it appeare by another hymne of theirs which will not be so answered x Histor secundum chorum Augustensâ—de commemor Virginis Mariae Gaude matrona coelica exultando magnifica Deum tuum salutarem qui te fecit singularem Tu ancillam Iesu Christi te vocare voluisti Sed vt docet lex diuina tu ipsius es Domina Nam ius habet ratio matrem prae esse filio Ergo ora supplicitèr praecipe sublimiter Vt nos in mundi vespera ad regna ducat suprema That is to say Be glad O matron heauenly and with reioycing magnifie Thy God thy Sauior who thee hath singled out in dignity The handmaiden of Iesus Christ thy selfe to call thou wast content But thou his Ladie mistresse art as teacheth Gods commandement For right and reason doth require the mother be aboue the Sonne Pray therefore as a suppliant and command as a higher one That in the end of this worlds dayes He bring vs to his heauenly ioyes Here is then right and reason and Gods Commandement to approue and iustifie that the Virgin Mary as the Mother should haue power ouer her sonne and authoritie to commaund him And to no other purpose soundeth that which M. Bishop acknowledgeth as being yet in their vse y In hymn Ecclesiastic Monstrate esse matrem Shew thy selfe to be a mother He saith it is not added by commanding thy sonne but he should haue told vs how otherwise it should be meant because we know not nor can conceiue in what meaning they should request her to shew her selfe to be his mother but onely vpon opinion of some motherly superioritie and authoritie to commaund him For as for that which he saith followeth in that place Sumat per te preces qui pro nobis natus tulit esse tuus Let him by thee receiue our prayers who for vs yeelded to be thy sonne it giueth vs no light at all to the contrary but that she should shew her motherly commaund by causing him to accept the prayers that are made vnto him which he seeing translateth the words falsly Present our prayers vnto him c. And thus the common people were perswaded by them and specially women that they had better hope and readier accesse to God and more assured safetie by our Lady then they had by the Sonne of God And no maruell when they lifted her vp into the seate of Christ and inuested her in their publike seruice with all the titles of mercy and grace that are proper vnto him Now therefore M. Bishop there is cause sufficient for vs to forbeare to be reconciled to the Church of Rome which vnder pretence of magnifying Christ hath put the Pope and the Virgin Marie and the rest of the Saints in the place of Christ and coloureth her Antichristian presumptions and vsurpations vnder the feigned title of the gifts of Christ You deuise what you lift and fill the Church with your abhominations and vse the name of Christ as a cloake to couer your filthinesse and shame If they came naked in their owne likenesse all men would detest them and detest you for perswading them therefore it is the policie of the whore of Babylon to offer the z Apoc. 17.4 filthinesse of her fornications in the golden cup of the name of Christ that the glory of the cup may bewitch them not to suspect any poyson to bee contained therein As for vs we esteeme of the power merits and satisfaction of Christ as he himselfe hath taught vs to esteeme we assume no part or parcell therof to our selues because by the letters patents of his Gospell we haue no warrant so to do Because then we vnfeignedly seeke the true honour of Iesus Christ and cannot brooke the dishonour that is done vnto him in the Church of Rome vnder the counterfeit termes of his diuine gifts we make choise to hearken to the voyce of God a Apoc. â—8 4 Come out of her my people and be not partakers of her sinnes lest ye be partakers of her plagues M. BISHOPS ANSWER TO M. PERKINS Preface to the Reader VPon your preface to the Reader I will not stand because it toucheth no point of controuersie let it be declared in your next what you meane when you desire your reformed Catholike to hold the same necessarie heads of Religion with the Roman Church for if the Roman Church doth erre in the matter of faith and iustification in the number and vertue of the Sacraments in the bookes and interpretation of the word of God if she raze the foundation and make Christ a Pseudochrist and an Idol to omit twentie other errors in substantiall points of faith as in this your small discourse you would perswade there will remaine verie few necessarie heads of Religion for them to agree in And be you well assured that you are so wide from winning Catholikes by this your worke to a better liking of your Religion that you haue taken the high way to leade them to a farre greater dislike of it by teaching that in so many materiall points it differeth so farre from theirs For all Catholikes hold for most assured that which the most ancient learned and holy Doctor Athanasius in his Creed deliuereth in the 2. verse Which Catholike faith vnlesse euerie man obserue wholy and inuiolably not omitting or sh inking from any one article of it without doubt he shall perish euerlastingly If S. Basil that reuerend and blessed Father of the Church doth hold it the duty of euerie good Christian rather to loose hiâ— life then to condescend to the alteration of any one syllable in matter of faith Theod. 4. his cap. 17. you may be sure that we Catholikes cannot but cary a very base conceipt of your doctrine who go about vnder the ouerworne and threedbare cloake of reformation to deface and corrupt the purer and greater part of Christian Religion specially when they shall perceiuâ— the most points of your pretended reformation to be nothing else but ld â—otten condemned heresies new scoured vp and furbushed and so â—â—shew made more saleable vnto the vnskilfull as in this treatise shall be proued in euerie Chapter R. ABBOT YOur demaund M. Bishop is alreadie satisfied before M. Perkins by those necessarie heads of Religion vnderstandeth such generall grounds as stand vnquestioned betwixt vs and the Romish Church which for the matters handled hee commonly setteth downe by the name of our consents in the entring of euery question There are some maine points of doctrine to which the Church of Rome subscribeth as well as we The Reformed Catholike is still to hold those though hee depart from the corruptions and abhominations to the maintenance whereof the same Church of Rome doth wickedly misapply them As for his winning of Catholikes to the liking of our Religion I assure my selfe that you M. Bishop your selfe and your friend of good intelligence and iudgement were iealous and doubtfull thereof His plaine debating
of all conditions neither did import any thing that should belong to any deuided sorts or societies of meÌ„ but what all Christians should alike performe to God what are they but deuisers of new worship and seruice vnto God who vnder the colour of those vowes do now bring in select and speciall acts exercises of religion peculiar onely to some men If all Christian deuotions signified by those vowes were found amongst the Iews as hath bin said and these select and peculiar deuotions were not found certain it is that these deuotions are but superstitions and haue no warrant from the old Testament to be practised in the new Now then to come to that which M. Bishop saith albeit there is no man but well knoweth that a promise is more then a bare acceptance yet wholly to take away that cauil we terme a vow a solemne promise whereby a man in speciall manner bindeth himself to that which he voweth Albeit where there is a promise made to keepe Gods commandements who but an absurd man wil hold it for an absurdity to affirme that in the breach there is a double trespasse because to the obseruation he was tied with a double bond both absolutely by dutie and respectiuely by couenant and promâ—se and therfore must needs be said to violate his dutie the one way and his fidelitie the other Otherwise why doth God vpon h Deut. 5.27 a promise to keepe his lawes so often charge his people in speciall manner for dealing i Psal 78.8 vnfaithfully with him calling them in that respect k Deut. 32.20 children in whom is no faith no fidelitie or trust l Esa 30.9 lying children m Chap. 57.4 a false or lying seed with sundry other speeches in sundry places to the like effect It was therefore but a Romish distemper of M. Bishops eies that made him vnable to see gold from drosse and caused him to take that for an error which coÌ„mon vnderstanding should informe him to be a truth As for that which he telleth vs that by our definition we make all couenants with God and promises to him to be vows we answer him that we do indeed take all serious and solemne promises to God to be very fitly contained vnder that name not but that in precise manner of speaking there is a difference to be made betwixt them but because we are not much scrupulous of distinction of words terms where saue only in circumstance there is no difference betwixt the things themselues no difference I say at all in that respect wherein they are questioned betwixt the Papists and vs. For the onely difference is this that vowes properly so called are vttered as by examples I haue shewed before with condition of obtaining somewhat at Gods hands but other othes and couenants and promises are absolutely and simply made According to this strict rule of speaking it is onely a couenant and promise that we make to God in Baptisme to forsake the Diuell and all his workes to beleeue in God and to serue him but it is a vow when a man in sicknes by way of repentance of his former life saith If the Lord will be mercifull vnto me and vouchsafe to restore me to health againe I will forsake all my former euill wayes and betake my selfe faithfully to his seruice The matter then on both sides is one the same and the difference is onely in forme of speaking which being no other we make no doubt of calling both by the name of vowes neither is there any question in that behalfe because the Papists terme absolute promises Vowes as well as we But M. Bishop out of the drosse of their schooles taketh vpon him to teach vs another difference that a vow is a promise to God of some better good the same proceeding out of our owne free choise and liberty whereas other promises may be of necessary duties not being at our choise but whereto we are tied otherwise Where he leaueth vs to guesse what he meaneth by some better good the words importing a comparison and therefore implying a reference to some other good then which that is better which we promise by a vow This mysterie Thomas Aquinas shall open for vs who saith that n Thom. Aquin. sum 22. qu. 88. art 22. in corp Dicitur maius bonum in comparatione ad bonuÌ„ quod comunitèr est de necessitate salutis this better good is so called in comparison of that good that is commonly necessary for the obtaining of saluation meaning thereby that it is better then those vertues and good workes which in common belong to the dutie of euery Christian man Which fancie of theirs is very fond vaine because when of old the vow was sacrifice and the common dutie was mercie the vow could not be said to be of a better good then was the common dutie for that mercie was better then sacrifice as God himselfe gaue to vnderstand saying o Ose 6.6 I will haue mercie and not sacrifice Yea it hath bene before shewed that of old the thing principally intended in vowes was matter of common dutie though included for the time as it were in the shell of those outward ceremonies and therefore vowes cannot be said to be of better good then common dutie We see the speciall matter of Iacobs vow before mentioned to haue bene that that concerneth euery man for the obtaining of saluation Then shall the Lord be my God before which neither the building of a house to God nor the giuing of a tenth of his goods to God could be preferred as a better good And who doth not vnderstand and see that in this assertion of a better good in their vowes they affirme that that is directly contrary to the doctrine of the Scriptures How doth he vow a better good who in the vow of continencie burneth with fleshly lust when the Apostle so plainly saith p 1. Cor. 7.9 It is better to marry then to burne How do they vow a better good in their vow of pouertie and beggery when as our Sauiour saith q Act. 20.35 It is a more blessed thing to giue then to receiue How do they in their vow of obedience tie themselues to a better good in making themselues slaues to the rules of men then other men do in following the commaundements of God when as the Scripture saith r 1. Corin. 7.23 Be ye not made the seruants of men These are very peeuish and absurd deuices bred in corrupt and rotten braines and no way sauouring of Christian vnderstanding As for that which he addeth that a vow must proceed of our owne free choise and libertie and that no vow is made without a mans free choise to bind himselfe whether he vndrstand it of vowing or of the thing that is vowed there is no necessitie therof For albeit it be true that a man is not alwayes tied to vow but sometmies is at libertie whether to
take to be that which M. Perkins doth meane by those his words that the will must be first moued and acted by grace before it can act or will He mistooke vs thinking that we required some outward helpe onely to the will to ioyne with it or rather that grace did but as it were vntie the chaines of sinne wherein our will was fettered and then Will could of it selfe turne to God Not vnderstanding how Catholikes take that Parable of the man wounded in the way Luk. 10. betweene Ierusalem and Ierico who was not as the Papists onely say but as the holy Ghost saith left halfe and not starke dead Now the exposition of Catholikes is not that this wounded man which signifieth all mankind had halfe his spirituall strength left him but was robbed of all supernaturall riches spoyled of his originall iustice and wounded in his naturall powers of both vnderstanding and Will and therein left halfe dead not being able of his owne strength either to know all naturall truth or to performe all moral duty Now touching supernaturall workes because he left all power to performe them not being able so much as to prepare himselfe conueniently to them he in a good sence may be likened vnto a dead man not able to moue one finger that way of grace and so in holy Scripture the father said of his prodigall Son Luk. 15. He was dead and is reuiued Yet as the same sonne liued a naturall life albeit in a deadly sinne so mans will after the fall of Adam continued somewhat free in actions conformable to the nature of man though wounded also in them as not being able to act many of them yet hauing still that naturall facultie of Free-will capable of grace and also able being first both outwardly moued and fortified inwardly by the vertue of grace to effect and do any worke appertaining to saluation which is as much as M. Perkins affirmeth And this to be the very doctrine of the Church of Rome is most manifestly to be seene in the Councell of Trent where in the Session are first these words in effect concerning the vnablenesse of man to arise from sinne of himselfe Euery man must acknowledge and confesse that by Adams fall we were made so vncleane and sinfull that neither the Gentiles by the force of nature nor the Iewes by the letter of Moses lawe could arise out of that sinfull state After it sheweth how our deliuerance is wrought and how freedome of will is recouered in speciall and wherein it consisteth saying The beginning of iustification in persons vsing reason is taken from the grace of God preuenting vs through Iesus Christ that is from his vocation whereby without any desert of ours we are called that we who were by our sinnes turned away from God may be prepared by his grace both raising vs vp and helping vs to returne to our owne Iustification freely yeelding our consent vnto the said grace and working with it So as God touching the heart of man by the light of the holy Ghost neither doth man nothing at all receiuing that inspiration who might also refuse it neither yet can he without the grace of God by his Free will moue himselfe to that which is iust in Gods sight And that you may be assured that this doctrine of the Councell is no other then that which was taught three hundred yeares before in the very middest of darknesse as Heretikes deeme 12. q. 109. Art 6. see what S. Thomas of Aquine one of her principall pillars hath written of this point in his most learned Summe Where vpon these words of our Sauiour Ioh. 6. No man can come to me vnlesse my Father draw him he concludeth it to be manifest that man cannot so much as prepare himselfe to receiue the light of grace but by the free and vndeserued helpe of God mouing him inwardly thereunto And this is all which M. Perkins in his pretended dissent auerreth here and goeth about to proue in his fiue reasons following the which I will omit as being all for vs. And if any man desire to see more to that purpose let him reade the most learned workes of that famous Cardinall and right reuerend Archbishop Bellarmine R. ABBOT Here is another contradiction framed vpon the anuile of M. Bishops ignorance whilest he vnderstandeth not that workes morally good may be spiritually euill and whilest they a Luk 16.15 are highly esteemed with men for the substance of the act yet may be abhominable with God by the vncleannesse of the heart Which if he had duly considered he might well haue seene that both these assertions may stand together that man hath freedome of will to do the outward acts of morall vertues and yet that all that man deuiseth frameth or imagineth is wholy euill because his morall vertues without grace are in Gods sight but so many corruptions of good workes being poysoned in the roote of vnbeleefe and wholy diuerted from their true and proper end so that God hath no respect to them because in them there is no respect at all to God This followeth afterwards more fully to be handled towards the end of this question but in the meane time we see how simply he collecteth of this latter point that M. Perkins leaueth a man no naturall strength to performe any part of morall dutie and as if he had very wisely handled the matter addeth his epiphonema So vncertaine are the steps of them that walke in darknesse very fitly agreeing to himselfe who neither vnderstandeth what the aduersarie saith nor what he himselfe is to say for his owne part Whereupon it is that he conceiueth that M. Perkins fully agreeth with the Romish Church in this matter of Free will whereas they are as farre different one from the other as heauen is from earth The agreement forsooth is in that M. Perkins granteth Free will in the state of grace But so did Luther Caluin and so do we all as far as M. Perkins doth The Papists say that man hath in his owne nature a power of Free wil which being only stirred and helped can and doth of it selfe adioyne it selfe to grace to accept thereof and to worke with it This is it that we denie we say that freedome of the will to turne to God and to worke with him is no power of nature but the worke of grace that it is in no sort of man himselfe but wholy and onely the gift of God that howsoeuer God do offer grace yet that man hath no power in himselfe or in his owne will to assent and yeeld vnto it but it is God himselfe that withall worketh in him to accept thereof that to the conuersion of a sinner there ariseth nothing from the motion of his owne will howsoeuer assisted and helped of God but what God by his Spirit doth worke in it Vpon this point onely Luther and Caluin and we all insist to chalenge all wholy vnto God
be no assurance by faith of our owne Saluation vnlesse we beleeue it with the like infallible Certainty as we do the truth of the word of God 5. W. BISHOP The thâ—rd reason for the Catholikes is that we are bidden to pray daily for the remission of our sinnes But that were needlesse Math. 6. if we were before assured both of pardon and Saluation M. Perkins answereth First that we pray daily for the remission of new sinnes committed that day Be it so What needs that if we were before assured of pardon Marrie saith he because our assurance was but weake and small our prayer is to increase our assurance Good Sir do you not see how you ouerthrow your selfe If your assurance be but weake and small it is not the assurance of faith which is as great and as strong as the truth of God We giue God thanks for those gifts which we haue receaued at his bountifull hands and desire him to increase or continue them if they may be lost But to pray to God to giue vs those things we are assured of by faith is as fond and friuolous as to pray him to make Christ our Lord to be his Sonne or that there may be life euerlasting to his Saints in heauen of which they are in full and assured possession And so these three Arguments by M. Perkins propounded here for vs are very substantiall and sufficient to assure euery good Christian that he may well hope for Saluation doing his dutie but may not without great presumption assure him by faith of it R. ABBOT The comfort of the faithfull mans praier is the same assurance that Dauid had a Psal 4.3 When I call vpon the Lord he will heare me it being a promise of God to his people b 50.15 Call vpon me and I will heare thee in which sort our Sauiour Christ giueth vs incouragement to pray saying c Iohn 14.13 Whatsoeuer ye aske in my name that will I do that the Father may be glorified in the Sonne Therefore S. Iohn saith d 1. Iohn 5.14 This is the assurance that we haue of him that whatsoeuer we aske according to his will he heareth vs and if we know that he heareth vs we know that we haue the petitions that we aske of him Being therefore bidden to pray for the forgiuenesse of sinnes and hauing the promise of God e Ierem. 31.34 I will be mercifull vnto them and their sinnes and iniquities will I remember no more we beleeue and by faith stand assured that when we do pray to haue our sinnes forgiuen vs God heareth vs and giueth vs pardon and forgiuenesse thereof We do not then teach at randon the assurance of the forgiuenesse of sinnes but in such tenure and forme as we are directed by the word of God according to which S. Austine saith of himselfe f August cont Iulian. Pelag. lib 6. ca. 5. Qua gratia liberor vt scio ne intrem in tentationeÌ„ c. atque vt exaudiar cum confortâ—hat meis dicens Dimitte nobis c. By the grace of God I am freed I know that I enter not into temptation and that I am heard saying with my fellowes Forgiue vs our trespasses g Psa 32.6 For this therefore that is h August in Psal 31. Pro hac pro ipsa venia peccatorum for forgiuenesse of sinnes shall euery one that is godly saith Dauid make his praier vnto thee in a time when thou maiest be found so being assured that in the great water flouds they shall not come nigh him Our faith then assureth vs not of forgiuenesse of sinnes without praier but that God forgiueth vs when we pray so that his obiection being framed to our doctrine aright is as if he should say Seeing faith assureth vs of forgiuenesse of sinnes when we craue it of him by praier what need we pray Which was one of Wrights drunken reasons whereby he would haue laied an absurditie vpon our Church being himselfe an absurd blind-asinus and not vnderstanding what we say But to make the matter more plaine it is to be noted that in three respects we continue daily to aske of God forgiuenesse of sinnes of which M. Perkins hath noted two First as S. Austine saith i August de vera fals paenit ca. 5. Quia quotidimana est offensio oportet vt sit quotidiana etiam remissio because we daily commit offence we haue need daily to craue pardon But what needs that saith M. Bishop if we were before assured of pardon I haue answered him that our assurance before hand and alwaies is that our praier obtaineth it at Gods hands Therefore we pray and by faith do rest assured that vndoubtedly we haue that for which we pray Secondly we pray for forgiuenesse not for that we haue no assurance thereof but for that we desire greater assurance and more comfortable feeling of it that as forgiuenesse with God is full and perfect so the same may accordingly be sealed in our hearts Our faith being weake giueth but weake assurance and therefore we begge of God that our hearts may be enlarged that k Bernard in Annunciat ser 1. supra sect 3. the testimonie of the spirit may more freely sound vnto vs Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee Now here saith M. Bishop Good Sir do you not see how you ouerthrow your selfe And why so Forsooth if your assurance be but weake and small it is not the assurance of faith which is as great and strong as the truth of God But good Sir we haue alreadie shewed you that therein you tell vs a sencelesse and vnlikely tale The truth of God is alwaies alike not subiect to alteration neuer increased or diminished but our faith is greater and lesse somtimes hath a full and sometimes a wane and to vs the truth of God is according to our faith and according to our apprehension feeling of it Wherein we are variable and diuerse euen after the manner of Peters faith of whom S. Austine saith l August de verb. Dom. ser 13 Illum vidite Petrum qui tunc erat figura vestra modo fidit modo titubat modò immortaleÌ„ confitetur modoÌ„ timet ne moriatur Peter was the patterne of vs all sometimes he beleeueth sometimes he wauereth one while he confesseth Christ to be immortall another while he is afraid least Christ should die The poore distressed man saith in the Gospell m Mar. 9. Lord I beleeue helpe my vnbeleefe n August de verb. Dom. ser 36. Credo inquit ergò est fides Sed adiuua incredulitatem meam ergo non est plena fides He saith I beleeue therefore there is faith saith Austine helpe my vnbeleefe saith he therefore there is not yet full and perfect faith If there be true faith and yet with faith a remainder of vnbeleefe then the assurance of faith cannot be said to be as great and strong as the truth
done it because he could do it He could haue made man with wings to flie but yet he hath not done it You should proue plainly out of the Scriptures that he would so do As for worthinesse it is but a matter of conceit and fancie No creature can contend vpon worth with the Creator If Adams worth were such as he speaketh of hee had beene worthy to be preserued and he may as sawcily dispute with God that he did him wrong in suffering him to fall As for that which he alledgeth as out of Master Perkins that man in this life at his last gaspe may haue such righteousnesse it is a deuice of his owne neither doth Master Perkins say any thing that should yeeld him anie such construction For conclusion he telleth vs that their doctrine is better to be liked then ours if for no other reason yet for that it doth more exalt the power and goodnesse of God more magnifie the value of Christes merits and bringeth greater dignitie vnto men Where the vaine man seeth not that by the one part of his speech he crosseth the other The thing whereto the true doctrine of the Gospell tendeth is entirely the honour and glorie of God but their doctrine forsooth serueth to bring dignitie vnto men But in that it bringeth dignitie vnto men it detracteth from the glorie of God whose light is most cleerely seene in our darknesse a 2. Cor 12.9 his power in our weaknesse his goodnesse in shewing mercy to vs that are euill his b Dan. 9.7 righteousnesse in the confession of our shame the worth of Christs merits in the true acknowledgement of our vnworthinesse and want of merits God hath appointed vs to be c Ephes 1.6 for the praise of the glorie of his grace and therefore so disposeth d 1. Cor. 1.29 that no flesh shall reioyce in his presence and e Esa 2.11 that he onely may be exalted at that day Therefore f Aug. epist 29. Cùm rex iustus sederit in throno quis gloriabitur se castum habere cor c. when the iust king shall sit vpon his throne who shall glorie that he hath a cleane heart or reioyce that he is free from sinne Our plea then must not be Merit and worth but only g 2. Tim. 1.18 to find mercie with the Lord. But the thing that they seeke for as M. Bishop telleth vs is the dignitie of man as indeed it is They labour to set vp their owne righteousnesse against the righteousnesse of God They extoll their owne Merit their owne worth The Merit of Christ onely yeeldeth matter of grace to their Free vvill to worke vpon and thereby they worke for themselues they Merit for themselues they saue themselues but in seeking this glorie to themselues they purchase their owne shame What we can alledge for imputation of Christs righteousnesse vnto vs to be our Iustification will appeare in that that followeth 3. W. BISHOP M. Perkins first reason is this That which must be our Righteousnesse before God must satisfic the iustice of the law which saith Do these things and thou shalt liue Gal. 5. but there is nothing that can satisfie that iustice of the law but the Righteousnesse and obedience of Christ Ergo. This reason is not worth a rush for when he requireth that our iustice must satisfie the iustice of the law I demaund what law he meaneth If Moses law of which those words Gal. 5. Gal. 5. Do this and thou shalt liue are spoken Then I answer with the Apostle That you are euacuated or abolished from Christ that are iustified in the law that is he is a Iew and no Christian that would haue Christian Iustice answerable to Moses law If M. Perkins would onely that men iustified must be able to fulfill Christs law I then graunt that they so be by the helpe of Gods grace which will neuer faile them before they faile of their duties But saith M. Perkins That iustice of man is vnperfect and cannot satisfie the iustice which God requires in his law Isay 6.4 and proues it out of Esay who saith All our righteousnesse is as a menstruous or defiled cloth I answer that the holy Prophet speaketh those words in the person of the wicked and therefore are madly applied vnto the righteous That he speaketh of the vvicked of that nation and of that time appeareth plainely by the text it selfe For he saith before But lo thou hast bene angrie for we haue offended and haue beene euer in sinne and after There is no man that calleth vpon thy name and standeth vp to take hold by thee And although the vvords be generall and seemes to the vnskilfull to comprehend himselfe also yet that is but the manner of preachers and specially of such as become Intercessors for others vvho vse to speake in the persons of them for vvhom they sue for if he had reckoned himselfe in that number he had lied vvhen he sayd There is none that call vpon thy name vvhen as he immediatly calleth vpon him in most vehement sort for mercie Luther and Caluin on this place all which the best learned among them marking confesse that this sentence cannot be alledged against the vertue of good vvorkes Hence gather how dexterously M. Perkins handleth holy Scripture That vvhich the Prophet spake of some euill men of one place and at one time that he applieth vnto all good men for all times and all places R. ABBOT This reason saith M. Bishop is not worth a rush but I am sure that his answer is not worth a rush as wherein we may see the absurd blindnesse of these men who take vpon them to be the only maisters of the world That saith M. Perkins vvhich must be our Righteousnesse before God must satisfie the iustice of the lavv vvhich saith Do these things and thou shalt liue inferring hereof that because no Righteousnesse of ours doth answer the iustice or Righteousnesse commaunded in the law therefore no Righteousnesse of ours but onely the imputed Righteousnesse of Christ is our Iustification before God For answer to this M. Bishop demandeth what law he meaneth whether Moses law or Christs law But we make to him a counter-demand What he meaneth by Moses law and what by Christs law He should more plainly haue declared his distinction if he would haue made an answer of it but that that we conceiue of it is that by Moses law he meaneth the ceremonies of the law by Christs law the morall law of the commandements commonly so called But had he so little vnderstanding of the law as to thinke that of the ceremoniall law it was sayd Do this and thou shalt liue Surely the ceremonies of the law were but a Col. 2.14 a handwriting against vs because they were an acknowledgement of vncleannesse and sinne and trespasse against that law that faith Do this and thou shalt liue and because an acknowledgement of sinne therefore
h Hilar. ibid. Corpora nostra vitiorum omniuÌ„ materia pro qua polluti sordidi nihil in nobis mundum nihil innocens obtinâ—mus whereby being polluted and filthie saith Hilary we haue nothing in vs innocent nothing cleane They are good then but yet not perfectly good yea if God should strictly and narrowly deale with vs he should haue iust cause of reiecting vs in the doing thereof for that we by our corruption do disgrace that which proceedeth holy and pure and good from him Now therefore whereas he saith that it can be no good worke wherein is any defect he saith vntruly because good and euill haue their latitude and degrees and accordingly as contraries expell each other the one alwaies growing by the impairing of the other accordingly as S. Austine saith i August de verb. Dom ser 11. Non nâ—bis infâ—rt bona sua nisi auferat mala nostra in tantuÌ„ illa crescunt inquantum ista mi nuuntur nec illa perficientur nisi ista finiantur God doth not bring his good gifts into vs except he take away our euils and so far do the good things increase as the euill are diminished neither shall the one be perfected till the other be fully ended Now in this mixture of contraries that giueth the name that preuaileth most so that k Hier ad Ctesiphont Iusti non quod omni vitio careant sed quod maiori virtutum parte commendâ—ntur men are called iust as Hierome saith not for that they are without all vice but in that they are commended for the greater part of vertues That therefore may rightly and truly be called a good worke in some measure and degree of goodnesse which yet entirely and perfectly and wholy cannot be called good But that we may see how vainely and idlely he talketh his conclusion is diligently to be obserued that there may be many good workes free from all infection of sinne There be many such but all good workes then it seemeth be not free from all infection of sinne And if all be not so then let him tell vs how those good workes which be not free from all infection of sinne be called good workes as he importeth seeing no worke can be called good as he hath told vs before that faileth either in substance or in circumstance or hath any fault or defect in it Let him answer vs for those some and his answer shall serue vs for all the rest 45 W. BISHOP In lieu of the manifold testimonie of Antiquity which doth nothing more then recommend good workes and paint out the excellencie of them I will set downe one passage of S. August wherein this very controuersie is distinctly declared and determined Lib. 3. contra duas Epist Pelag. cap. 7. thus he beginneth The iustice through which the iust man liueth by faith because it is giuen to man by the spirit of grace is true iustice the which although it be worthily called in some men perfect according to the capacitie of this life yet it is but small in comparison of that greater which man made equall to Angels shall receiue Which heauenly iustice he that had not as yet said himselfe to be perfect in regard of that iustice that was in him and also imperfect if it be compared to that which he wanted But certainly this lesser iustice or righteousnesse breedeth and bringeth foorth merits and that greater is the reward thereof Wherefore he that pursueth not this shall not obtaine that Hitherto S. Augustine Note first that he defineth the iustice which we haue in this life to be true iustice which is pure from al iniustice and iniquitie then that it is also perfect not failing in any duty which we be bound to performe Lastly that it bringeth foorth good workes such as merit life euerlasting True it is also that this iustice although perfect in it selfe so farre as mans capacitie in this life doth permit yet being compared vnto the state of iustice which is in heauen it may be called imperfect not that this is not sufficient to defend vs froÌ„ all formall transgression of Gods law but because it keepeth not vs sometimes from veniall sinne and hath not such a high degree of perfection as that hath S. Augustin hath the like discourse where he saith directly De spir lit vlt. cap. that it appertaines to the lesser iustice of this life not to sinne So that we haue out of this oracle of Antiquity that many workes of a iust man are without sinne R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop notably abuseth S. Austin and maketh him in stead of all antiquitie a witnesse of that which he oppugneth euen in that very Chapter whence he citeth the words here set downe Which that we may the better discerne let vs examine particularly the collections that he maketh from the words First that the iustice that we haue in this life is true iustice We acknowledg the same euen as it is true gold wherein notwithstanding there is found drosse euen as it is a true pearle which notwithstanding with handling hath a spot or staine It is true righteousnesse a Bernard de verb. Esa Ser 5. Humilis iustitia sed non pura but not pure saith S. Bernard b Idem in fest sanct Ser. 1. Si districtè iudicetâ—r iniusta inuenietur omnis iustitia nostra â—â—nùs habens it will be found vnrighteousnesse and scant if it be strictly iudged Therfore M. Bishops exposition of true iustice is false where he maketh the same to be pure from all iniustice and iniquitie Secondly he maketh S. Austin to say that our righteousnesse in this life is perfect not failing in any duty which we are bound to performe But how lewdly doth he therein deale with S. Austin who plainely teacheth that c Aug. de Ciu. Dei lib. 19 ca. 27 Magis remissione peccatorum constat quà m perfectione virtutum our righteousnesse in this life standeth rather in forgiuenesse of sinnes then in perfection of vertues Yea in the Chapter cited by him he saith d Idem contra 2. Epist Pelag. li. 3. cap 7. Virtus quae nunc est in homi ne iusto hactenus perfecta nomina tur vt ad eius perfectioneÌ„ pertineat etiam ipsius imperfectionis in veritate cognitio in humilitate confessio Tunc enim est secundum hanc infirmitatem perfecta ista pâ—rua iustitia quando etiam quid sibi desit intelligit Ideoque Apostolus imperfectum perfectum sedicit imperfectum cogitando quantum illi ad iustitiam desit cuius plenitudinem adhuâ— esurit sitiâ— Perfectum autem quòd suam imperfectionem confitori non erubescit vt peruentat bene procedit The vertue which is now in the iust man is thus farforth called perfect as that to the perfection therof belongeth both the knowledge in truth and in humilitie the confession of the imperfection of it
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
r August in Psal 109. Promisit hominibus diuinitatem mor talibus immortalitatem peccatoribus iustificationem abiectis glorificationem Quicquid promisit indignis promisit vt non quasi merces operibus promitteretur sed gratia à nomine suo gratis daretur quia hoc ipsā quód iustè viuit inquantum homo potest iustè viuere nō merite humani sed beneficij diuini est God promised to men participation with God immortalitie to mortall creatures iustification to sinners glorification to abiects and cast-awayes Whatsoeuer he promised he promised to men vnworthie that it might not be promised as a reward to workes but being grace might according to the name be freely giuen because to liue iustly so farre as man can liue iustly is not a matter importing mans merit but the benefite and gift of God Where plainely he sheweth that whatsoeuer God hath promised it is his meere and onely gift that to speake simply thereof it is to be bereaued of the title of a reward of workes because God promised the same when we had no workes that it is not giuen for our woorth because it was promised when we had no woorth yea and that we haue any good workes it is an effect of the same promise it cannot be thought to make any merit on our behalfe but to set foorth grace and mercie on Gods behalfe so that all is free gift all is grace and mercie and the adding of one gift and grace and mercie to another howsoeuer sometimes in some respects as hereafter we shall see the gift of God is set foorth vnto vs vnder the name of recompence and reward In a word by that that followeth I doubt not but it will appeare that the Protestants Proctor if he must needes be so tearmed hath said nothing in this behalfe but what by S. Austine and other auncient Fathers may well be defended against this Romish prater who hath great insolencie of words but sound matter of proofe he can find none at all 3. W. BISHOP But M. Perkins will neuerthelesse prooue and that by sundry reasons that their doctrine is the truth at selfe and ours falshood First by a sorry short syllogisme containing more then one whole page It is taken out of the properties of a meritorious worke which must be saith he foure first That the worke be done of our selues without the helpe of another secondly That it be not otherwise due debt thirdly That it be done to the benefit of another fourthly That the worke and reward be equall in proportion These properties he sets downe pythagorically without any proofe but inserreth theron as though he had proued them inuincibly that Christs manhood separated from the Godhead cannot merit because whatsoeuer he doth he doth it by grace receiued and should be otherwise due He might in like manner as truly say that Christs manhood vnited to the Godhead could not merit neither for he receiued his Godhead from his Father and whatsoeuer he doth is therefore his Fathers by due debt And so the good man if he were let alone would disappoint vs wholly of all merits aswell the imputed of Christs as of all ours done by virtue of his grace Wherefore we must a little sift his foure forged proprieties of merit and touching the first I say that one may by the good vse of a thing receiued by free gift merit and deserue much euen at his hands that gaue it For example the farther bestowes a Farme vpon his sonne freely who may by often presenting his Father of the pleasing fruits growing on the same deserue his further fauour yea he may by the commodities reaped out of that farme buy any thing that it shall please his father to set to sale as well as if he had neuer receiued the farme from his fathers gift Which is so common a case and so sensible that euery man of meane wit may easily reach vnto it euen so by good manuring the gifts which God freely bestoweth vpon vs we may both merit the increase of them and according to his owne order and promise purchase thereby the kingdome of heauen which is plainely proued by that parable Of the talents giuen by a king to his seruants Mat. 25. the which they employing well and multiplying were therefore esteemed worthy of farre greater and withall to be made partakers of their Lords ioyes M. Perkins then was not a litle ouerseene to put for the first proprietie of merit that it must be done by a man and of a man himselfe R. ABBOT M. Perkins saith very truly vpon noting the conditions necessarily required in a meritorious worke that the manhood of Christ considered a part from his Godhead because it is but a creature and hath all by the gift of God and doth all by bond of necessary dutie cannot merit at Gods hands Whereas M. Bishop against this saith that he might in like manner as truly say that Christs manhood vnited to the Godhead could not merit neither because he receiued his Godhead from the Father and therefore whatsoeuer he doth is his Fathers by due debt he bewrayeth his notable and absurd ignorance For Christ receiueth his Godhead of the Father to be equall to the Father not inferiour to be the same in substance and maiestie and glorie that the Father is Now duty and debt do necessarily enforce minoritie and subiection Seeing therefore there is no minority or subiection in the Godhead of the Sonne towards the Father there can be no debt or dutie of the Sonne in that respect towards the Father Thus the good man to repay him with his owne stoute is taken before he is aware in the nets of the Arian heresie which made Christ as God inferiour and subiect to the Father The merit of Christ therefore consisted in this as S. Paule noteth that being equall to God his Father and owing no debt or dutie did voluntarily humble himselfe to obedience and duty for our sakes So then M. Perrkins indeed a good man as M. Bishop shall one day see hath not by his assertion bereaued vs of the merits of Christ but hath taught how rightly to vnderstand the same But now he will a litle sift as he saith the foure forged proprieties of merit which M. Perkins hath set downe Whether they be forged or not will appeare by the sequele in the meane time his answers to them may seeme rather to haue come from the Smiths forge then out of the studie and from the learning of a Doctor of Diuinitie The first condition required in a meritorious worke properly so to be called to which by dutie debt and right for the workes sake reward is to be yeelded is that a man do it of himselfe and by his owne power For so saith Hilary a Hilar. de Trin. lib. 11. Mereri eius est qui ipse sib◠meriti acqui rendi author existi◠It is for him to merit who himselfe is to himselfe the author of getting his
in this better state are we not still bound to performe that which God commaundeth doth our high aduauncement to be the children of God take away the obligation of our dutie towards God If it doe not so and surely we are so farre from opinion of taking it away as that rather it doth increase it then what shall become of Maister Bishops answer We were bound before to the keeping of Gods commaundements and we continue bound still what merit can there be more now in the doing of them then there was before What Maister Bishop did our Sauiour meane that by our natiue condition we were to say We are vnprofitable seruants we haue done but our dutie and did he meane that in our better condition of grace in Christ we are not to say so See gentle Reader this is one of them who take vpon them to be the onely Maisters of the world and as if all learning and truth were locked vp in their Schooles But had he not so much reason as to consider that Christ taught his Disciples this lesson when they were now partakers of that better state In this betternesse of condition and estate Christ teacheth them that when they haue done all that is commaunded they should say Wee are vnprofitable seruants yea and by the comparison precedent setteth them foorth still in condition of seruants vnto God and sheweth that they cannot of dutie expect so much as thankes for all that they haue done Doth a man thanke his seruant because he doth that which was commaunded him I trow not So likewise ye when ye haue done all say we are vnprofitable seruants c. As if hee should say Because you are seruants learne you to conceiue in like sort of your seruice Now Maister Bishop hauing set downe that goodly commentarie addeth And this is Saint Ambrose his exposition vpon the place But why doth he not set downe the words of Ambrose why doth he seeke to steale away onely with setting downe his name Let Saint Ambrose himselfe speake and hee saith to his purpose not one word nay he speaketh against him i Ambros in Luc. lib. 8. cap. 17. Nemo in operibus glorietur quia iure Domino debemus obsequium Agnosce te esse seruum plurimis obsequijs defaeneratum Non te praeferas quia filius Dei diceris agnoscenda gratia sed non ignoranda natura neque te iactes si benè sâ—ruisti quod facere debuisti Let no man reioice saith he or glorie in workes because by right wee owe dutie to the Lord. Acknowledge thy selfe to be a seruant that art indebted in manifold seruice Do not set vp thy selfe for that thou art called the childe of God thou art to acknowledge grace but not to be ignorant of nature and doe not vaunt thy selfe that thou hast serued well vvhich thou wast bound to doe In which words he giueth plainely to vnderstand that our natiue condition of seruice continueth still and is not taken away by the state of the grace of God and that we are still to remember that we do but out duty we do but what we are bound to do in all that we can do Now further he alledgeth Chrysostome but where is the place We doubt him to be as false in Chrysostome as he was in Ambrose and yet in that which he citeth what is there for merit or what against debt and duty of seruice vnto God Chrysostome taketh it for wholsome counsell for vs to say that we be vnprofitable seruants least pride destroy our good workes But what was it Chrysostomes minde that we should say so and not thinke so Did he meane that by lying we should auoide pride S. Austine well asketh the question k Aug. de verb. Apost ser 25. Propter humilitateÌ„ ergò mentiris Wilt thou then lye to shew humility S. Bernard hauing cited those words of Christ addeth thus l Berna de tripl custod Sed hoc inquies propter humilitateÌ„ monuit esse dicenduÌ„ Planè propter humilitatem sed nunquid coÌ„tra veritatem But thou wilt say that Christ hath taught so to say for humilities sake True saith he it was for humility indeede but what against truth What Chrysostome conceiued of the words it may appeare when he saith m Chrysost ad pop Antioch hom 53. Omnia quae facimus aginius debitum implentes Propterea ipse dicebat c. All that we do we do as fulfilling duty therefore Christ said When ye haue done all say We are vnprofitable seruants c. In another place he gathereth thereof that n Idem de paenitent Qui omnia faciunt parua fecisse computabuntur they which haue done all shall be reckoned to haue done but little and againe that Christ thereby commandeth vs o IdeÌ„ de paenit confess Obliuionâ— tradere bona opera to forget our good workes namely as not woorth the remembrance and reckoning of howsoeuer God in fauour mercy do accept them But most directly he speaketh to our purpose where hauing set downe the words before alledged p Chrysost ad Coloss hom 2. Supra sect 2. No man sheweth such conuersation of life as that he can be worthy of the Kingdome c. he addeth Wherefore Christ saith When ye haue done all say We are vnprofitable seruants c. This is it then that our Sauiour Christ would signifie in those words that a man by doing whatsoeuer he can do cannot attaine to be worthy of the Kingdome of Christ but that it is to vs altogether the gift of God To which purpose Marke the auncient Hermite notably applieth the same words q Marc. Heremit li. de bis qui se putant operib iustificari Dominus totius legis debitores nos esse iudicari volens filioruÌ„ adoptionem proptio sanguine nobis gratuitò datam inquit Cùm omnia feceritis c. Proptereà regnum coeloruÌ„ non est merces eperuÌ„ sed gratia Domini fiâ—clilus seruis praeparaâ—a Our Lord saith he willing to shew that we are debtors of the whole law and that the adoption of children is freely giuen to vs by his bloud saith when ye haue done all things that are commanded you say we are vnprofitable seruants c. Therefore the Kingdome of heauen is not the reward or wages of workes but it is the grace or gift of God prepared for his faithfull seruants On euery side therefore those words of Christ are taken to import somewhat against merit and woorth yet M. Bishop by meanes that his minion of Rome hath hoodwinked his eies cannot see so much but he is still doting vpon that which he can no where finde Which the more plainly to shew he citeth Bede for another construction of these words of Christ that therefore we are to account our selues vnprofitable seruants because of all that we do there ariseth no profit to God but why did he leaue out that which Bede there addeth as
vow or not yet this is not so alwayes and in all vowes because as shall be hereafter shewed it is one part of honour and dutie which God requireth of euery Christian man that we religiously vow and promise our selues and our faithful seruice vnto him Whereby it appeareth as touching the thing vowed that it is not alwayes at our free libertie and choise before our vow whether to do it or not For seeing necessary duties are some part of the matter of vowes and it cannot but be sinne to forgo necessary and commanded dutie it must needs follow that vowes are made of those things also which it is sinne otherwise not to do and are not at our choise and libertie whether to be bound to them or not It had bin sinne in Iacob not to haue the Lord for his God and yet it is the thing that he voweth as we haue seene Then shall the Lord be my God The words which M. Bishop alledgeth for his purpose out of Deuteronomy Å¿ Deut. 23.21 If thou vow a vow be not slacke to performe it but if thou forbearest to vow it shall be no sinne vnto thee are altogether referred to legall vowes The spirituall dutie of thanksgiuing exercised by those types and figures could not be omitted without sin but it was no sinne not to make the ceremoniall vow they were at their owne free choise and libertie in that behalfe but we cannot thence frame a rule generally for all vowes The other place which is cited is wholly impertinent S. Paul thereby not onely affirming that the father doth well to keepe his daughter a virgine when he is vpon good grounds assured that he hath no necessitie to do otherwise when he hath ful resolution that without any snare or danger to her he may so do t 1. Corin. 7.37 He that standeth firme in his owne heart that he hath no need by perill or feare of incontinencie to marry his daughter but hath full power ouer his owne will to do safely what he liketh in that behalfe and hath decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin he doth well u Ambros in 1. Cor. 7. Hoc dicit vt qui virginem habet cui animus ad nuptias non est seruet illam nec illic ingerat fomitem nuptiarum quam videt nubendi voluntateÌ„ non habere si enim beneficia praestanda sunt quantò magis minimè sunt anferendâ— This is his meaning saith S. Ambrose that he that hath a daughter that hath no minde to marry keepe her a virgin and do not thrust vpon her occasion of mariage who he seeth hath no will or desire thereto for if it be for a man to do a benefite much more is it for him not to take it away Now how badly doth M. Bishop deale to wrest these words to his description of vowes as if the Apostle had spoken of vowing to be where there is no necessitie thereof but a man hath full power whether to vow or not when indeed he saith nothing at all to that effect Here is therefore as yet no proofe that libertie to promise or not to promise is of the substance of a vow nothing to proue that the name of vowes doth not belong to the acceptance of necessary duties such duties as in the refusall whereof we should commit sinne Nothing therefore is there to hinder but that the promise that we make to God in baptisme should properly be called a vow if we vnderstand the proper vse thereof in respect of the thing vowed as M. Bishop doth We take the proper vse from the manner not from the matter of it as hath bene before said but because the question here is what is properly the matter of a vow we say there is no exception thence to be taken why the promise of baptisme should not properly be called a vow Surely Hierome maketh x Hieron in Esa lib. 7. cap. 19. Votum offert et soluit Domino qui est sanctus corpore spiritu holinesse in body and spirit the matter of a Christian vow S. Austin asketh the question answereth it y Augus in psal 75. Quid debemus vouereâ— Credere in illum sperare ab illo vitaÌ„ aeternam benè viuâ—re secundum communeÌ„ moduÌ„ furiuÌ„ non facerè adulterium non facere noÌ„ amare vinolentiaÌ„ c. What are we to vow to God To beleeue in him to hope for eternal life at his hands to liue wel according to the manner of life that is common to all not to steale not to commit adultery not to loue drunkennes not to be proud not to kil not to hate our brother And againe z Jdem in Psal 131. Quid vouemus Deo nisi vt simuâ— templuÌ„ Dei What do we vow to God but to be the temple of God He maketh it a Idem de Temp. ser 7. VotuÌ„ eptimuÌ„ offeâ—re animaÌ„ nostraÌ„ Quomodo Moribus sanctis cogitationibus castiâ— operibus fructuosis auertendo à malo conuertendo ad bonum the best vow to offer our soule to God How By holy behauiour by chast thoughts by good workes by declining from euill and turning to good If these things be the matter of Christian vows why is the profession of baptisme which containeth al these things denied to be a vow The great schoolmaster of the Romane church defineth b Pet. Lombard sen lib. 4. dist 38. VotuÌ„ est testificatio quaedaÌ„ promissionis spontaneae quae Deo de his quae Dei sunt fieri debet c. Commune illud quod in baptismo omnes faciunt c. a vow to be the testification of a voluntary promise which is to be made to God and concerning those things which belong to God and according to this definition maketh that a vow which all make in baptisme because there voluÌ„tarily men protest and promise to consecrate to God both their bodies and their soules as being both his by right of creation redemption and wil M. Bishop here come in and tell vs Hic magister non tenetur Here our master tels a lie Their ordinary glosse calleth those protestations of baptisme c Gloss ordinar in Psal 75. Communia vota sine quibus non est salus the common vowes without which there is no saluation and Thomas Aquinas durst not deny but that the same properly do fall into the nature of a vow because d Thom. Aquin. sum 22 q. 88. art 2. ad 1. Sub voto baptizatoruÌ„ cadit quia voluntariè fit licet sit de necessitate salutis c. in corp Omninò voluntarium proprijssimè cadit sub voto they are voluÌ„tarily done but forsooth most properly they are no vowes because that is most properly a vow which is altogether voluntary that is such as that a man is wholly at his owne choise whether he do it or not And whence commeth this most properly Marry out of the forge of
Gods word this we allow Secondly that it be so made that it may stand with Christian libertie that is that it make not such things necessarie in conscience which Christian religion leaues at libertie This rule of his is flat repugnant to the nature of a vow and contrary to himselfe For he saith a little before that a Christian may vow fasting prayer almes-deeds I then demaund hauing vowed these things is he not bound to performe them Yes or else he breakes his vow with which God is highly displeased * Deut 23. Eccles 30. An vnfaithfull promise displeaseth God Then is it manifest that all vowes do abridge vs of our libertie and make that vnlawfull for vs which before our vow was lawfull which is so euident of it selfe that I maruell where the mans wit and memorie was when he wrote the contrary His other rules that a vow be made with good deliberation and with consent of our superiours and not onely of things possible but also of the better sort Quaest 88. we allow for they are taken out of our Doctors See S. Thom. R. ABBOT That which M. Perkins saith is true that in the law of Moses the ceremoniall worke it selfe was a part of the worship of God and was to be done in it selfe by way of obedience to God He speaketh not of the act of vowing simply by it selfe as M. Bishop falsly wresteth his words but of the vow of a ceremoniall dutie in the way of seruice to God which if M. Bishop do not acknowledge to be abolished he must become a Iew and practise the sacrifices and offerings prescribed by Moses law But of this he telleth vs that we shall heare more hereafter and we are content to wait his leisure As touching vowes vnder the Gospell M. Perkins affirmeth that they may be made as touching the performance of some outward bodily exercise for some good ends and purposes as when a man seeing himselfe prone to drunkennesse doth by vow bind himselfe for a time to the forbearing of wine and strong drinke or vpon occasions tieth himselfe to set fasting and prayer and reading of the Scriptures and giuing of some set almes and such like But as touching such vowes he deliuereth certaine cautions to be obserued The first M. Bishop alloweth that our vow be agreeable to the will and word of God The second he vnderstandeth not and therefore cauilleth at it It is required that our vow stand with Christian libertie that is that by vowing we intangle not our consciences with any opinioÌ„ of the necessity of the things themselues which we haue vowed as if any worship or holinesse consisted in those externall and formall obseruations but that in our practise of them we know that in themselues they are no matters of conscience nor do yeeld vs any part of righteousnesse with God Now this which M. Perkins applieth against the conceipt of the very things themselues which a man hath vowed M. Bishop construeth as if he meant it of being at liberty from the performing of his vow But a man may religiously performe his vow and yet know that the thing it selfe is of no value with God which he performeth and therefore M. Perkins wits did not faile in deliuering but M. Bishops in vnderstanding Those other conditions that such vowes must be made with consent of superiours and of things that are in our power to do and agreeable to our vocation and calling and with good deliberation and for a good end M. Bishop approueth also and therefore not questioning whence they were taken and telling him that our vprightnesse appeareth therin if we be content to take of them what is consonant agreeable to the truth we so let them go 3 W. BISHOP Now to the points in difference First the Church of Rome saith M. Perkins teacheth that in the new testament we are as much bound to make vowes as was the Church of the Iewes we say no Considering that the Ceremoniall Law is now abolished and we haue only two Ceremonies by commandement to be obserued for parts of Gods worship Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord. Answer What is not your Holy-day seruice which you call diuine seruice any part of Gods worship in your owne opinions Can a publike assembly instituted to honour God by prayer and thankesgiuing with externall ceremony of time place apparell kneeling standing and sitting be no part of Gods worship in your irreligious Congregations assembled together against Christ and his catholike Church be it so But admitting as you do your seruice to be good it could not truly be denied to belong vnto the worship of God But to the matter of difference you grow very carelesse in your reports of our doctrine for we hold that neither in the old nor new law any man is bound to vow but that it is and euer was a councell and no commandement neuerthelesse a thing of great deuotion and perfection in both states intrinsecally belonging and much furthering to the true worship of almightie God which we proue in this sort In a vow are two things the one is the good which is vowed called the materiall part for example Fasting c. The other the promise it selfe made to God which is the forme the materiall parts do belong vnto their seuerall vertues but this promise and performance of it be substantiall parts of Gods worship For by promising of any good thing vnto God we acknowledge and professe that God is the soueraigne goodnesse it selfe and taketh great pleasure in all good purposes and determinations therefore to honour and worship him we make that good promise againe in performing that good seruice of God we testifie that he is most maiesticall reuerend and dreadfull And consequently that all promises made to him are to be accomplished most diligently and without delay wherein we honour and worship him as contrariwise they doe much dishonour him who breake with him as if hee were of no better account then to be so deluded This thing in it selfe is so certaine and cleare that he who denies it must needes either be ignorant in the nature of a vow or not know wherein the true worship of God consisteth for according vnto the holy Scriptures it selfe all good dâ—edes done to the glory of God be acts of the true worship of God And Saint Anne * Luk. 1. did worship God by fasting and prayer And * Phil. 4. almes bestowed on Gods prisoners is called a sacrifice pleasing and acceptable to God And it is said * Iac. 5. to be a pure religion before God to visite Orphanes and widdowes If then all other vertuous duties done to the glory of God be parts of his true worship much more vowes which by speciall promise dedicate a good deede to Gods honour they then being of their owne nature speciall parts of his true worship of God it followeth necessary that at all times they were and may be vsed to the
he would praise and thank him R. ABBOT a Psal 76.11 Vow and performe vnto the Lord your God saith the Prophet all ye that be round about him M. Perkins verie truly saith that these words whether we call them an exhortation or a commandement did concerne the Iewes onely as touching ceremoniall vowes but as touching the spirituall intendment of them of praise and thanksgiuing do generally concerne both them and vs. M. Bishop like old True-pennie neuer but like himselfe runneth away with a peece of this answer and setteth himselfe to proue that which M. Perkins denieth not that the words respect both the Iewes and vs. We acknowledge so much M. Bishop we say they concerne onely them in in those duties or deuotions that were proper to them onely but in common they concerne both them and vs in those duties and deuotions that belong to both We cannot doubt but that the Prophet had reference to the condition of that time did inuite both the Priests and the people to that outward seruice of sacrifices and offerings in the exercise whereof it pleased God in his wisedome then to traine them vp But because we heare God so often professing that he respected not their naked and bare sacrifices and seeming so to reckon of them as if he had neuer giuen commandement of any such namely when they were destitute of that inward pietie and obedience and deuotion which God would haue to be exercised thereby therefore we must conceiue that the Prophet here also looked further then to outward seruice and in coÌ„mending to them the exercises thereof did call them to inward affections of praise and thankesgiuing vnto God Seeing then the outward solemnities and ceremonies which were the externall matter of their vowes were but instructions and inducements to spirituall offices and duties which in the right vse of vowes were principally vowed thereby therefore in the spirituall construction of those ceremonies we are to learne what is the true and proper matter of Christian vowes And because God as he is the same God so as touching spirituall worship is alike worshipped from the beginning to the ende we cannot doubt but that in the example and practise of the faithfull in those times we may behold as in a glasse what the duties are that by their vowes are recommended vnto vs. What we find amongst them we know the same belongeth to vs what we find not amoÌ„gst them their vowes giue vs no warrant or example of it Now what applications constructions they made of those sacrifices offerings and other ceremonies which they vowed vnto God we may see by many phrases speeches which the Scriptures purposely vse to shew the meaning of them Many examples thereof we haue in the Psalmes b Psal 4.5 Offer the sacrifices of righteousnesse c 50.14.23 Offer vnto God thankesgiuing and he that sacrificeth praise he honoreth me d 51.17 The sacrifices of God are a contrite spirite a contrite and broken heart f 107 22. Let them offer sacrifices of praise g 115.17 I will offer to thee a sacrifice of praise h 141.2 Let my prayer be in thy sight for incense and the lifting vp of my hands an euening sacrifice Thus saith Ionas i Ion. 2.9 I will sacrifice vnto thee with the voyce of thankesgiuing and Osee k Osc 14.13 We will render vnto thee the calues of our lips The vow of humbling or afflicting themselues by fasting what it imported appeareth by Gods reprouing of them for that l Esa 58.3 in the day of their fast they sought their owne will as giuing to vnderstand thas by their fast they were to be instructed to the forbearing of their owne desires to the renouncing of their owne wils to the subduing of their owne corrupt and euill affections to the eschuing of crueltie oppression and violence that they might make way to the workes of mercie which God did coÌ„mand them as in the Prophets words there is shewed m Ver. 6. Is not this the fast that I haue chosen to loose the bonds of wickednesse to take off the heauie burdens and to let the oppressed go free and to breake euery yoke Is it not to deale thy bread to the hungrie to bring the poore that wandreth into thy house c. In briefe the Prophet Micheas sheweth the signification of this humbling and of all their sacrifices n Mich 6.8 He hath shewed thee O man what is good and what the Lord thy God requireth of thee Surely to do iudgement and to loue mercy and to humble thy selfe to walke with thy God The vow of the Nazarites was the principall vow of all the rest What the intention thereof was is expressed in the first description of the ceremonie of it o Num. 6.2 to be separated to the Lord. Now this was the common condition of all that people to be separated to the Lord as God himselfe giueth them to vnderstand p Leuit. 20.24.26 I am the Lord your God which haue separated you from other people therefore shall ye be holy vnto me for I the Lord am holy and I haue separated you from other people that ye should be mine But God by a speciall vow of ceremoniall obseruations whereby in outward things for the time they were diuided from the common conuersation of themselues and their owne people would giue a spectacle and example to the rest of them of putting off those carnall and earthly affections by which they should be like to other peoples for preseruing of spiritual integritie and holinesse towards him And therein is exemplified the condition of all the faithfull of whom our Sauiour hath told vs that q Ioh. 15.19 they are not of the world but he hath chosen them out of the world and therefore are r 2. Pet. 1.4 to flie the corruption that is in the world by lust and to hearken to the voyce of God Å¿ 2. Cor. 16.17 Come out from among them and separate your selues saith the Lord and touch no vncleane thing and I will receiue you These are then the vowes that belong to vs vowes of prayer of praise and thankesgiuing of denying our selues of mortifying our owne affections of mercie and compassion towards our brethren and in a word of keeping our selues holy vnto God euen those vowes whereof we reade many examples in the Psalmes and other Scriptures t Psal 27.8 Thou saidest seeke ye my face and my heart answered thee O Lord I will seeke thy face u 79 9.13 Helpe vs O God of our saluation for the glorie of thy name c. So we that be thy people and sheepe of thy pâ—sture shall praise thee for euer and from generation to generation we will set forth thy praise x 80.17 Let thy hand be vpon the man of thy right hand and vpon the sonne of man whom thou madest so strong for thine owne selfe so will not
h Luk. 12 21. So is euery one that gathereth riches to himselfe and is not rich in God Wo be to them that are rich in this world and are not rich in God but a man may be rich in this world yet rich in God also by acknowledging spiritually his owne pouerty in himself and receiuing all things of Gods mercy Seeing therefore a man may be rich according to this world and yet none of them to whom Christ saith Wo be to rich men surely nothing hindereth but that a man may be rich and yet may be one of those poore whom Christ pronounceth to be blessed and therfore M. Bishops argument is idle and proueth nothing lesse then that Christs sentence is to be vnderstood of voluntary pouertie so that still it remaineth good that the vow of pouerty and beggery is the voluntary casting away of the blessing of God and the vndertaking of his curse 20. W. BISHOP Thus M. Perkins his texts of Scripture against pouertie failing him he fetcheth about another way saying that it is a rule of the holy Ghost He that will not labour namely in some speciall and warrantable calling must not eate * Thess 2. Ans I allow both the text and the glosse and find nothing there against religious persons whose calling is speciall perfect and therefore best warrantable not so saith he because they giue thēselues to prayer fasting What a profane stupiditie is this Is not a life giuen to prayer and fasting agreeable to the wil of God and lawes of his church albeit many religious men do ouer and besides very great seruices to Gods church in preaching teaching and writing of most learned books But suppose they did nothing else but fast and pray did they not very well deserue their sustenance yes much better then they which trauell all the yeare about the prouiding of it For in vaine do men labor if God blesse not their worke with seasonable weather which he doth rather at the prayer and instance of such good innocent soules that are to be fed with it then for the Plough-mans owne labors sake And if by their fasting watching and such like afflictions of their bodies they do partly satisfie for our superfluous pampering of the flesh and teach vs by their good example to bridle and correct it do they not deserue at our hands bodily sustenance And who better performes all duties of the second table then they being most obedient to all their superiours and not hurting their neighbour in life person or any maner of their goods And so in their seuerall callings offend no honest men and do much good both vnto the Church and Common-wealth R. ABBOT If S. Paul whē he said a 2. Thess 3.10 He that wil not labor let him not eate did take praying to be laboring then the Messalians had as wel to answer for themselues as the begging Friers because they took as great paines in praying as the begging Friers cā do yea those idle loiterers concerning whō the Apostle speaketh had sufficient to answer for them selues that there was reason for them to eate because they did pray Surely M. Bishop is a good proctor for such thriftles drones who wil be content to pray apace as much as the Friers do if that may be reckned a labor for which to require their meate But praier is a cōmon duty seruice of all callings not a distinct labor of any one Till M. Bish blotted this paper I think it was neuer read that praier fasting was a calling saue only in the conceit of those Euchites or Messalians of whō I spake albeit they indeed fasted not But wheras M. Perkins saith that men liuing apart giuing themselues only to praier and fasting do liue in no calling M. Bishop because he cannot proue the contrary beggeth it What a profane stupiditie is this saith he Is not a life giuen to prayer and fasting put in as it should be only to prayer and fasting agreeable to the wil of God and lawes of his Church You should not haue asked the question M. Bishop but haue proued it so to be because therin stood the question which it was your stupidity not to see The argument propoundeth to you that it is necessary for euery man to labor in some calling that he may haue according to Gods ordināce wherof to eate It alledgeth that to liue apart to be giuen only to praier fasting is not to labor in a calling and do you answer al with Is it not so To make vp the matter he addeth that many religious men do ouer and beside very great seruices to Gods church in preaching teaching and writing of most learned books Ye say wel M. Bishop such mē because they labor may iustly eate but these matters are accidental and their vow religion may stand without them and therfore the matter is not answered by them I admit that which he saith but there might here worthy stories be told of the preachings of their Friers of all sorts But M. Bishop himselfe knowing that this is but impertinent goeth on Suppose they did nothing else but fast and pray did they not very well deserue their sustenance If they did nothing but fast pray it should be with them according to the Apostles rule because then they should eate nothing But now beside fasting and praying they eate also which the Apostle sayth they should not do because they do not worke They fast a little that they may eate enough and there is no idle lozell but would be content with their fasting so that he may haue their diet otherwise In a word M. Bishop may keepe his opinion to him selfe but the Apostle sufficiently teacheth vs that because they labour not therefore they do not so well deserue sustenance as they who labour all the yeare for the prouiding of it As for the blessing of God it dependeth not vpon the prayers of such who haue no warrant for the state of life wherein they pray and the ploughmans prayer is more acceptable to God then theirs because he followeth that rule of life which God hath taught who neuer prescribed any rule of Monkish trade Good innocent soules saith he whereas by all stories it appeareth that there hath not bene a more stinking vermine vpon the earth euen some of their owne men haue discouered them so to be But M. Bishop is not satisfied vnlesse to folly he adde blasphemie saying that they satisfie for our superfluous pampering of the flesh Impious man Christ is the satisfaction for our sins what haue we to do with the satisfactions of wretched men who damnably sinne in those things wherein they take vpon them to satisfie for others sins And what M. Bishop is there any superfluous pampering of the flesh to be found amongst you Alas how haue ye deceiued vs all this while We thought that you had bene nothing but spirit and that superfluous pampering of the
flesh had bene onely amongst vs. But your teeth would haue bit your tongue if ye had not somewhat told vs truth Take it to ye M. Bishop for it belongeth to none more rightly then it doth to you and the example that ye lay before ye fitteth accordingly But to shut vp all this matter he telleth vs that none performe all duties of the second table better then they As how They are most obedient to their superiours God hath commaunded them to obey and honour their parents their princes and gouerners and they leaue these at sixe and seuen as they say to performe obedience to other superiours superstitiously deuised of their owne They many times impiously with the Iews cast off the respect of their parents by pretence of their vows they withdraw themselues into lurking dens from seruice to their princes and publike state yea many times they nourish rebellion and treason against them and yet they are most obedient of all other being not at all obedient to them whom God hath coÌ„manded them to obey Againe he saith they hurt not their neighbour in life person or any manner of goods Yea but the life of a Christian man consisteth not in doing no hurt onely vnlesse he also do good and what good do they It is doing good that Christ shall commend at the last day b Mat. 25.35 I was hungry and ye gaue me meate and thirstie and ye gaue me drinke On the other side he shall obiect the want of doing good c Ver. 42. I was hungry and ye gaue me no meate and thirstie and ye gaue me no drinke And what shall the Monkes then say O Lord though we did thee no good yet we did thee no hurt We had wherewith to feed thee and to clothe thee and to harbour thee but we gaue all away at once and made a vow that we would neuer haue any thing againe to do thee good thou shouldest therefore starue and perish for hunger and cold but looke for nothing further at our hands We were content to fast and pray according to our rule and to spend our time in such witlesse obseruations as our founders directed vs for matters of great perfection but as for those things which thou hast required we left them to men of more base and vnperfect state as nothing at all concerning vs. This is their begging Friers condition of life and this is that performing of the duties of the second table which M. Bishop speaketh of They fast and pray but do no good at all neither to Church nor commonwealth neither hath any kind of men beâ—e generally more offensiue and pernicious then they haue bene 21. W. BISHOP After all this waste wind M. Perkins confesseth that a man may vpon a speciall calling sell all his goods as the Apostles did What then good Sir shall become of your former arguments May one then vow a curse of the Law and leaue off prayer for neither pouertie nor riches and say that it is not a blesseder thing to giue then to receiue All these arguments which were whilome of great force must now be nothing worth because it pleaseth M. Perkins the wind now sits in an other corner such weathercocks surely are to be much respected He saith further in time of persecution a man may also leaue all he should rather haue said he must leaue all or else lose al for the persecutor will not spare him Lastly he doth not condemne old auncient Monks who liued by the sweate of their browes and were married many of them as he saith but his authors cited say not so neither shall he be able to cite one auncient allowed and approoued writer who sayth that the auncient Monkes liued with their wiues if perhaps they had bene married before But no maruell if fleshly Ministers thinke it no life without their fleshly mates As for labouring at vacant times it was alwayes and is to this day in practise among many religions If other do in good studies writing or teaching imploy that time of labour no doubt but they do farre better R. ABBOT There is no man but easily conceiueth that those things many times which of themselues are vnlawfull and wicked in vs yet arelawfull and necessary when God commaundeth them It had bin a wicked thing in Abraham of his owne head to attempt the killing of his son but it was an act of religious and godly obedience when God required it It is desperate wickednesse for a man wilfully to cast away his owne life but at Gods commaundement to offer and yeeld his life it is right and iust It was vncleannes in Moses law to touch any excrement or dung yet when God appointed a Ezech. 4.12 Ezechiel so to do it was no vncleannesse The Iewes did sin grieuously in binding themselues by vow not to honour their parents and yet when Christ calleth no man may say b Mat. 8.21 Let me first go and burie my father yea c Luke 14 26. he that hateth not father and mother saith Christ he cannot be my disciple Euen so albeit it be superstitious and sinfull of our owne heads to relinquish the state of life whereunto God hath called vs vnder pretence and colour of giuing our selues idlely to prayer and fasting yet it is sacred and holy obedience to leaue all when God calleth from all who yet neuer calleth vs in the leauing of all things to vow the neuer hauing of any thing againe These cases are sensible and manifest neither was there cause for M. Bishop to talke of wind and wethercocke in M. Perkins but rather to wish better discretion and vnderstanding to himselfe As for the auncient Monkes albeit many of them were very absurd and senslesse hypocrites yet we denie not but many that went vnder that name were iust and holy men trained vp as in our vniuersities to vertue and learning that they might afterwards serue for the ministery of the Church M. Bishop would gladly attribute to their Monks some imitation of them but it sticketh betwixt his teeth and he knoweth not well how to bring it out They are so vnlike them that they are scant worthy to be accounted as apes in comparison of men That which M. Perkins saith of maried Monks is taken out of S. Austin though he cite not the place who setting down the heresie of them that were called d August haer 40. Apostolici qui se isto nomina arrogantissimè vocauerunt quòd in communionem suaÌ„ noÌ„ reciperent vtentes coÌ„iugibus res proprias possidentes quales habet Catholicae Ecclesia Monachos Clerecos plurimos Apostolici saith that arrogantly they so called themselues for that they receiued not into their communion VTENTES CONIVGIBVS such as had company with their wiues and possessed any thing of their owne such saith he as the Catholicke Church hath many both Monks and Clergie men Let M. Bishop tell vs the English of vtentes coniugibus and
all Christians but voluntarily to be followed as a matter of speciall perfection by such as will so as that without this a man may be saued and come to eternall life but by the doing of it he meriteth a release of his owne and other mens sins and an eminent and more then ordinary degree of glory in euerlasting life But the text plainly sheweth that this cannot be there meant and that the lesson that Christ taught him did concerne a dutie necessary for the obtaining of eternall life The question that he moueth to Christ is l Mat. 19.16 Good master what shall I do to obtaine eternall life Our Sauiour answereth If thou wilt enter into lift keepe the commaundements He professeth himselfe so to haue done from his youth and addeth what lacke I yet What is it whereto he supposeth somewhat yet to be lacking Euery man seeth whereto it is to be referred What lacke I yet to the obtaining of eternal life Accordingly then the answer of Christ is to be construed If thou wilt be perfect that is lacking nothing to the obtaining of eternall life go sell all that thou hast and giue to the poore and thou shalt haue treasure in heauen and come and follow me That this is the meaning of the perfection here spoken of appeareth by the two other Euangelists who thus set downe the answer of Christ m Mark 10.21 One thing is lacking vnto thee n Luke 18.22 Yet lackest thou one thing sel all that thou hast c. Wherto did he lacke one thing but to that whereof he made the question to the obtaining of eternal life Christs words then in effect are Thou hast not yet all that is needfull to the obtaining of eternall life but if thou wilt be perfect lacking nothing thereto go sel all that thou hast c. Now if we vnderstand it as M. Bishop would haue vs then there was no cause why the man should go away so sorowful at that that Christ said For the thing that he desired was to haue eternal life and if he might haue had eternall life without the forgoing of his riches it would haue fully satisfied him But by M. Bishops doctrine it might be said to him that he troubled himselfe in vaine for the words of Christ were but a counsell and not a commaundement and that there was not any necessitie of doing that that was sayd vnto him They that wold be of a high degree of perfection aboue others must so do but if he would rest in a lower degree he might continue as he was and yet obtaine eternall life But the yong man conceiued not so he knew that Christs words imported a conditiō of obtaining eternal life according to the question that he had moued to him and therefore was very sorowfull And hereto accord the words of Christ ensuing Verily I say vnto you that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdome of heauen It is easier for a camell to go through the eie of a needle then for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God Why doth Christ vse these words but that the yong mans respect of his riches did hinder him not from a state of perfection aboue others as M. Bishop dreameth but wholly from entring into the kingdome of God Furthermore it is to be considered how improbable a thing it is that to a man who knew as yet only the Iewish religion had no knowledge of the faith of Christ our Sauior wold giue at first a direction of perfection aboue others in Christian profession He was as yet no disciple of Christ he beleeued not in him and is it credible that he would teach him at the first dash of a ruler according to M. Bishops vnderstanding to become a Monke Nay it appeareth plainly that whereas the man had a zeale of God and no doubt in true meaning did walk according to the Law so farre as he had the true vnderstanding thereof our Sauior Christ wold instruct him that that was not sufficient for the obtaining of eternal life but he must be content vpō his calling and commandement to renounce all that he had to cast off al vaine loue and confidence of worldly things and to become one of his disciples and followers In a word he teacheth him to be of the same mind that the Apostle S. Paul professeth as touching himself o Philip. 36.8 As touching the righteousnes of the law I was vnrebukable but I think all things but losse for the excellent knowledge sake of Christ Iesus my Lord for whom I haue counted all things losse and do iudge them to be dung that I might win Christ. For so it is that morall workes whether of Iewes or of Gentiles are not auailable in the sight of God they want their forme and life and perfection vntill the same be giuen vnto them by the faith of Christ p Ambr. in psal 1 Virtutes sine fide folia sunt videntur virere sed 〈◊〉 non 〈◊〉 Vertues without faith are bu◠leaues saith S. Ambrose they shew greene but they cannot profite vs. Therefore the faith of Christ teacheth vs to renounce all trust and confidence thereof and to trust onely vpon him This is the perfection whereto Christ calleth this yong man as if he should haue said vnto him Thou doest well in that which thou doest but that is not enough if thou wilt haue good of it become my disciple and to that end be content to forgo all that thou hast and come and follow me Where to know how these words do belong to vs it must be considered that this man was called to a corporall and outward following of Christ according to the flesh by meanes whereof he must necessarily forgo the vse of those great possessions that he had Thus the Apostles had partly done already and were afterwards fully and wholly to do being to be corporally employed to preach the Gospell through the world thus Christ calleth this yong rich man to do the same But our following of Christ now cōsisteth not in changing of our places but in giuing him our affections neither is performed by the foote but by the heart neither is it a matter of speciall dutie belonging onely to some but vniuersally concerneth all that belong to him As is then our following of Christ so is our selling of all that we haue a matter of the heart and affection whilest in the midst of all that we haue we haue our minds so vntied free from the loue and respect of worldly things as that we are ready to forgo all when the cause of Christ and his Gospell shall require vs so to do And this M. Bishop out of their owne grounds must be forced to confesse whether he will or not For by Bellarmine we vnderstand that to be a Monk is q Bellar. de Monach cap. 2. Status Episcoporum est status perfectionis adeptae status religiosorum est status
somewhat otherwise his proportion halteth and goeth so lame as that it cannot carry him whither he would faine goe He telleth vs that they now raigne in heauen but we answer him that they raigne and are Kings spiritually in heauen by hauing a victorie and triumph ouer their spirituall enemies not by hauing a dominion and soueraigntie ouer vs. We are taught to acknowledge the Saints and Angels for our a Reu. 6.11 9.10 brethren and fellow-seruants who because they are no other therefore will not take vpon them to be our Lords neither can we without offence â—ender our seruice and deuotion to them Therefore S. Austine saith as we haue seene before b Aug. de vera relig cap. 55. sup We honour them not by seruice but by loue they are to be honoured by imitation not to be worshipped by religion And of the Angels Origen saith that c Origen contra Cels lib. 5. Hoc nobis Angelos Dei reddit satis propitios vt libentèr pro nobis faciant omnia quòd benè affecti sumus erga DeuÌ„ quod Filium eius verbum coÌ„plectimur c. contendentes indies ad clarioreÌ„ eius notitiaÌ„ c. Et paulo ante Ne quis audeat preces offerre nisi soli Domino Deo qui vnus omnibus abundè sufficiat per Seruatorem nostrum Dei Filium c. this is it that gaineth their fauour to vs and maketh them willingly to do all things for vs when they see vs well affected towards God and that we embrace his Sonne Iesus Christ striuing daily to grow more and more to the knowledge of him but no man may dare to offer his prayers but onely to the Lord God who is abundantly sufficient for all by our Sauiour the Sonne of God Now therefore as seruants and subiects to their fellow-seruants and subiects yeeld affection and loue but none setteth vp to other a royall throne to honour them as Princes so we giue our loue and affection to the Saints we testifie and commend their vertues we lay before vs their good example we acknowledge their blisse we desire and long for the fruition of their companie but we make them not our spirituall Princes and Soueraignes and therefore we giue them no dutie or seruice of religion which is the royaltie of God knowing that they would hide their faces and exceedingly abhorre to haue the same offered vnto them And hereby we see how idlely M. B. goeth on in his tale that as good subiects testifie their loyaltie and affection towardes the Prince by honouring the regall throne so good Christians giue testimony of their dutifull estimation and deuotion towards those heauenly creatures by giuing honour vnto their Images For neither haue we the conditioÌ„ of subiects in respect of the Saints neither do we owe any such deuotion or duty to them neither haue the images that are set vp in their names that reference to them as the royall throne hath to the Prince We honor the chaire of estate because of the Princes vse therof for maiestie and state but seeing the Saints are in heauen what haue they to do with blockish idols here on earth or if they were vpon the earth what vse should they haue of them And therefore it is an idle and fond question which he asketh why we yeeld not ciuill reuerence to the representations of Gods Saints aswell as to the shadowes of secular maiestie because we haue no ciuill conuersation with the Saints as we haue with Princes neither is there any ciuill vse of those counterfeit idols as there is of the Princes chaire of state Neither are we therfore fallen out with the Saints as he vainely cauilleth but rather we labour to be and hope to be the same that they are And because we hope so to be and are neither so impious nor so foolish as to think that men hereafter should set vp idols to vs to worship vs thereby therefore we hold it for impietie and folly to vse any such superstition to the images of the Saints As for Princes though they be sinfull men yet we haue learned of Christ concerning them d Mat. 22.21 to giue to Caesar the things that are Caesars and as they are vnto vs the shadowes of the maiestie of God so to giue vnto them ciuiliy some shadowes of the honour that belongeth vnto God 19. W. BISHOP M.P. makes a third point of difference that we may not worship God in any such image in which he hath apeared vnto men In this we do not differ vnlesse he takes it otherwise theÌ„ he deliuereth it Those images we hold more reuereÌ„d then any others as representations nearer approching vnto the Diuinity yet because they do not expresse the Deitie God is not directly apprehended nor worshipped in them but onely by collection as for example The forme of a graue old man in Daniel doth not represent Gods person but we gather by that auncient forme Gods eternity wherby we arise to a more perfect coÌ„ceit of God whoÌ„ we adore now other images of Christ and his Saints do carry our minds directly vpon their proper persons whome in their images we adore and worship after their degrees But we worship images with farre meaner reuerence than any of the Saints in regard onely that they do represent such personages and do induce vs more to loue and honour them and do stirre vp our dulnesse more often and ardently to honour God in the Saints and the Saints in their degrees as also to imitate their holy example as hath bene said more then once that all may vnderstand how farre off we are froÌ„ giuing Gods honour vnto either Saint or Image But this point of difference is made to bring in a common argument of theirs to wit that the worshipping of the golden Calfe is condemned as flat idolatrie * Exod. 32. and yet the Israelites worshipped not the Calfe but God in the Calfe To which we say they did not worship the true God in the Calfe but the God of the Egyptians which was taken by them to haue the shape of a blacke Calfe with white spots See S. August * Lib 18. De ciuit cap. 5. And therfore making the golden Calfe to represent this false God and attributing their deliuerance vnto that supposed God * 1. De nat Deor. Verse 4 and not vnto the God of Israel committed idolatrie which the text proueth most manifest these be thy Gods that brought thee out of Egypt M. Perkins answereth that the meaning is nothing else but that the golden Calfe was a signe of the presence of the true God such glosses without any authority of the auncient Fathers is ridiculous being against the plaine text but saith he we must not thinke theÌ„ so mad as to take a Calfe made with their eare-rings to be their God no but we may well think them so vngratefull vnto the true God their deliuerer that they did ascribe their deliuerance not