and thou shalt do according to all that they of that place shall shew thee According to the law which they shall teach thee thou shalt do c. Onely because the sentence in common agreed vpon was pronounced by the Priest as the chiefe therefore it is added o Ver. 12. And the man that shall do presumptuously not hearkening to the Priest as touching matters of the Lord or to the Iudge as touching ciuill causes for we see these two plainely distinguished each from other that man shal die Now if God would not in that small kingdome haue all to depend vpon the iudgement of any one how improbable is it that to one should be committed a iudgement of all matters of the Lord throughout the whole world And how do they make it good that any such power or authoritie should belong vnto him They tell vs much of Peter but we find not that attributed to Peter which they ascribe to the Pope neither do they giue vs any warrant froÌ„ Christ that that is descended to the Pope which is attributed to Peter Surely if Christ would haue had the Pope to succeed in Peters place the Popes should haue bene qualified as Peter was But we see the contrarie for amongst all the generations of men since the world was it cannot be shewed that euer there was such a succession of rake-hels and hel-hounds such monsters and incarnate diuels as haue bene amongst them men that haue giuen themselues wholy to the diuell as their owne stories do report Heretikes Apostaties Atheists dogges most vnworthy of all other to haue the Sunne shine vpon them or the earth to beare them Alphonsus de Castro said once though afterwards he was made to vnsay it p Alphâ—nsâ—â—e Castro lib. 1 ca 4 contra haeres CuÌ„ consâ—â—t plâ—â—res corâ—â—â— adâ—â—â—sse illâ—teratos vt Graâ—â—â—atram penitùs ignoraÌ„t qui fit vt sicras literas interpretari pâ—â—sâ—â—t Thus it was printed twice at first but after for thâ— Popes credit he was instructed to leaue it out When as it is certaine that many Popes are so vnlearned as that they are vtterly ignorant of their very Grammer how can it be that they should be able to expound the Scriptures Surely very vnlikely it is and who doth not see it to be the most certaine and ineuitable danger of the Church that the moderation thereof and the detennining of the faith should be committed to one but specially to such a one Gregorie Bishop of Rome saw it well when the Patriarch of Constantinople making claime to be vniuersall Bishop he gaue this for one reason against that vniuersalitie for that q Gregor lib. 4. Ep. 32. Vniuersa Ecclâ—sia quod absit à statu suo corruâ—t quando is qui appellâ—tur vâ—â—uersaelis cadit Et lib. 6 Epâ— 24. if there be one to be vniuersall Bishop in his fall must be the fall of the whole Church And that God by the multitude of the ouerseers of his church hath prouided for the safetie thereof Cyprian well obserueth who one where affirming that r Cipria de simp Praelat Episcopatus vâ—â—â—â— est câ—â—â—â—â— a singulis in sâ—â—â—dum pâ—â—â— tâ—â—â—tur the office of Bishopricke is but one whereof euery Bishop fully hath his part and therefore signifying that none hath therein to challenge prerogatiue aboue another addeth further in another place that Å¿ Idâ—â—â— lib. 3. Ep. 13 〈…〉 erâ—â—runt c. vt si quis ex hoc coâ—â—â—â—io haereâ—â—◠〈◊〉 gregeÌ„ Christ â—â—cerare vâ—stare tâ—â—â—rit saâ—ueni 〈◊〉 caererâ— quasi pâ—â—teres vtilâ—s 〈◊〉 Sâ—â—cordâ—s 〈◊〉 Dominicâ—s 〈…〉 therefore the corporation of Bishops consisteth of many that if any one of this Colledge or company shall assay to bring in heresie and to rend and waste the flocke of Christ the rest shold helpe and as good and compassionate Pastors should gather the Lordes sheepe into his fold This prouision of God Antichrist the man of sinne the Bishop of Rome being to bring the abhomination of desolation into the church of Christ hath defeated and made voide challenging to himselfe alone an vniuersall power and authoritie of iudgement ouer the whole Church and vnder pretence thereof deuising and establishing in the Church whatsoeuer he list to the dishonour of God to the peruerting of the faith of Christ and to the destruction of infinite soules making a meaning of the word of God to serue his turne that nothing which he saith or doth may seeme to be controlled or checked thereby To this purpose they haue bewitched the world to entertaine this paradoxe which in the old Christian world was neuer heard of that t Hosius de expresso Dei verbo Siquis habeat interpretationem Ecclesiae Romanae de aliquo loco Scripturae etiaÌ„si nec sciat nec intelligat an quomodo cum Scripturae verbis conueniat tamen habet ipsissimum verbuÌ„ Dei if a man haue the interpretation of the Church of Rome of any place of Scripture albeit he neither know nor vnderstand whether and how it agreeth with the words of the Scripture yet he hath the very word of God And in like sort do our Rhemish impostors labour to perswade their Reader that u Rhem. Testam Argument of
is also to sustaine and comfort the weake There is to prouoke the appetite but yet there is also to satisfie the hunger There is q Bâ—rnard in paru ser 64. In Pelago sacra lectionâ—â— agnus ambulat elephas natat depth for the Elephant to swim but there are also shelfes and shallowes for the lambe to wade It is truly said by S. Austin that r Aug. ep 3. Non quòd ad ea quae necessaria sunt saluti tanta in eis difficultate peruentatur without any great difficultie we thereby attaine to those things that are necessary for saluation and that Å¿ Idem de vtilit credendi cap. 6. Inscripturis disciplina ita modificata vt nemo inde haurire non possit quod sibi satis est si modo ad hauritendum deuotè ac piè vt vera religio poscit accedat the doctrine thereof is so tempered as that there is no man but may draw from thence that that is sufficient for him if he come to draw with deuotion and pietie as true religion requireth he should do M. Bishop goeth on and telleth vs These and their true successors be the true and liuely oracles of the true and liuing God them we must consult in all doubtfull questions and submit our selues wholy to their decree But what M. Bishop are not onely the Apostles but their successors also the liuely oracles of God Which of the successors of the Apostles euer tooke vpon him either seuerally or ioyntly so to be We haue heard that t Ephes 2.20 the houshold of God are built vpon the foundations of the Apostles and Prophets but that they are built vpon the foundations of the Apostles successours we neuer heard As for consulting with the Fathers in doubtfull questions we willingly yeeld to do it that we may haue their helpe to find out in the Scripture the resolution of such doubts but that we are to submit our selues wholy to their decree as accounting them the oracles of God is a point of learning which S. Austin knew not when he said u Aug. de nat grat cap 61. Egâ— in hutusmedi quorumlibet hominum scriptu liber sum quia solis Canonicis Scripturis debeo fine vlla recusaâ—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 be an â—â—sâ—er to them all x Hier. in Psal 86. Quomodo narrabit Dominus Non verbo sed Scriptura In cutus Scriptura in populorum quae Scripturae populis omnibus legitur hoc est ve omnes intelligant c. The Lord will declare or shew in the Scripture of the people and of the Princes that haue bene in her How will the Lord declare Not by word but by writing or by Scripture In whose Scripture Euen in the Scripture of the peoples which is read to all peoples that is that all may vnderstand The Lord hath spoken by his Gospell not that a few but that all should vnderstand the Princes of Christ haue not written for a few but for all the people The Princes are the Apostles and the Euangelists Those saith he which were or haue bene in her Marke what he saith which were not which are so that the Apostles excepted whatsoeuer after shall be said is cut off and hath no authoritie Albeit therfore a man be holy albeit he be learned after the Apostles he hath no authoritie In which words he sheweth vs that the counsell of God thought good to leaue vs the Apostles doctrine not by word not by tradition but by writing that the scriptures which he hath giuen vs by them are so disposed as that they serue for the vnderstanding of all men that all authoritie of doctrine is concluded and ended in them neither hath any after them authoritie to teach vs any thing towards God that is not warranted and approued by their writings It is false therefore which M. Bishop saith that Christ gaue not his lawes written with inke and paper and againe that the meaning of the word is not to be knowne by the word it selfe and againe that the successors of the Apostles also are the liuely oracles of the true and liuing God In the next place he abuseth the Apostle S. Paule and vnder colour of the names of two or three of the Fathers absurdly misapplieth his going vp to Hierusalem as if he had gone to haue his doctrine examined and approued by the Apostles that were before him He nameth S. Peter single and by himselfe as to haue vs to conceiue that S. Paul yeelded some high preheminence superiority to him But there is no such matter as he pretendeth the Apostles own declaration ouerthroweth all this fancie He professeth that y Gal. 1.12 he receiued not his Gospell of man nor was taught it but by the reuelation of Iesus Christ After that he had receiued the reuelation of the Gospell from Christ was appointed to preach the Gospell amongst the Gentils directly against M. Bishops deuise he saith z Ver. 16.17 Immediatly I communed not with flesh and bloud neither went I vp to IerusaleÌ„ to theÌ„ that were Apostles before me but went into Arabia c. a Ambros in Gal. cap. 1. Nec consilium cutusquam petijt aut ad aliquem retulit quid esset acturus sed protinùs Christum praedicauit c. Non fuisse dicit necessitatem electum se à Deo pergendâ— aâ—â— praecessores Apostolos vt aliquid fortè disceret ab eis c. He asked no mans counsell saith Ambrose nor referred it to any man what he should do but foorthwith preached Christ He saith that there was no necessity that he being chosen of God should go to the Apostles his predecessors as haply to learne any thing from them Now how badly doth M. Bishop deale to make his reader beleeue that S. Pauls doctrine was first to be examined and approued by Peter and the rest of the Apostles when as S. Paul professedly saith that he went not to take any approbation from them because he had receiued equall authoritie coÌ„mission with them He further declareth that b Ver. 18. three yeares after he went to Hierusalem to see Peter and abode with him 15. daies c Ambros ibid. Non vt alâ—quid ab eo disceret quia â—am ab authore didicerat à quo ipse Petrus fuerat instructus sed propter â—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 coÌ„mission was giue to him which Peter himselfe had He went to him d Theophy actâ—â—n Gal.
apparently false that y Tertul. contra Marc. lib. 4. Ascendit ad consultandos Apostolos ne fortè secunduÌ„ 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 that z Hieron apud August Epi. 11. Ostendens se non habuisse securitateÌ„ Euangelij praedicandi nisi Petri illorum qui cum illo eraÌ„t 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 froÌ„ Peter or those that were with him who so long before had had confirmatioÌ„ froÌ„ 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 a 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 froÌ„ men Ieromes heat made him forget that which is before cited out of his exposition vpoÌ„ that Epistle that confereÌ„ce importeth equality therfore that the Apostle shewing that he went to confer with the rest of the Apostles importeth that he receiued of theÌ„ no warrant of authority but only by coÌ„sent As for that which is quoted out of S. Austine it maketh nothing to M. Bishops purpose b August cont Faust lib. 28. ca. 4 Si non inueniret in carne Apostolos quibus coÌ„muâ—icando cuÌ„ quibus EuangeliuÌ„ conferendo eiusdeÌ„ societatis esse appareres ecclesia illi omnino no crederet Sed cùm cognouisset eum hoc annuntiantem quod etiam illâ— annuntiabant et in eorum comunione atque vnitate viuentem accedentibus etiam per eum talibus signis qualia illi operabantur ita eam Domino coÌ„mendante â—â—ruit authoritateÌ„ vt verba illius hodie sic audiantur in ecclesia tanquam in illo Christus sicut ipse verissimè dixit lâ—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 that c Gal. 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 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 d 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 froÌ„ him but citing no words saying of them that they e Bellar. de verbo Dei lib. 3. cap. 5. Disertè affirmaÌ„t EcclesiaÌ„ noÌ„ fuisse Paulo credituraÌ„ nisi Euangelium eius à Peâ—â—o confirmatuÌ„ fuisset Ergo Petrâ— erat tunc proinde successâ—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 vpoÌ„ 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 whoÌ„ the moderation of the present businesse by general consent was coÌ„mitted as in the Nicene councell to f Theod. hist li. 2. ca. 15 Cuius concilij suâ—t ille non princeps Hosius Bishop of Corduba in Spaine aboue all the rest of the Bishops who therfore g Concil Nicen. subsâ—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 CoÌ„stantine propoundeth this rule vnto theÌ„ h Theo. l. hist li. 1. ca. 7. Euangelici Apostolici libri necnon antiquâ—ruÌ„ Prophetarum oracula planè nos instruunt quid de rebâ—s d uiâ—is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sentiendum sit proinde posita hâ—stili discordia sumamus ex dictis diuini spiritus explicationeâ— 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 froÌ„ 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 vpoÌ„ 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 theÌ„ 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 i Hilar. de synod cont Arian fideÌ„ NicenaÌ„ nunquaÌ„ nisi exulaturus audiui neuer hauing heard of the Nicene definition vntill he was going into banishment for that fâ—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 k August contra Maximin lib. 3. cap. 14. Nec ego Nicenum nec in debes ArimineÌ„se tanquaÌ„ praeiudicaturus proferre consiliuÌ„ Nec ego huius nec tu illius authoritate deti◠〈◊〉 â—â—ripturaruÌ„ aâ—â—tibus noÌ„ 〈◊〉 â—nque propr◠〈◊〉 â—trisque comuâ— testibus res cuÌ„ re causa cuÌ„ causa ratio cuÌ„ 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 coÌ„mon 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 questâ—â—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 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 that l Ruffin lib. 2. c. 9. Omnibus GraecoruÌ„ seâ—ularium libris remotis solu diuinae Sâ—ripturae volumnibus operaÌ„ dabant carumque intelligentians non ex propria praesuÌ„ptione sed ex maiorum scriptis authoritate sequebantur quos ipsos ex Apostolica successione intelligendi regulaÌ„ 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 froÌ„ 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 vnderstaÌ„ding 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
via duceret aut reduceret ad te Ideâ—que euÌ„ essemuâ— insirmi ad inueniendam liquida ratione veritateÌ„ obhoc nobis opâ—s esset authoritate sanctaâ—uÌ„ literarum â—am credere caeperam nullo modo te fuisse tributuruÌ„ tam excellentum illi Scripturâ—e per omnetiâ—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 decreâ— Niceni conc We haue proued this sentence to haue bene deliuered from hand to hand by Fathers to Fathers but ye O new Iewes and sonnes of Caiphas what auncestors can ye shew of your opinion S. Basil hath these words * De Spir. Sanct. cap. 27. We haue the doctrine that is kept and preached in the Church partly written and part we haue receiued by Tradition of the Apostles in mysterie both which be of the same force to godlinesse and no man opposeth against these who hath at the least but meane experience of the Lawes of the Church See Gregory Nazianz. Orat. 1. in Iulian. R. ABBOT M. Bishop is here as he was before like the melancholike merchant of Athens who reioyced at the sight of euery ship that came in perswading himselfe that it was his ship He cannot light any where vpon the name of traditions but he presently imagineth that it is meant of their Popish vnwritten traditions And here in the first place to colour this he translateth the words of Eusebius amisse by changing the singular number into the plurall a Euseb hist lib. 3. cap. 32. Vt Apostolorum traditioni indivulsè adhaerent admonebat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He warned them saith Eusebius concerning Ignatius that they should cleaue stedfastly to the tradition of the Apostles He saith not traditions as to note sundry doctrines left vnwritten as M. Bishop would haue it but tradition as entirely generally to signifie the doctrine deliuered by the Apostles Therefore he must necessarily be vnderstood of the doctrine of the Apostles which is written but there is no necessity of vnderstanding any more This tradition that is the doctrine deliuered by the Apostles Eusebius saith that Ignatius did testifie by writing and what he testified we should see by those writings if we had them now in such sort as he left them euen no other doctrine but what the Apostles before had left in writing But those Epistles haue bene diuersly in hucksters hands being growne to greater number then Eusebius and Hierome heard of in their times containing many things now which they had not then and many then which they haue not now Ignatius now is made to say that b Ignat. epist 5. ad Phil. p. Siquâ— dominico die reiunauerâ—t aut sabbato praeter vnum sabbatuÌ„ is est Christi interfector if any man fast vpon the Lords day or vpon the Saterday he is a murtherer of Christ whereas S. Austine confesseth that c Aug. epist 86. Quibus diebus â—â—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 that d Ignat. ibid. Siquâ— eum Iudaeis pascha peregeris festi eorum Symbola susceperit is particeps est socius eoruÌ„ qui Dominum occiderunt Apostolos eius if any man obserue Easter with the Iewes or shall beare the marks of their festiuall day he is a companion and partaker with theÌ„ who killed Christ and his Apostles whereas it is manifest by the ecclesiastical history that e Euseb hist lib. 5 cap 23. Polycarpus the Bishop of Smyrna at that time kept Easter in that sort refused to yeeld to Anicetus Bishop of Rome to do otherwise therefore that there was no such obseruation to which Ignatius should adioine any such censure as here is Againe Hierome citeth this sentence out of Ignatius that f Hieron cont Pelug lib. 3. Ignatius vir Apostolicus martyr scribit audacter Elegit Dominus Apostolos qui super omnes homines erant peccatores Christ chose Apostles who were sinners aboue all men which now is not found in those Epistles that we haue Therfore sith we haue his writings no otherwise but maimed and corrupted it is hard from them now to gather any certaintie at all and those some traditions which M. Bishop speaketh of are but meere forgeries conueyed into them by the Popes agents albeit the former of those traditions which I haue mentioned maketh them also murtherers of Christ because they fast vpon the Saterday or else they must denie that these
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 heresies c NiceÌ„ 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 d Luke 1.35 That holy thing which shall be borne of thee shall be called the Sonne of God and againe e 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 f Cyril de rect fide ad Reg. LegeÌ„ iguurirritaÌ„ c. IrritaÌ„ 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 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 that g Tertul. de idol 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 graecè formam sonat ab eo per diminutioneÌ„ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deductuÌ„ 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 h Ibid. Igitur omnis forma vel formula idolum se dici exposcit Inde idololatria omnis circa omne idoluÌ„ famulatus seruituâ— 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 representatioÌ„s whether greater or lesser expresly saying that i Nihil interest quale sit qua de materia qua de effigie ne qui puâ—et id solùm idoluÌ„ 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 k Omnia colit humanus error praeter ipsum omniuÌ„ conditoreÌ„ Eorum imagines idolaâ— 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 Idols then by Tertullians Iudgement are all manner images set vp to represent either men or any other creatures and coÌ„secrated to haue religious duty performed vnto them And so elsewhere he saith of deifying men by their images after their death l Jdem de Coro mil. Mortui idolastatim fiunt habitu cultu coÌ„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 men m Eustath
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 Origen * Cont. 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 a Lactan. instit li. 2. ca. 19. Non est dubium quin religio nulla sit vbicunque 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 b Ibid. NaÌ„ si religio ex rebus diuinis est diuini auteÌ„ 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 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 c Jbid. cap. 18. Dâ—â—m religiones Deorum triplic ratione vanaâ— esse Vna quòd simulachra ipsa quae coluntur effigies siue hominuÌ„ mortuoruÌ„ est auteÌ„ peruersum incoÌ„gruens 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 d Altera quòd ipsae imagines sacrae quibus inanissimi homines seruiunt omni sensu carent quia terra sunt Quie auteÌ„ non intelligat nefaâ— esse rectuÌ„ 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 where Celsus obiecteth that e Orig. coÌ„t Celso lib 7 Non ferunt templa aras statuas inspicere ne Scythae quineÌ„ Numidae c. Christians not enduring to look at teÌ„ples altars and Images are therein like to the Scythians Moores Persians and such like barbarous nations answereth that the barbarous natioÌ„s do it otherwise and for other respects but f Christiani temperaÌ„t ab his propter illud Legis Dominum DeuÌ„ tuuÌ„ timebis c. alia similia quae adeo nos prohibent ab aris simulachris vt etiam emori ubeant citiùs quaÌ„ 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 coÌ„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
to Abraham or afterwards * See hereof after in sect 1â— of a goodly 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 wheÌ„ he wold haue had his Image set vp in the Temple of Hierusalem c Philo Iud. de legat ad Caium Hoc temptuÌ„ iam indè ab initio nullam vnquam admisit manufactaÌ„ effigiem cùm sit Deo domiâ—ilium pictorum enim atque statuarioruÌ„ opera sunt sensibilium deorum imagines illum autem inuisibileÌ„ 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 that d Orig. 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 obserued e Supra sect 4. froÌ„ him before Thus Theodoret saith that Moses f Theodoret. in Deut. qu. 1 Instruens eos ne teÌ„tent vnquam diuinam imagineÌ„ effingere cum arcâ—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 g Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. 1. Numa ex ijs quae à Mâ—se tradita suÌ„t adiuius prohibuit Romanis ne homini aut animali simileÌ„ Dei facerent imaginem c. quòd ad quod est optimuÌ„ non alia ratione quà m 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 h Jbid lib. 6. Nobis nullum est simulachrum in mundo quoniam in rebus genitis nihil potest Dei referre imagineÌ„ 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 Alexandrinus also sheweth i 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 â—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 blâ—nd with a dart also in his hand but k Philo de ligat ad Caium Haec gestamina simulachris adduntur vt significent vtilitates ab his Dijs exhibitas humano generi â—uisque cultoribus these badges saith Philo Iudaâ—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 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
places 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 vpoÌ„ 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 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. â— other two places brought as it were out of Epiphanius workes were found to be none of his And for images was 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 a Alphon. adu haeres lib. 8. tit Imago Res non erat adeò aperta nec de illa re quod sciaÌ„ vnquaÌ„ ecclesia illo teÌ„pore definierat quapropter liberuÌ„ tunc erat eis â—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
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 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 a Roger. Honed Annal. part 1. ann 792. Carolus rex Francorum misiâ— Synodalem libruÌ„ ad Britanniam sibi à Constantinopoli directuÌ„ in quo libro heu proh dolor multa inconuementia verae fidei contraria reperiebantur maximè quòd penè omnium Orientalium doctorum non minùs quà m trecentorum vel eo ampliùs EpiscoporuÌ„ vnanima assertione confirmatum fuerit imaginesadoraeri debere quod omninò Ecclesia Dei execratur CoÌ„tra quod scripsit Albinus epistolam ex authoritate diuinarum scripturarum mirabilâ—ter affirmataÌ„ illamque cum eodeÌ„ libro ex persona Episcoporum ac PrincipuÌ„ nostroruÌ„ regi FrancoruÌ„ 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 Vrspergensis 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 b Abb. Vrsperg Chron. anno 793. Synodus etâ—aÌ„ quae ante pautos aÌ„nos in ConstaÌ„tinopoli coâ—gregata sub Irene Constantino filio eius septima vniuersalis ab ipsis appellata est vt nec septima nec aliquid diceretur quasi superuacuae ab omnibus abâ—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 nor any thing else So saith Regino also conèerning the same councell c 〈…〉 lib. 2. ann◠〈◊〉 Pse◠〈◊〉 Graecorâ—mâ—â—â— pro adoâ—â—â—â— maginibus â—â—cerant a peâ—â—â—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 couÌ„cel 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 that * Concil 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 d Surius ibid. Lectors Plerunque dum non satis ap tè aduersarijsrespondere imperito lectori videre potest eostanquaÌ„ 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