teacheth that those sacrifices did q Heb. 9.13 sanctifie as touching the purifying of the flesh that is outwardly to men but r Ver. 9.14 chap. 10.1.2 to sanctifie the conscience to acquit the conscience of sinnes it reserueth as a thing peculiar to the bloud of Christ But saith M. Bishop if satisfaction must be giuen to the congregation how much more reason is it that it be made to God True but what are we sinfull wretches that we should think that any thing that we can do should be a satisfaction to him for sinne But much more absurd are we to thinke that the offering of a bruite creature should be any part of the redemption thereof Our satisfacton therefore is not any thing that we do or can do but it is onely the pleading of a satisfaction payed for vs in the bloud of Christ Yet he still vrgeth that sacrifices were to satisfie God because it is said that vpon the sacrifice the sinne shall be forgiuen But I haue already answered him that it was forgiuen not for the sacrifice sake but for Christs sake whom the offerer was to vnderstand therein And we know that of Sacraments vsually those effects are spoken which properly belong to those things whereof they are sacraments It is rightly said by Tertullian that God in these sacrifices ſ Tertul contra Marc lib. 3. Non quae siebant exigens sed propter quod fiebant required not the things which were done but that for which they were done And therefore as Origen saith as touching the high Priests standing forth to appease the wrath of God when the Angell was gone foorth to be the executioner thereof t Origē in Num. hom 9. Neque enim indumenta Pōtificis purpura Lina bysso contexia erubuisset Angelus ille vastator sed ista quae futura erant indumēta magni Pontificis intellexit ijs cessic The destroying Angell would not haue bashed at the high Priests garments made of purple and wooll and silke but he vnderstood those garments that should be of the great high Priest Iesus Christ and to them he yeelded euen so we are to conceiue that the wrath of God was no whit nor in any sort pacified by those sacrifices for the things themselues that were done therein but hee respected in them the bloud and sacrifice of his onely begotten Sonne and thereto was content to yeeld himselfe satisfied and appeased towards them that offered with faith in him 9. W. BISHOP The reason for vs which indeed is the very groundwork of satisfaction may thus be framed many after pardon obtained of their sins haue had temporall punishment layed vpon them for the same sins and that by Gods owne order wherefore after the forgiuenesse of the sin and the eternall punishment of it through Christs satisfaction there remaineth some temporall paine to be endured by the partie himselfe for the same sin which is most properly that which we call satisfaction They denie that any man hath bene punished temporally for any sin which was once pardoned we proue it first by the example of the Israelites whose murmuration against God was at Moses intercession pardoned Numb 14. yet all the elder sort of them who had seene the miracles wrought in Aegypt for their deliuerance were by the sentence of God depriued of the sight of the land of promise and punished with death in the wildernesse for the very same their murmuration The like iudgement was giuen against Moses himselfe and Aaron Numb 20. Deut. 32. for not glorifying God at the waters of contradiction both of them had their sin pardoned yet were they both afterward for the same debarred from the entrance into the holy land To this M. Perkins answereth first that a man must be considered in a two fold estate as he is vnder the law and as he is vnder grace In the former estate all afflictions were curses of the Law in the latter they are turned vnto them that beleeue in Christ from curses into trials corrections preuentions admonitions instructions and into what you wil else sauing satisfaction Now to the purpose Whereas God saith he denied the beleuing Israelites with Moses and Aaron to enter into the land of Canaan it cannot be proued that it was a punishment or penaltie of the law laid vpon them the Scripture hath no more but that it was an admonition vnto all ages following to take heed of like offences as Paul writeth 1. Cor. 10. All these things came vnto them for examples and were written for our admonition Reply He that will not be ashamed of this audacious assertion needs not to care what he saith Hath the Scripture no more of their fact then that it was an admonition to others Turne to the originall places where the whole matter in particular is related First their murmuration then Moses intercession for them and the obtaining of their pardon and lastly after all the rest Gods sentence of depriuation of them from entring into the land of promise for that their murmuration Againe Aaron shal not enter into the land Numb 14. Num. 20. ve 24. Deut. 32.51 because he hath bin disobedient to my voyce and of Moses Because he hath trespassed against me at the waters of strife So that nothing is more cleare euen by the testimony of the holy Ghost then that their dayes were shortened and their hope of entrance into the land of promise cut off in punishment of those offences which were before forgiuen them And these things being recorded as S. Paul testifieth for our admonition and instruction we are to learne thereby that God so dealeth dayly with all those sinners that he calleth to repentance R. ABBOT M. Bishop here maketh a hot and a long haruest and all his corne will not yeeld him so much as one morsell of bread He telleth vs that the argument which he here handleth is the very groundworke of satisfaction now if the goundworke faile we may be well assured that the building cannot stand We deny indeed that any affliction or iudgement of God hath lien vpon any faithful man in the nature and condition of a punishment after the forgiuenesse of his sinne The things themselues which in their owne nature are punishments and at the first are inflicted in that nature yet the sinne being forgiuen lose that nature and become onely trials preuentions admonitions instructions neither do we therein conceiue Gods anger against vs but his fatherly goodnesse and prouidence care to keepe vs to himselfe that he may make vs partakers of eternall life Thus carnall concupiscence being of it selfe a punishment of sinne though according to the guilt it be taken away by remission of sins yet according to the thing it selfe remaineth in the faithfull not now for a punishment but for the humbling and exercising of vs to make vs to know our selues to draw vs to trust and confidence in God to sharpen our desire
it is a thing receiued m Aug. de praedest sanct cap. 5. A quo nisi ab illo qui te aâ— ceruit ab alio cui non donauit quod donauit tibi Of whom saith S. Austin but of him who hath not giuen to another that which he hath giuen vnto thee Who as he also answereth the Pelagian heretike obiecting the same place n â—acuâ— de perfect instit prepe fiâ—em â—â—â—p rat 〈…〉 inspireth the loue whereby we chuse He addeth further that vainely it should be sayd Chuse life if grace would haue made them do it infallibly without their consent Where we may wonder at his absurd manner of speech Who was euer so mad as to say that God maketh a man to chuse life without his consent which is the same as if he should say that he should make him consent without consent for how should chusing be without consenting We deny not consent but we say with S. Austin o Aug. epâ—st 107. Vâ—catione illa alta atque secreâ—a siâ— eius agit se sunt vt eidem lege atque doctrinâ— accommodet assensum It is God who by his secret calling worketh the mind of man to giue consent We say with S. Bernard p Bernard de grat ex l b arbit Non quod vel ipse consensus ab ipâ—so fit c fecit volentem noâ— est volunt vt suâ— consentienteÌ„ Consent is not of man himselfe but God maketh a man willing that is consenting vnto his will q In Cant â—er 57. Illius disiderâ—uÌ„ tuum creat quod tu eius properas sermoneÌ„ admittere inde est quòd ipse festinit inirare It is his desire of thee that causeth thy desire of him and that thou art forward to receiue his word it commeth of his forwardnesse and hasting to enter into thee 12. W. BISHOP Vnto these two places of the old Testament one vnder the law of Nature and the other vnder Moses law lâ—t vs couple two more out of the new Testament The first may be those kind words of our Sauiour vnto the Iewes Ierusalem Math. 23. Ierusalem c. how often would I haue gathered together thy children as the hen doth her chickens vnder her wings and thou wouldest not Which do plainly demonstrate that there was no want either of Gods helpe inwardly or of Christs perswasion outwardly for their conuersion and that the whole fault lay in their owne refusing and withstanding Gods grace as thâ—se words of Christ do plainly witnesse And thou wouldest not R. ABBOT If M. Bishop were put to the framing of an argument from this place and to bring in this conclusion that man hath Free vvill to conuert and turne to God I suppose it would trouble him very sore The words do rather import that howsoeuer Christ himselfe be amongst vs and speake vnto vs yet our Free will auaileth nothing to make vs to hearken to him but we still refuse and rebell vntill God do worke it in vs to obey and to hearken to his call And thus Moses to giue a reason why the people of Israel profited not by the sight of so manifold signes and wonders which the Lord had done before them and for them sayth a Deut. 29.4 The Lord hath not giuen you an heart to perceiue and eyes to see and eares to heare vnto this day Christ speaketh those words out of his humane affection he sheweth his loue towards them as man he signifieth his paines and labour bestowed amongst them and what occasion he had to complaine as Esay had foretold b Esa 49.4 I haue laboured in vaine I haue spent my strength in vaine and for nothing The words do no more import Free will then all other places of Scripture that do declare and set forth the rebellion of mans nature against God But yet M. Bishop telleth vs that hereby it is signified that God vsed all meanes that concerned him for the sauing of them they by their Free will crossed his purpose herein The words saith he do plainly demonstrate that there was no want either of Gods helpe inwardly or of Christs perswasion outwardly for their conuersion But they do not demonstrate so much yea by diuerse places of the Gospell we see they are very farre from that demonstration For if there wanted no inward helpe for their conuersion how was it sayd by our Sauiour Christ c Mat. 11.25 Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent of the world d Cap. 13.11 To them it is not giuen to know the secrets of the kingdome of heauen e Mar. 4.11.12 all things are to them in parables that they seeing may see and not discerne and they hearing may heare and not vnderstand least at any time they should turne and their sinnes should be forgiuen them How was it sayd by the Euangelist S. Iohn f Iohn 12.39 Therefore could they not beleeue because Esay saith againe He hath blinded their eyes and hardened their heart that they should not see with their eyes nor vnderstand with their heart and should be conuerted and I should heale them How doth S. Paul say g Rom. 11.7 The election hath obtained but the rest haue bene hardened according as it is written God hath giuen them the spirit of slumber eyes that they should not see c. These things being so apparant and plaine how doth M. Bishop tell vs that there wanted no helpe of God inwardly for their conuersion but the want was onely in their owne Free will Surely h Aug. de corrept grat ca. 14. Cui volâ—nti saluuâ— fâ—cere nullum hominuÌ„ resistit arbitriuÌ„ sic enim vâ—lle nolle in volentis aut nolentis est potestate vt diuinam volumtatem non impediat nec superet potestatem De his enim qui faciunt quae non vult facit ipse quae vult c. De ipsis voluntatibus hominum quod vult facit where God is willing to saue as S. Austin saith there no will of man resisteth For to will or to nill is so in the power of him that willeth or nilleth as that it neither hindereth the will of God nor ouerruleth his power because euen of the wils of men he maketh what he will i Euchirid ad Laurent ca. 103 Dum tamen credere non cogamur aliquid omnipotentem DeuÌ„ voluisse fieri factumque non esse qui sine vllu amâ—iguitatibus si in coelo in terra quaecunque voluit fecit profectò facere noluit quodcunque non fecit In no wise may we thinke saith he that the Almightie God would haue any thing to come to passe and that the same doth not come to passe who if he do whatsoeuer he will both in heauen and earth as the truth instructeth vs surely had no wil to do whatsouer he hath not done If therfore God had willed the conuersion of the people of Ierusalem and had inwardly
c. not onely the delight but also the consent and act that he admitteth in his sleepe calling those lasciuious motions a sicknesse of the soule saying that the soule therein committeth a filthinesse of corruption and lamenting that in this kind of euill he continued vnperfect still Whereby it appeareth that whatsoeuer M. Bishop deeme of these dreaming fancies consents yet that they are indeed a sinfull corruption and vncleannesse of the soule such as God abhorreth albeit to the faithfull he imputeth them not And this haply God would haue to be considered in that that by the law he was vncleane from whom by such fancies n Leuit. 15.16 the seed of generation had issued by night the outward vncleannesse seruing to aduertise of that that is within And to the clearing of this whole point that sin may be where the will consenteth not we may very probably make application of sundry other pollutions that are noted in the law of Moses arising of those things which were either natural or casual without any procurement therof by the will Which Gregory plainly approueth when speaking of the womans monethly disease for which by the law she was vncleane he saith thereof that o Gregor apud Bedam hist eccles gent. Angl. lib. 1. cap. 27. Resp 10. Menstrua consuetudo mulieribus non aliqua culpa est videlicet quia naturaliter accidit sed tamen quia natura ipsa ita vitiata est vt etiam sine voluntatis studio videature esse polluta ex culpa venit vitrum in quo seipsa qualis per iudicium facta sit humana natura cognoscat vt homo qui culpam sponte perpetrauit reatum culpae portet inuitus it is no sin because it commeth naturally but yet because nature it selfe is so corrupted as that without any furtherance of the will it is seene to be polluted of sinne came that infirmity wherein the nature of man may take knowledge in what case it is become by the iudgement of God whilest man that sinned by his will doth now beare the guilt of sin by that that he is against his will euen by p Jbid. Resp 11. in fix◠Captiuus ex delectatione quam pertat inuitus the delight of concupiscence which he beareth in him against his will as he expresseth it afterward Let M. Bishop therefore learne that there is a pollution and vncleannesse which is not voluntary to him that is thereby vncleane but lieth as a punishment vpon the nature of man for that sinne that voluntarily was committed in the beginning by man Which serueth him for answer to those two places of Austine which he alledgeth two as he citeth them but indeed but one and that in the booke and chapter which he quoteth last for in the other place Austine hath no such words He saith indeed that q August de vera relig cap. 14 suprae sect 2. sinne is so voluntary an euill as that in no wise it is sinne if it be not voluntary and this is so manifest as that neither the small number of the learned nor the multitude of the vnlearned do dissent therefrom But as he saith so so he himselfe telleth vs in what meaning he saith it which M. Bishops learning should not haue bene ignorant of r Retract lib. 1. cap 13. It must be vnderstood of that sinne saith he which is onely sinne not which is also the punishment of sinne that is to say of Actuall not of Originall sinne But it is Originall sinne whereof we here dispute and therefore by S. Austines owne interpretation those words make nothing against vs albeit Originall sinne also was voluntary by the will of the first man as before was said Now therefore the vnlearned learned men of whom he speaketh are learned enough to see that he wanted not onely learning but discretion also thus to vrge against vs a saying of Austine against the Manichees which the same Austine to salue it against the Pelagians hath expounded in our behalfe directly against him 12. W. BISHOP The third reason for the Catholike is this Where the forme of any thing is taken away there the thing it selfe ceaseth but in baptisme the forme of Originall sinne is taken away ergo M. Perkins shifteth in assigning a wrong forme affirming vs to say that the forme of Originall sinne is the guiltinesse of it which we hold to be neither the forme 1. 2. q. art 3. nor matter of it but as it were the proper passion following it See S. Thomas who deliuereth for the forme of Originall sinne the priuation of Originall iustice which iustice made the will subiect to God The deordination then of the will Mistres and commaunder of all other points in man made by the priuation of originall iustice is the forme of Originall sinne and the deordination of all other parts of man which by a common name is called concupiscence as that learned Doctor noteth is but the materiall part of that sinne so that the will of the regenerate bring by grace through Christ rectified and set againe in good order towards the law of God the forme of Originall sinne which consisteth in deordination of it is taken quite away by baptisme and so consequently the sinne it selfe which cannot be without his proper forme as the argument doth conuince R. ABBOT Of the first proposition of the argument there is no question because the essentiall forme giueth to euery thing to be that that it is The question then is wherin consisteth the forme of sinne what it is that giueth to it properly the nature name of sin M. Bishop saith that M. Perkins shifteth in assigning a wrong forme yet he assigneth in their behalfe the same forme that S. Austine doth and inasmuch as they make S. Austine the ground of their opinion there is great reason that they should vnderstand sinne in the same manner as S. Austine doth But herein appeareth their singular falshood they shew plainly that they alledge him but onely for a colour knowing that if they take sinne in the same meaning as he doth their opinion cannot stand Why do they bring vs Austin to proue for thē that concupiscence is no sinne when in one meaning it is that he denieth it and they deny it in another S. Austine as before I haue shewed placeth the nature of sinne in the effect of it which is to make a man guilty When it doth not so he vnderstandeth it not to be sinne opposing sinne not to righteousnesse as we vnderstand it in this question but to remission and forgiuenesse of sinnes He saith that a August de nupt et concup lib. 1. ca. 26. supra sect 9. to be guilty of sinne is to haue sinne not to be guilty of sinne is to haue no sinne b Cont. Iulian. lib 6 ca. 5. supra sect 9. The baptized is without all sinne but not without all euill that is saith he he is without the guilt of all
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
a conuiction of guilt of death incurred thereby and yet could yeeld no remedie against death being afterwards b Heb. 7.18 disanulled because of the weaknesse and vnprofitablenesse thereof so farre should we be from thinking that of the ceremoniall law it should be sayd Do this and thou shalt liue The yong man demandeth of Christ c Mat. 19.16 What good thing shall I do that I may haue eternall life Now looke of what law our Sauior answereth him as M. Bishop hath cited before d Vers 17. If thou wilt enter into life keepe the commandements of the selfe same law doth he answer another to the same question vpon recitall of a briefe of the commandements e Luc. 10.28 This do and thou shalt liue namely of the morall law to which it hath reference f Leuit. 18.5 where it is first spoken as appeareth by that that followeth for declaration of it Of which also it is rehearsed by g Ezech. 18.11.13 c. Ezechiel the Prophet and is by the Apostle Saint Paul further alledged to shew the difference betwixt h Rom. 10.5 the Righteousnesse of the law and the Righteousnesse of faith Moses saith he this describeth the Righteousnesse of the lavv that the man vvhich doth these things shall liue thereby i Gal. 3.12 The lavv is not of faith but he that doth these things shall liue in them Of which law he saith k Rom. 3.20 By the lavv commeth the knowledge of sinne that it saith l Cap. 7. ver 7.16.22 Thou shalt not lust that he consenteth to it that it is good that he delighteth in it as touching the inner man that the m Cap. 13. v. 9. Gal. 5.14 summe thereof is Thou shalt loue thy neighbour as thy selfe all which doe vndeniably point out vnto vs the morall law as both n August de spir lit ca. 14. Saint Austine and o Hieron epist ad Ctesiphont Saint Hierome out of the same and such like places haue expresly affirmed Of the same law therefore he saith p Gal. 3.10 So manie as are of the workes of the law are vnder the curse for it is written Cursed is euerie one that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law to do them And because no man continueth in all he concludeth hereof q Ver. 11. cap. 2.16 that by the law no man is iustified in the sight of God that by the workes of the law no flesh shall be iustified Now of the selfe same law doth he say that which M. Bishop hath cited for the cutting of his owne throat r Cap. 5.4 Ye are abolished from Christ whosoeuer are iustified by the law thereby teaching vs to resolue that Iustification by Christ and Iustification by the worke of the law cannot possibly concurre in one Now whereas the Apostle for auouching Iustification onely by faith in Christ taketh it for a ground that no man fulfilleth the Righteousnesse of the law M. Bishop that he may be wholy thwart and crosse vnto him affirmeth that by the helpe of Gods grace men are made able to fulfill the law to be iustified thereby Against which assertion to proue that the Righteousnesse of the regenerate and faithfull is not such as that it can answer the iustice and Righteousnesse required in the law M. Perkins alledgeth the common confession of all endited by the Prophet Esay Å¿ Esa 64.6 All our Righteousnesse is as a menstruous or defiled cloth For if the Righteousnesse commaunded by the law be most exact and perfect and no righteousnesse is performed by vs but what by our weaknesse and corruption is blemished and stained then can no righteousnesse of ours satisfie the commandement of the law But M. Bishop answereth that the Prophet speaketh these words in the person of the wicked of that nation and that time and therefore that they are madly applied vnto the righteous Where a man would wonder that he should be so mad as to imagine that prayer to be vttered in the person of wicked men or that wicked men should make mention or any their Righteousnesse vnto God And as for the time it fitteth not the age wherein the Prophet himselfe liued but was prophetically written in respect of a time long after succeeding He foresaw in the spirit the desolation of Ierusalem and the temple and that whole land and thereupon putteth himselfe into the person of the faithfull and maketh himselfe as one of them that should liue at that time This is verie apparent by the Prophets words t Vers 10. Thine holy cities lye wast Sion is a wildernesse and Ierusalem a desert The house of our sanctuarie and of our glorie where our fathers praised thee is burnt vp with fire and all our pleasant things are vvasted This prayer then was to serue for a direction to the faithfull that then should be to make their mone vnto God and to intreat mercie at his hands And very answerable to this propheticall prayer is the prayer of the Prophet Daniel made presently at that time For whereas M. Bishop to proue that the Prophet speaketh in the person of the wicked alledgeth those words u Esa 64 5. Lo thou hast bene angrie for we haue offended and haue euer bene in sinne the Prophet Daniel likewise saith x Dan 9.5 We haue sinned and haue committed iniquitie and done wickedly y Vers 7. O Lord Righteousnesse belongeth vnto thee and vnto vs open shame z Vers 10. We haue not obeyed the voyce of the Lord our God to walke in his wayes c. And whereas he alledgeth the other words a Esa 64.7 There is no man that calleth vpon thy name and standeth vp to take hold of thee the Prophet Daniel in like sort saith b Dan. 9.13 We haue not made our prayer before the Lord our God Both of them say We haue offended We haue sinned We haue not prayed as shewing plainely that they so spake of other men as that they implied themselues also Nay saith M. Bishop that is but the manner of Preachers and specially of such as become Intercessours for others who vse to speake in the persons of them for whom they sue Where he maketh the holy Prophets and seruants of God as verie hypocrites to God as he himselfe is as if they tooke vpon them to accuse themselues to God when they intended nothing lesse But to driue him out of this hole the Prophet Daniel saith of himselfe that in that prayer c Dan. 9.20 he confessed his owne sinnes and the sinnes of his people and why should Daniel the Prophet be sayd to confesse his owne sinnes and not the Prophet Esay or those iust and faithfull in whose person Esay spake Nay both the one and the other spake out of the true affection of the faithfull at all times who alwayes find in themselues defects and defaults whereby they find iust
yet are reputed iust and righteous for his sake and for the Righteousnesse that is in him To this purpose the exposition of Hierome was also brought in and the place quoted He omitted to answer to Anselme because the place was not quoted but why did he ouerpasse the other place cited directly to the point but because he intendeth nothing but treacherie and falshood and wilfully shutteth his eyes against apparent truth The words of Hierome are as cleare as the sunne c Hieron in 2. Cor. cap. 5. Christus pro peccatis nostris oblatus peccati nomen accepit vt nos efficeremâ—r iustitia Dei in ipso non nostra nec in nobis Christ being offered for our sinnes tooke the name of sinne that vve might be made the Righteousnesse of God in him not ours nor in vs. Where it is euident that the Righteousnesse whereby we are iustified before God is not any Righteousnesse that is in vs but it is the Righteousnesse of Christ imputed vnto vs euen as our sinne was imputed vnto him Now then it should seeme that it was not M. Perkins his vaine glosse to make this comparison but it was some likelihood thereof in the text that made all these to conceiue thereof as M. Perkins did As touching the other proposition But Christ was made sinne by imputation of our sinnes he saith that it also is false and denieth that Christ vvas made sinne by imputation But how then if not by imputation Forsooth by being made a sacrifice for sinne But how was he made a sacrifice for sinne if not by hauing sinne imputed vnto him The ancient writers well obserued in the description of the sacrifices of Moses law that the sacrifice for sinne was sometimes called by the name of sinne As where Moses saith d Leuit. 4.29 He shall lay his hand vpon the head of the sinne that is of the sinne offering and he shall slay the sinne that is the sacrifice for sinne Now because they found the name of sinne to be thus giuen to the sacrifice for sinne therefore where it is sayd of Christ that he was made sinne for vs they tooke the meaning to be this that he was made a sacrifice for sinne Which being admitted helpeth M. Bishop nothing because there is yet question to be made why the sacrifice for sinne should it selfe be called by the name of sinne Surely it could be for no other cause but because the sinne of the man for whom it was offered was imputed to the dumbe beast in figure of Christ and it was to die as if it had committed the sinne Therfore the man that had sinned was appointed e Leuit. 1.4 to lay his hand vpon the head of his offering as it were there to lay his sinne So saith Theodoret f Theod in Leuit quaest 1. Qui victimam offerebat imponebat super caput eius manus tanquam suas ipsius operationes pro quibus hostiam offerebat He that brought the sacrifice layed his hands vpon the head thereof as to lay vpon it his owne workes for which he offered the sacrifice Thus doth God himselfe expresse the meaning of that ceremonie * Leuiâ— 16.21 Aaron shall put his hands vpon the head of the Goate and confesse ouer him all the iniquities of the children of Israel and all their trespasses in all their sinnes putting them vpon the head of the goate so the goate shall beare vpon him all their iniquities Sith Christ then was made a sacrifice for sinne it followeth that the sinne of them for whom he was sacrificed was layed vpon him and imputed to him Therefore Origen to apply that figure saith that g Origen in Leuit lib 1 Peccata generis humans imposuit super corpus suuÌ„ Christ layed the sinnes of mankind vpon his owne bodie And thus the Scripture teacheth vs h Esa 53.6 All we like sheepe haue gone astray c. and the Lord hath layed vpon him the iniquities of vs all i 1. Pet. 2.24 He hath borne our sinnes in his bodie vpon the tree Thus Hierome bringeth in our Sauiour Christ saying k Hieron in Psal 87. Irâ—m protellam furoru tui quâ— in gentibus effâ—surus eras super me induxisti qui peccata corum suscepi Thou hast brought vpon me that wrath and storme of thy furie which thou wast to power forth vpon the nations because I haue taken vpon me their sinnes How are our sinnes layed vpon Christ how did he beare them how hath he taken them vpon him but by hauing the same imputed vnto him Therefore Saint Austin saith l August in Psal 22. Delicta nostra sua delicta fecit vt iustitiam suam nostâ—anâ— iustitiam faceret He made our sinnes his sinnes that he might make his Righteousnesse our Righteousnesse God made him sinne that is saith Elias Cretensis m Elias Cretens in Gregor Nazianzen Orat. 5. He suffered him to die as a sinner because of our sinne But Chrysostome goeth yet further not onely n Chrysost in 2. Cor. hom 11. he made him sinne that is he suffered him to be condemned as a sinner but also o Ibid. Iustum fecit peccatorem vt peccatores faceret iustos he made the iust a sinner saith he that he might make sinners iust All which speeches can no otherwise be made good but by graunting the imputation of our sinnes to be layed vpon Iesus Christ especially the last which seemeth verie hardly spoken but yet the Fathers doubt not thus to speake to signifie this imputation as shall appeare further hereafter in the eleuenth Section Now as touching that which he citeth out of Saint Austine to declare what Saint Paul meaneth by the iustice or Righteousnesse of God there is nothing in that exposition that maketh against vs. For we also say that the iustice of God is meant not that whereby God himselfe is iust but whereby he iustifieth vs. For Christ needed not for himselfe to be made vnder the lavv so to performe the Righteousnesse thereof for his owne Iustification before God being otherwise simply and absolutely iust but what he did he did it for our sakes that we thereby through faith in him should be iustified in Gods sight And this iustice or righteousnesse we acknowledge to be giuen vnto vs by Gods free liberality and bounty euen as Christ himselfe is giuen vnto vs and therefore are we said therein p Rom. 5.17 to receiue the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousnesse Which cannot be vnderstood of inherent iustice because we do not yet receiue the abundance of that gift but only q Cap. 8.23 the first fruits it being such as that S. Austine saith thereof so long as we liue here that r August de ciuit Dei li. 19. ca. 27. Jpsa iustitia nostra tanta est in hac vita vt potius remissione peccatorum constet quà m perfectione virtutum it rather consisteth in
for it selfe or as it is an act or worke as if it were any part of our iustice or righteousnesse but as the heart giueth life to the body not by the substance of it selfe which is but flesh as the rest of the body is but by the vitall and quickning power of the soule that is seated therein and as the hand feedeth the body not as being it selfe the foode of the body but by receiuing and ministring vnto it the meat wherewith it is sustained euen so faith iustifieth and giueth life by receiuing Christ to be our righteousnesse and life in him d Act. 26.18 receiuing forgiuenesse of sinnes and inheritance amongst them that are sanctified vnto eternall life But M. Bishop telleth vs that the Apostles meaning in those places is to exclude all such works as either Iew or Gentile did or could bragge of as done of theÌ„selues so thought that by theÌ„ they had deserued to be made Christians A goodly toy Forsooth after they had bene Christians a long time they began to dispute reason the matter whether it were for the works that before they had don that they were made ChristiaÌ„s whether they had deserued by their works to be made Christians wheÌ„ e Ephe. 2.3 they had their coÌ„uersation in the lusts of the flesh in fulfilling the wil of the flesh of the mind walking according to the course of this world and after the Prince that ruleth in the aire the spirit that worketh in the children of disobedience as the Apostle describeth the condition both of Iewes and Gentiles before they were partakers of the grace of Christ Were the Christians then of so slender vnderstanding as that they should make question of their deserts in that estate Was that the thing so much laboured by the false Apostles to perswade men that for their former deserts they were become Christians and had the Apostle so much businesse to weane them and withhold them from the conceipt and opinion of such deserts What should a man spend time and labour to refute so ridiculous so senslesse and absurd deuices Who would thinke that M. Bishop a Doctor of Diuinitie by title should be so simple a man as that his Maister Bellarmine could gull him and gudgeon him with so vaine a tale The matter is plaine After that men had accepted the faith of Christ and were become f Act. 15.1.10 brethren and disciples there came vnto them the false Apostles and preached vnto them g Ver. 2. Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saued They sought to perswade men that to the faith of Christ they must adde the obseruation of Moses law Here was no question whether by any deserts they were become Christians but being now Christians what it was wherein they should repose themselues for iustification and saluation The Galathians were amongst others intangled by those false Apostles and hauing before h Gal 1.9 receiued the Gospell i Cap. 4.27 hauing bene baptized into Christ k Cap. 3.2 hauing receiued the spirit yea and l Ibid. Ver. 4. hauing suffered many things for the Gospell yet were brought to the adioining of circumcision and the law to the faith of Iesus Christ to be iustified thereby This the Apostle inueyeth against and reducing the state of the question from the ceremonies of the law to the whole law determineth not concerning the Popish first iustification but concerning iustification wholy concerning men beleeuing alreadie and in the state of grace that they must be m Ro. 3.20.28 Gal. 3.11 iustified by faith and not by the works of the law yea without the workes of the law yea and saith n Gal. 2.16 we haue beleeued in Christ that we might be iustified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law The Papist saith we beleeue in Christ that we may be iustified by the works of the law but the Apostle saith we beleeued in Christ that we might be iustified by the faith of Iesus Christ and not by the works of the law giueth a reason why we that beleeue in Christ cannot be iustified by the works of the law o Jbid. because by the works of the law no flesh shall be iustified And whereas the Papist againe saith that by Christ and by his grace we are enabled to fulfill the law to be iustified thereby the Apostle peremptorily denounceth p Cap. 5.4 Ye are abolished from Christ ye are fallen from grace whosoeuer are iustified by the law And that we may vnderstand what law he meaneth S. Hierome hauing mentioned those words that by the workes of the law no flesh shall be iustified saith thereof q Hieron ad Ctesiphont Quod ne de lege Moysâ— tantum dictum puâ—es non de omnibus mandatis quae vno legis nomine ontinentur ideÌ„ Apostolus scribit dicens coÌ„sentio legi c. Which that thou maiest not thinke to be spoken onely of the law of Moses that is the ceremoniall law but of all the commaundements which are contained vnder the one name of the law the same Apostle writeth saying I consent to the law or delight in the law of God as touching the inner man But of that before in the third section Hereby then it appeareth that being members of Christ and baptized into him our iustification still consisteth not in workes but onely in the faith of Iesus Christ But M. Bishop by a new qualification telleth vs that all works both of Iew and Gentile are excluded from being any meritorious cause of iustification Not then from being any cause but onely from being any meritorious cause For he hath r Sect. 21. before told vs that that vertuous disposition of which he here speaketh is the cause of iustification But if they be causes how then is it true that he saith here that the first iustification is freely bestowed For Å¿ Rhem. Testam explication of words in the end Gratis freely as the Rhemists tell vs is as much to say as for nothing and if it be bestowed for this vertuous dispositions sake then it is not bestowed for nothing but for hope for charity c. Thus they turne and winde this way and that way and can finde nothing whereupon to stand Saint Austine giueth it for a rule that t August cont Pelag. Celest li. 2. ca. 24. Non enim gratia Dei gratia erit vllo modo nisi fueriâ— gratuita omnimodo the grace of God shall not be grace in any sort except it be free in euery respect And how is it free in euery respect if our workes of preparation or disposition be properly the causes for which it is bestowed vpon vs And what is it but a mockery to say that the Apostle so often absolutely determining against iustification by workes should meane notwithstanding that workes are the very causes of iustification onely that they are not meritorious causes
6. 11. plainly professeth that he cannot tell whether he loue God or God loue him who saith that hope and charity are seated in the darke corners of the will and a man hath but onely coniectures and a probable opinion of the being thereof in himselfe What shall he then make bold of in name of friendship with Christ who knoweth not whether he be a friend to Christ or Christ to him As for the saying of Austine why he alledgeth it I know not vnlesse it be that he were onely desirous to say somewhat out of Austine S. Austine noteth that inherent iustice consisteth in charity which is the summe of the law which is the rule of iustice According therefore to the measure of our charity greater or lesse so is the measure of our righteousnesse We say the same but what is this to shew that charity is the fittest instrument to apply vnto vs the merit of Christ But that he may not dreame of iustification before God by any perfection of charity here let him remember what Saint Austine hath said thereof that f August epist 29. Supra cap. 2. sect 8. perfect charity is in no man so long as he liueth here that the lesnesse thereof to that that it ought to be is by reason of a default or corruption in vs by reason whereof no man liuing shall be iustified in the sight of God 30 W. BISHOP M. Perkins fourth Reason is taken from the iudgement of the auncient Church They are blessed Ambros in Rom. 4. to whom without any labour or worke done iniquities are remitted So no workes or repentance is required of them but onely that they beleeue To these and such like words I answer First that it is very vncertaine whether these Commentaries be Saint Ambroses Secondly that that Author excludeth not repentance but onely the workes of Moses law which the Iewes held to be necessary as circumcision and such like see the place and conferre with it that which he hath written in the same worke vpon the fourth to the Hebrewes where he hath these words Faith is a great thing and without it it is not possible to be saued but faith alone doth not suffice but it is necessary that faith worke by charity and conuerse worthy of God De verb. Ap. ser 40. M. Perkins next authority is gathered out of S. Augustine There is one propitiation for all sinners to beleeue in Christ True but where is it that we neede nothing else but to beleeue Leuit. li. 1. ca. 2. 3. Hesichius saith Grace which is of mercy is apprehended by faith alone and not of works that is we do not merit by our works done before grace any thing at Gods hand but of his mercy receiue both faith and iustification Sup. Cāt. ser 22. 4. Bernard hath Whosoeuer thirsteth after righteousnesse let him beleeue in thee that being iustified by faith alone he may haue peace with God Answer By faith alone he excludeth all other meanes that either Iew or Gentile required but not charity which his very words include for how can we abhorre sinne and thirst after iustice without charity and in the same worke he declareth plainly Serm. 24. that he comprehendeth alwaies charity when he speakes of a iustifying faith saying A right faith doth not make a man righteous if it worke not by charity And againe Neither works without faith nor faith without works is sufficient to make the soule righteous Gal. 3. 5. Chrysostome they said he who rested on faith alone was accursed but Paul sheweth that he is blessed who rested on faith alone Answer He speakes of the Iewes who held Christians accursed because resting on the faith in Christ would not obserue withall Moses law Gal. 5. the Apostle contrariwise denounceth them accursed who would ioyne the ceremonies of Moses law with Christian religion and so faith alone there excludeth onely the old law not the workes of charity so he mangleth pittifully a sentence of S. Basils saying De Humil. Let man acknowledge himselfe to want true iustice and that he is iustified onlie by faith in Christ If a man know himselfe iustified by faith in Christ how can he acknowledge that he wants true iustice His words truly repeated are these Let man acknowledge that he is vnworthie of true iustice and that his iustification comes not of his desert but of the meere mercy of God through Christ So that by faith alone Saint Basil treating of humility excludes all merit of our owne but no necessarie good disposition as you may see in his Sermon de Fide where he proues by many texts of holy Scripture that charitie is as necessarie as faith M. Perkins last testimonie is out of Origen Rom. 3. Who proues as M. Perkins said that onely beleeuing without workes iustifieth by the example of the Theefe on the Crosse of whose good workes there is no mention Answer Origen excludeth no good disposition in vs to iustification but saith that a man may be saued without doing outwardly any good workes if he want time and place as the Theefe did who presently vpon his conuersion was put to death which is good Catholike doctrine but that you may perceiue how necessary the good dispositions before mentioned be to iustification you shall finde if you consider well all circumstances not one of them to haue bene wanting in that good Theefes conuersion First that he stood in feare of Gods iust iudgement appeares by these his words to his fellow Doest thou not feare God c. He had hope to be saued by Christ out of which he said O Lord remember me when thou commest into thy Kingdome By both which speeches is shewed also his faith both in God that he is the gouernour and iust iudge of the world and in Christ that he was the Redeemer of mankind His repentance and confession of his fault is laid downe in this And we truly suffer worthily His charity towards God and his neigbour in reprehending his fellowes blasphemie in defending Christs innocencie and in the middest of his greatest disgraces and raging enemies to confesse him to be King of the world to come out of all which we may gather also that he had a full purpose to amend his life and to haue taken such order for his recouery as it should please Christ his Sauiour to appoint So that he lacked not any one of those dispositions which the Catholike Church requires to iustification Now that that great Doctor Origen meant not to exclude any of these good qualities out of the companie of faith is apparant by that which he hath written on the next Chapter where he saith That faith cannot be imputed to iustice Rom. 4. to such as beleeue in Christ vnlesse they do withall put off the old man and a little before more plainly saying I thinke that faith is the first beginning of saluation hope is proceeding in the building but the
to bestow his grace vpon vs as I haue shewed a Sect. 21. before Therefore he doth not direct the words of S. Paul onely against merits but simply against works that he affirmeth b August li. 83. quaest 76. Vt nemo meritu priorum bonoruÌ„ operuÌ„ arbitrotur se ad donum iustificationis peruenisse Dicit posse homineÌ„ sine operibus praecedentibus iustificari per fideÌ„ Dicit de operibus quae fidem praecedunt a man to be iustified without workes precedent or going before that he teacheth that not for any good worke past a man attaineth to the iustification of faith that a man is not iustified by workes that go before faith meaning by faith not a faith which is before iustification but the faith in which our iustification is begun as appeareth very plainly by that that he saith in another place c Jdem de verb. Apost ser 16. Si iustitiae nihil habemus nec fidem habemus Si fideÌ„ habemus iam aliquid habemus iustitiae If we haue no righteousnesse we haue no faith but if we haue faith we haue also some part of righteousnesse alreadie And thus perpetually he excludeth all workes going before iustification from being any causes thereof and still maketh iustification the beginning of all good workes so as that d Idem epist 46. Sine illa cogitare aliquid vel agere secunduÌ„ Deum vlla ratione omninò noÌ„ possumus without the grace of God which with him is no other but the grace e Epist 105. Istam gratiam commendat Apostolus qua iustificati sumus vt homines iusti essemus whereby we are iustified we can in no sort thinke or do any thing according vnto God Of M. Bishops vertuous dispositions before iustification he neuer speaketh word nor euer giueth intimation of any such nay he condemneth the Pelagians for affirming the same as we haue seene in the question of f Sect. 5. Free will 33. W. BISHOP Now to his second reason If you be circumcised Gal. 5. you are bound to the whole law Hence thus he argueth If a mâ—n will be iustified by workes he is bound to fulfill the whole law according to the rigour of it That is Paules ground But no man can fulfill the law according vnto the rigour of it ergo No man can be iustified by workes He that can apply the text prefixed vnto any part of the argument Erit mihi magnus Apollo Saint Paul onely saith in these words That if you be circumcised yee are bound to keepe the whole law of Moses Maister Perkins That if a man will be iustified by workes he must fulfill the rigour of the law Which are as iust as Germains lips as they say But M. Perkins sayes that it is Saint Paules ground but he is much deceiued for the Apostles ground is this That circumcision is as it were a profession of Iudaisme and therefore he that would be circumcized did make himselfe subiect vnto the whole law of the Iewes Of the possibilities of fulfilling the law because M. Perkins toucheth so often that string shall be treated in a distinct question as soone as I haue dispatched this R. ABBOT The force of the sentence alledged that a Gal. 5.3 he that is circumcised is bound to keepe the whole law dependeth vpon the verse going before and that that followeth after He saith before b Ver. 2. If ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing by one particular giuing to vnderstand what was to be conceiued of the rest that c August cont Faust Man lib. 19. cap. 17. Certa pernicies si in huiusmodi legis operibus putareÌ„t suam spem salutemque continerâ— it was certaine destruction for them to thinke that their hope and saluation was contained in such workes of the law because thereby they were secluded from hauing any benefit in Christ Which as he hath namely spoken of circumcision as being a speciall matter then spoken of so he saith it in the verse after of the whole law d Ver. 4. Ye are abolished from Christ whosoeuer are iustified by the law ye are fallen from grace If then in any part of the law a man seeke to be iustified he is thereby voided of the grace of Christ Being abandoned from Christ and his grace he hath no meanes of iustification and saluation but by the law He cannot be iustified by the law but by perfect obseruing of it because it is said e Cap. 3.10 Cursed is euery man that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law to do them What then is said of circumcision belongeth to all the workes of the law He that seeketh to be iustified by the workes of the law he is bound fully and perfectly to obserue the same and if he be any where a trespasser he cannot be iustified by the law And rightly doth M. Perkins say that this is the ground of that which the Apostle saith of circumcision as he shall well perceiue that obserueth how through the whole Epistle he disputeth generally against iustificatioÌ„ by the law to disprooue the doctrine of the false Apostles vrging for iustification circumcision and other ceremonies of the law Therefore in the words alledged this argument is implied He that wil be iustified by the law is bound to fulfill the whole law He that seeketh to be iustified by circumcision seeketh to be iustified by the law he is therefore bound to the perfect obseruation of the whole law As for that which M. Bishop saith that circumcision is as it were a profession of Iudaisme it is a very idle and sleeuelesse answer For what is Iudaisme but a profession of iustification by the law the Iewes f Rom. 932. seeking righteousnesse not by faith but as it were by the workes of the lâ—w Circumcision therefore is a profession of iustification by the law against which the Apostles ground is as hath bene said that he that professeth to be iustified by the law doth tie himselfe to obserue it without any breach being by the law guilty of death if he be found to transgresse in any sort Now that there is no ablenesse in vs to fulfill the law so as to be iustified thereby it shall appeare God willing in the place where Maister Bishop promiseth to treate thereof 34. W. BISHOP M. Perkins third argument Election to saluation is of grace without workes wherefore the iustification of a sinner is of grace alone without workes because election is the cause of iustification Answer That election is of grace without workes done of our owne simple forces or without the workes of Moses law but not without prouision of good works issuing out of faith and the helpe of Gods grace as shall be handled more largely in the question of merits R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop to answer the argument auoucheth a plaine point of Pelagianisme that Gods election is vpon foresight of
third reason is taken from the imperfection of our knowledge for it cannot be but our faith our loue our repentance our sanctification must be vnperfect so long as we haue but vnperfect knowledge to direct vs in all these things M. Bishops answer to this consisteth of two parts the one whereof is an acknowledgement against himselfe the other an assertion of apparent and manifest vntruth I would to God saith he our workes were answerable to our knowledge then would they be much more perfect then they be He confesseth then that our workes are not perfect according to that that we do know and if they be vnperfect to that knowledge that we haue and our knowledge come farre short of that concerneth vs by the lawe then must our workes be very farre from perfection and we farre from being truly said to fulfill the law But M. Bishop according to his skill denieth in the second part of his answer that our knowledge is vnperfect expresly contrarie to that which the Apostle saith f 1. Cor 13.9.12 We know in part we prophecie in part we see through a glasse darkely We find it and know it that there are many ignorances and errors in the best g August de spir lit ca. 36. In multis offendimus omnes duÌ„ putamus Deo quem diligimus plâ—eâ—re vel non displicere quod facimus postea cùm didicerimus quòd non placeat poenitendo deprecamur vt ignoscat We all saith S. Austine offend in many things whilest we thinke that that which we do either pleaseth God or doth not displease him when as afterwards we learne that it is not pleasing vnto him and do repent thereof h Idem soliloq cap. 1. Quisquic cognoscit te amat te plusquaÌ„ se relinquit se venit ad te vt gaudeat de te Hinc est Domine quòd non tantùm diligo quantum debeo quia non plenè cognosco te Quia parùm cognosco parum diligo quia parum te diligo parum gaudeo in te He that knoweth thee saith he in another place loueth thee more then himselfe and leaueth himselfe to come vnto thee that he may reioyce in thee Hence is it Lord that I loue thee not so much as I ought to do because I do not fully know thee because I know thee but a little I loue thee but a little and therefore do but a little reioyce in thee There is no man in this life that knoweth himselfe but knoweth well that he hath cause to pray still with the Prophet Dauid i Psal 119.12 Teach me thy statutes k Ver. 33. teach me O Lord the way of thy statutes l Ver. 73. giue me vnderstanding that I may learne thy commandements m Ver. 127. grant me vnderstanding that I may know thy testimonies If so great a Prophet were still to be taught were still to learne were still begging of God the vnderstanding and knowledge of his commandements how vaine a man is M. Bishop to make it so possible a matter for a man being yet couered in part with the veile of flesh to attaine to the full and perfect knowledge of the lawe Of this argument he saith that it is impeâ—tinent but giueth no reason why he so saith Saint Austine against the assertion of perfection in this life n August de spir lit cap. 36. produceth imperfection of knowledge as an impediment thereof and Hierome saith o Hier. ad Pela lib 1. Nullus sanctorum in isto corpusâ—ulo cunctas potest habere virtutes quia ex parte cognoscimus c. that no man in this body can haue all vertues because we know but in part and prophecie but in part and if imperfection of knowledge do hinder vertue and the perfect fulfilling of the law how doth he make it an argument impertinent to say Our knowledge is yet vnperfect therefore we are yet vnperfect to the fulfilling of the law But we must pardoÌ„ his vnperfect knowledge which if it had bin according to his will vndoubtedly we should haue seene some more skill in his answers then now we do M. Perkins fourth and last reason is taken from that that before hath bin said that the regenerate man in this life is still partly flesh and not wholly spirituall and therefore his best workes sauor partly of the flesh Not so saith M. Bishop if we mortifie the deedes of the flesh by the spirit But I answer him Yes euen so because though by the spirit we mortifie the deedes of the flesh yet we do not thereby put off the flesh nor so subdue it but that it p Gal. 5.17 lusteth against the spirit so as that we cannot do the things that we would and therefore cannot fulfill the law Now if we attaine not to that that we would our will also being yet vnperfect so that we will not so perfectly as we should how farre must we needes thinke our selues to be from that integritie and vprightnesse which we shold performe according to the perfect rule of righteousnesse that is laid before vs in the law But of this further when we come to the point as touching the perfection and purity of our workes 39. W. BISHOP But these trifling arguments belong rather vnto the next question I will helpe M. Perkins to some better that the matter may be more throughly examined Act. 1.15 Why go ye about to put a yoke vpon the Disciples necks which neither we nor our Fathers were able to beare these words were spoken of the lawe of Moyses therefore we were not able to fulfill it I answer first that that law could not be fulfilled by the onely helpe of the same law without the further ayde of Gods grace Secondly that it was so burdensome and cumberous by reason of the multitude of their sacrifices sacraments and ceremonies that it could hardly be kept with the helpe of ordinary grace and in that sence it is said to be such a yoke as we were not able to beare Because things very hard to be done Ios 11. 3. Reg. 14. Act. 13. 4. Reg. 23. Luk. 1. are now and then called impossible Now that Iosue Dauid Iosias Zachary Elizabeth and many others did fulfill all the law is recorded in holy Scripture wherefore it is most manifest that it might be kept R. ABBOT A more trifler then M. Bishop I thinke is seldome to be found If M. Perkins arguments were as trifling as he hath giuen them answers he might haue done well to haue spared his labor bestowed in the writing of that booke Before he haue giuen any one good answer to the reasons onely by the way alledged by M. Perkins he taketh vpon him to bring other of his owne indeed out of our books that he may shew himselfe as wise in answering the one as he hath done alreadie in the other We are wont to alledge the words of S. Peter that a Act.
b Gal. 6.5 Euery man shall beare his owne burden it had bene his part to make it plaine first that the burden there spoken of is to be vnderstood of temporall afflictions Secondly if it be so to be vnderstood he should againe haue told vs how it followeth that those afflictions must necessarily be taken to be satisfactions Thirdly if they be satisfactions it would haue bene considered how this place standeth with the doctrine and practise of the Church of Rome which the Apostle saying Euery man shall beare his owne burden that is if we beleeue M. Bishop shall satisfie for himselfe doth notwithstanding appoint one man to beare the burden and satisfactions of another If euery man beare his owne burden why doth the Pope pretend by his Pardons to impart to one man the satisfactions of another or if the Pope doe thereby impart the satisfactions of Saints and Martyrs to the helpe of those that want why doth Maister Bishop tell vs that of temporall satisfactions it is said that euery man shall beare his owne burden But thus he is wont to cite texts at all aduenture be they with him or against him all is one they helpe to fill vp a booke and that is enough for his purpose But the meaning of those words plainely appeareth out of the circumstance of the place The Apostle labouring to withdraw men from iudging and condemning others and from iustifying themselues by measuring comparing themselues to them whom they condemned wisheth euery man to consider himselfe in himselfe to make triall of his owne worke not to content himselfe for that he seemeth to himself to be preferred before another but to endeuour without comparison to others to be approued in himselfe To this meaning are these words c 〈◊〉 ◠Let euery man proue his own worke then shall he haue reioycing in himselfe and not in another For reason hereof he addeth for euery man shall beare his owne burden as if he should say It concerneth not one man what another is the burdening of another shall be no disburdening of thee what is amisse in him he shall answer for himselfe but looke thou to thine owne burden for whatsoeuer it is thou shalt answer to God for it The burden then which the Apostle speaketh of is as Thomas Aquinas saith d Tho. Aquin. in Gal. cap. 6. lect 1. Onus reddendae rationis c. in die iudicij the burden of our reckoning account to be made vnto God at the day of iudgment and his words are to the very same meaning as elsewhere he saith e Rom. 14.12 Euery one of vs shall giue accounts of himselfe to God So that M. Bishops argument falleth out in the end to be this Euery man at the day of iudgement must giue reckoning to God for himselfe Therefore Christ hath left vs to make temporal satisfaction to God for our owne sinnes Thou must take it as it is gentle Reader for he can make it no better then it will be denie his argument and he hath no more to say 3 W. BISHOP Nay saith M. Perkins we must then be new Christes and Redeemers and Priests of the same order with himselfe Nothing so but hauing grace from him we may in vertue thereof satisfie not for the crime it selfe or euerlasting punishment which is linked with it because that would require an infinite vertue but for the tēporall pain of it one indued with grace may satisfie for the measure of stripes must not exceede the rate of the fault the punishment then resting vnsatisfied being limited a creature may pay it And that the Reader may better perceiue what we meane by the temporall paine let him consider that in sin are two things the one is the turning away from God whom we offend the other is the turning vnto the thing for the loue of which we offend as for glory lust lucre or such like the sinner transgresseth now when he is by the grace of God conuerted his turning away from God both the sin and the eternall paine due vnto it are freely through Christ pardoned but for the pleasure which he tooke in the sin the man himselfe is to satisfie and so according vnto the greatnesse of that his pleasure he is to do pennance R. ABBOT M. Perkins gaue argument and reason of that which he said but M. Bishop like a reasonlesse man without giuing any reason affirmeth that againe against which M. Perkins argued He rightly alledgeth that no part of the Priesthood of Christ can be said to haue passed from him to vs that to make satisfaction for sinnes whether temporally or eternally is a part of the Priesthood of Christ and therefore that it is not a thing passed from him to vs to make satisfaction for our sinnes Againe to attribute that to vs for which and by which Christ is Christ our Redeemer high Priest is to make vs Christes Redeemers and Priests for our selues But to attribute to vs to make fatisfaction for sinnes either temporally or eternally is to attribute that to vs for which and by which Christ is Christ our Redeemer and high Priest It is therfore the same as to affirme vs to be Christes Redeemers and Priests for our selues M. Bishop answereth ridiculously and childishly Not so but Christ hath satisfied for the eternall punishment which required an infinite vertue as for the temporall paine it may be satisfied by vs. But what is here for exception to our collection that sith the name office of Christ of a Redeemer and Priest standeth in satisfying for sinne therefore if we be said to satisfie temporally for our selues then as Christ is our Christ Redeemer and Priest in respect of satisfying for the eternall punishment of our sinnes so we are Christs Redeemers and Priests for our selues in respect of making temporally an attonement for our selues But that it belongeth to the Priesthood of Christ to make attonement for temporall punishments is plaine in the law where we reade that the plague being begun the high Priest in figure of our high Priest Iesus Christ maketh attonement for the staying of it a Numb 16.46 Take the censer saith Moses to Aaron and put fire therein of the Altar and put therein Incense and go quickly to the Cōgregation and make an attonement for thē for there is wrath gone out frō the Lord the plague is begun He did so the plague was staid The like we see in the plague that followed vpō Dauids numbring of the people b 2. Sam. 24.25 he offered burnt offerings peace offerings and the Lord was appeased towards the land and the plague ceased frō Israel And hereby we vnderstād that all the sacrifices of the law wherin c August Enchirid cap. 33. Singulare sacrificium Christi cuius erant vmbrae omnia sacrificia legis prophetarum Christ was alwaies set before them had a respect of appeasing the wrath of God not onely for euerlasting
faults vpon their true repentance ioyned with faith and hope in Christ to come were pardoned Therefore their charges in buying of sacrifices to be offered for them their paines and prayers in assisting during the time of the sacrifice being painful works done to appease Gods iustice were works of satisfaction M. Perkins answereth many things as men do commonly when they cannot well tell what to say directly to the purpose First that those sacrifices were types of Christs suffering on the crosse what is this to the purpose Secondly that those sacrifices were satisfactions to the congregation and what needed that when they had offended God onely and not the congregation as in many offences it happeneth Againe if satisfaction must be giuen to the congregation how much more reason is it that it be made to God Reade those Chapters and you shall find that they were principally made to obtaine remission of God as these words also do witnesse Leuit. 4. ver 20. And vpon that sacrifice the sinne shall be forgiuen them So that sacrifices were to satisfie God who thereupon forgaue the sinne and all paine due to it R. ABBOT M. Bishop belike had no great conceit of this argument of theirs and therefore was angry that M. Perkins should disgrace them by putting it in the first place Ilfauouredly it is propounded and ilfauouredly maintained but yet such learning it is as he with great paines hath brought from Rome The foundation that he layeth is a lie and the building that he setteth vpon it a ridiculous consequence He telleth vs that Moses prescribing by the commaundement of God seuerall sacrifices for seuerall persons did ordaine that they should be of greater and lesser prices according the diuersitie of the sinnes But where is that ordinance why doth he not exemplifie that which he saith where do we find in Moses law that for such or such a sinne greater or lesse shall be offered a sacrifice of such or such greater or lesser price Surely he is little acquainted himselfe in Moses law and some Register or other gaue him a gudgeon at Rome and made him beleeue that the Popes Taxa poenitentiaria whereby euery sinne is rated at a certaine price was framed according to the same law of Moses and according to the prices of the sacrifices prescribed therein We reade there indeed of diuers sacrifices as in sinnes of ignorance a Leuit. 4.3 for the Priest a yong bullocke b Ver. 14. for the whole congregation the same c Ver 22.23 for a ruler a he goate for any of d Ver. 28. the people a she goate e Chap. 5.15 for any consecrate thing by errour withholden a ramme of two shekels f Ver. 18. for other trespasse against holy things ignorantly done the same for g Chap. 6.6 sinne wittingly committed the same also for the high h Chap. 16.3 Priests yearly offering for himself and his house a bullocke and a ramme and for the whole people i Ver. 5. two he goates and a ramme This diuersitie we reade and some few other such like but of sacrifices of greater or lesser price according to the diuersity of the sinnes we reade nothing it is a thing that Moses and Aaron neuer knew Well let that go let vs see what argument he hath framed against vs. These mens faults saith he vpon their true repentance ioyned with faith and hope in Christ were pardoned Therefore their charges in buying of sacrifices their paines and prayers in assisting during the time of the sacrifice being painefull workes done to appease Gods iustice were workes of satisfaction O what paines here was for the appeasing of Gods iustice to stand by and pray whilest the sacrifice was offering Such cruell paines doth M. Bishop impose vpon his penitents for their sweet sins that a man may sweare they are the worse for it all their life after Vaine man was this a paines to be spoken of for the satisfying and appeasing of the iustice of God for sinne But to let this passe if k Of the certaintie of saluation sect 2. the honest man of whom M. Bishop hath spoken before should out with a litle Latin and tell him here M. Doctor negatur argumentum how foully wold he be grauelled and so set at a Nonplus that he could not tell which way to turne him What because they that offered the sacrifice with true repentance in the faith of Christ were pardoned doth it therefore follow that their charges and their paines were the satisfaction for their sinnes The honest man would tel him Good sir you erre by assigning a wrong cause for it was not for his charges and his paines that he was pardoned but for his faith in Christ He laid not his hand vpon himselfe as to lay his sinne vpon himselfe but l Leuit. 1.4 he layd it vpon the head of the dumb beast as in figure of Iesus Christ m Esa 53.6 vpon whom the Lord would lay the iniquities of vs all Therefore his sacrifice if he offered it aright was onely a profession of the hope of redemption by Christ and he was therby instructed in him alone to expect full satisfaction and forgiuenesse of his sinnes Now thus in effect M. Perkins answered him and he reciting the answer by halues asketh What is this to the purpose Very much it is against his purpose if in the sacrifices themselues there were nothing else but a direction to seeke satisfaction in Iesus Christ n Heb. 10.1 The Law had the shadow of good things to come and not the liuely or substantiall image of the things themselues Therefore no satisfaction indeed but onely a shadow of satisfaction to come was to be found therein For o Ver. 4. it was vnpossible that the bloud of buls and goates should take away sin And therfore the Law was p Chap. 7.18 abolished for the weaknesse and vnprofitablenesse of it How should it be said to be weake or why should it be called vnprofitable if satisfaction for sinnes were to be found in it Albeit in some meaning M. Perkins acknowledgeth in them a satisfaction not to God but to the Church of God as testimonies of their repentance and of their desire to be reconciled to God and men What needed that saith M. Bishop when they had offended God onely and not the congregation as in many offences it happeneth I answer him that because all men are sinners euery man was by these sacrifices to giue acknowledgement thereof as touching himselfe and to shew his care to be reconciled to God either for publike or priuate offences whereby he had with Achan prouoked Gods wrath against his people as well as against himselfe Vpon the doing whereof men were accounted to the Church and with men as sanctified and clensed from their sinnes and no exception was to be taken against their ioyning themselues to the Church And therefore for warrant of this distinction the Scripture
illa finiretur poena the punishment is continued longer then the sinne lest the sinne should be esteemed but small if the punishment should be ended together with it And this M. Perkins well obserueth in generall concerning that example of the Israelites that God though his iudgment proceeded not one way yet would haue it to be seene another way though not for punishment to them that repented and beleeued yet for example to future times to take heed of cutting themselues off by vnbeleefe and disobedience from the heauenly rest as these had done from the seale and Sacrament thereof the Apostle to that purpose saying k 1. Cor. 10.11 These things came to them for ensamples and are written to admonish vs vpon whom the ends of the world are come Now as we conceiue in generall of the faithfull of that people so we do in particular of Moses and Aaron M. Bishop vrgeth it set downe that therfore they entred not because they trespassed because they were disobedient And who maketh doubt but that their trespasse and disobedience was the originall cause of the debarring of them But stil we say that the cause of this debarring of them being forgiuen the effect still continued for other vse which in them was not onely morall but also mystical God willing thereby to giue to vnderstand that the Law which was giuen by Moses and the Priesthood that was executed by Aaron could not bring vs to that eternall inheritance which was figured by the land of Canaan but onely Iesus who was figured by Iosuah could yeeld vnto vs the possession thereof Thus S. Austin maketh mysticall and spirituall application thereof affirming that l August contra Faust Man lib. 16. cap. 19. Non introducebat populum in terram promissionis ne videlicet lex per Mosen non ad saluandum sed ad conuincenduÌ„ peccatorem data introducere putaretur Ita Tertulaâ—iuer Marcionem lâ—b 3. Moses did not bring the people of Israel into the land of promise lest the law which was giuen by Moses not to saue but to conuict the sinner shold be thought to bring vs into the kingdome of heauen But fully to answer this point and to stop M. Bishops mouth let vs take that which the same S. Austin saith in another place m Idem in Psa 98. Quaerimus vindictam in Moyse propè nullam habet nisi quòd ad extremuÌ„ aâ—t illi Deut Ascende in montem morere Aâ—t seni Morere tam peregeras â—etates suas nunquid nunquam erat moriturus Quaelis illa vindicta Ostendit ibi vindictam suam vt diceret Non intrabis in terraÌ„ promissionis quaÌ„ intraturus erat populus QuandaÌ„ figuram quorundam gerebat Moyses Nam qui in regnum coeloruÌ„ intrauit magna illa poena crat adieâ—ram illam non venire qua ad tempas erat promissa vt vmbram osteude ret transiâ—eâ—â— Nonne mulit perfiâ—â—ntrauerunt in illam terram Nonne in illa terra viuentes multa mala feceruÌ„t Deum offenderunt Nonne idolotriam secuti sunt in terra illa Magnum erat non dedisse terram istam Moysi sed Moses voluit gestare figuram eorum qui sub lege erant quia per Moysen data est lex ostendit eos qui sub lege esse vellent sub gratia esse nollent non intraturos interram promisâ—ionis Ergo illud quod dictum est Moysi figura erat non poena Seâ— mers quae poena Non intrare in illam terram quae poena quo intrauerunt indigni We seeke Gods punishment in Moses saith he and he had in a manner none but that God at last saith to him Go vp into the hill and die He saith to an old man Go die he had now finished his yeares what shold he neuer die what punishment is this He shewed him there his punishment in that he said Thou shalt not enter into the land of promise to which the people was to enter Moses did here beare a figure of some for he being to enter into the kingdome of heaueÌ„ was it a great punishment not to come to that land which was promised for a time to cary a shadow and so to passe away Did not many vnfaithfull men enter into that land did not they that liued in that land commit many euils and offend God did they not follow idolatry in that land A great matter it was not to giue this land vnto Moses but Moses was to beare a figure of them which are vnder the law because the law was giuen by Moses and he sheweth that they which would be vnder the law and would not be vnder grace should not enter into the land of promise Therefore that which was said to Moses was a figure not a punishment what punishment was it to an old man to die what punishment was it not to enter into that land into which vnworthy men did enter Here then it is plaine that the not suffering of Moses to enter into the land of Canaan was not a matter of punishmeÌ„t but a matter of figure God took the occasion therof of his trespasse but the trespasse being remitted it was turned from being a punishment to him to be a mystery of faith both to him and vs. But it were woorth the while here to question with M. Bishop how he should make the not entring of all these into the land of Canaan to be any satisfaction for their sins what did they or suffered they that might carie the name of a satisfaction Did any thing herein befall them but what befell to many iust and godly Fathers before that time He saith their dayes were shortened but how were the dayes of Moses and Aaron shortened when the one liued to n Deut. 34.7 120. and the other to o Numb 33.39 123. yeares almost double to that nuÌ„ber of yeres which Moses noted for the ordinary time of the life of man p Psal 90.10 The dayes of our age are threescore yeares and ten Yea Moses was so old as that he said q Deut. 31.2 I am a hundred and twentie yeare old I can no more go in and out Againe we wonder whereas M. Bishop hath told vs before that such excellent holy personages by their ordinarie deuotions satisfied abundantly for their sinnes how it came to passe that all Moses deuotions for the space of r Deut. 2.14 eight and thirty yeares after could not satisfie for that one sinne of his but that it still hindred him froÌ„ entring into the promised land Surely M. Bishop cannot well tell vs how these things hang together But to conclude this point M. Perkins had set downe by the words of the holy Ghost the vse of Gods chastisements towards his children and M. Bishop as loth to be acquainted therwith saith nothing of it Å¿ 1. Cor. 11.32 When we are iudged we are chastened of the Lord that we should not be condemned with the world
4.2 Ye shall put nothing to the word that I command you saith Moses neither shall ye take ought there from that ye may keepe the commandements of the Lord your God which I command you thereby giuing to vnderstand that euery putting too or taking fro is a breach of the coÌ„mandement of the Lord. Against the exception which M. Bishop vseth that these words may be vnderstood of commandements as wel vnwritten as written M. Perkins answereth that these words are as a preface to a long coÌ„mentary or exposition of the written law therfore do import that to the written law nothing is to be added nothing to be taken from it but that onely was to be done which is contained therein Now howsoeuer M. Bishop doat yet the case is plaine that because Moses spake thus in respect of the written law therefore the Israelites were to admit of nothing but what was written in the law But saith he why then were there bookes of the old Testament and of the Prophets written afterwards if God had forbidden any more to be written or taught but that one booke of Deuteronomy Behold a cosening Sophister who seeth well and knoweth that saue onely by falshood and deceipt he auaileth nothing We say not that of the booke of Deuteronomy onely but of the whole written law Moses said Ye shall put nothing to it c. Againe we do not say that God did forbid any more bookes to be written or taught but that no matter of doctrine of faith or of the worship of God should be receiued or written or taught but what was deriued from the written law Now then I wish thee gentle Reader to obserue how the wise man in his owne answer circumuenteth and ouerthroweth himselfe Moses saith Ye shall put nothing to the word which I coÌ„mand you nor take ought therefrom now tell vs M. Bishop of what word did he say this He telleth vs that we must vnderstand it of the word whether written or vnwritten Be it so but you will confesse then that to the word of God deliuered by Moses written or vnwritten nothing is to be added because the words of Moses plainly expresse so much and how then came it to passe that so many bookes were written afterwards We hope you will not deny but that Moses therein taught the Israelites whatsoeuer was necessary to saluation how then doth it stand that the rest of the Prophets added so much more in writing To vse your owne words shall we thinke that the Prophets read not these words or vnderstood them not or did wilfully transgresse them We would gladlie heare whether of these you vvill say The man is mute and he hath nothing to answer if he answer as he must his answer fully serueth our turne for defending the onely written law of Moses that the bookes that were after written by the Prophets serue to explane and declare the law to shew the experiment practise of it but adde no point of doctrine nor teach any article of religion towards God but what Moses hath written in the Law But for the further strengthening of this argument it is to be noted that Moses testifieth of himself that b Exod. 24.4 he wrote all the words of God In another place it is said c Deut. 31.9.10 Moses wrote this law and deliuered it to the Priests and to all the Elders of Israel and coÌ„manded them saying Euery seuenth yeare thou shalt reade this law before all Israel The law then which he gaue them he gaue them in writing that they might read it it might be read vnto them It could not haue bene said Moses wrote this law if he had written but a part of it and left another part vnwritten Nay it is said further afterwards d Ver. 24. When Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a booke vntill he had finished them then Moses commanded the Leuites saying Take the booke of this law and put it in the side of the Arke c. It is apparent then that Moses gaue not ouer writing the words of the law vntill he had finished them that is vntill he had written all the words of the law so that there was no word of the law but that that was written in the booke of the law And therfore that which is set downe by Moses e Deut. 27.26 Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them is thus related by the Apostle f Gal. 3.10 Cursed is euery one that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law to do theÌ„ therby to shew that all the words of the law are written in the booke of the law nothing left vnwritten that was any part or parcel thereof Thus when God would giue direction to Iosuah g Iosuah 1.7 to obserue and do according to all the law which Moses had commanded him giuing him charge according to the instruction of Moses here spoken of not to turne away from it to the right hand or to the left either by putting too or taking fro to shew what he meant by all the law he addeth Let not this booke of the law depart out of thy mouth but meditate therein day and night that thou maiest obserue and do according to all that is written therein Here againe it is plaine that to obserue all the law of Moses is to obserue all that is written in the booke of the law And out of this place Cyprian being vrged by Stephanus Bishop of Rome with tradition argueth against the receiuing of vnwritten traditions h Cyprian ad PoÌ„petum Vnde est ista traditriot Virumnè de dominica EuaÌ„gelica authoritate descendens an de Apostolarum mandatis atque epistolu veniens Ea enim faâ—ienda esse quae scripta sunt Deus testatur protonit Iesu Naue diceus NoÌ„ recedet c. Whence is this tradition faith he Whether descendeth it from the authoritie of the Lord and of the Gospell or commeth it froÌ„ the coÌ„mandements and epistles of the Apostles For that those things must be done which are written God testifieth saying to Iosuah The booke of this law shall not depart out of thy mouth c. Where he plainely sheweth that out of these words he intendeth this conclusion that concerning faith and deuotion towards God as we are to do the things that are written so what is not written we are not to do And this now is cleare by the place that we haue here in hand for if all that Moses commanded were written and nothing was to be added to that that Moses commanded then nothing was to be added to that that was written and those things which were written afterwards were no additions but only declarations and confirmations of those things which he had before written And thus did the ancient Fathers vnderstand that that is said of adding or diminishing as touching
the written word i Tertul aduers Hermog Adoro scripturae plemdinem c. Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina si non sit scriptum timeat vae illud adijcientibus aut detrahentibus destinatum I reuerence the fulnesse or perfection of the Scripture saith Tertullian Let the schoole of Hermogenes shew me that that which he saith is written if it be not written let him feare the wo that is appointed to them that adde or take away And so Basil saith that k Basil ser de fide Manifestus est fidei lapsus liquidum superbia virium vel respuere aliquid eorum quae Scriptura habet vel inducere quicquam quod scriptum non est cùm Dominus dicat Oues meae vocem meam audiunt alienum autâ—m non sequuntur Apostolus per humanum exemplum vehemeÌ„tèr prohibeat aliquid in diuinis scripturis vel addere vel demere cum dicit Hominis quidem Testamentum c. it is a manifest falling from faith and an apparent sinne of pride either to refuse any thing that the Scripture hath or to bring in any thing that is not written seeing our Lord Iesus Christ saith My sheepe heare my voice they do not follow a stranger and the Apostle by a humane example greatly forbiddeth in the holy Scriptures either to adde any thing or take away when he saith A mans testament when it is coÌ„firmed no man refuseth or addeth any thing to it Hereby then it is plaine that the forbidding to adde or take away hath reference to the written word of God and therefore that the doctrine of faith and religion is to be taken from thence onely and nothing therin to be admitted but what hath the warrant of the holy Scriptures 6. W. BISHOP M. Perkins His 2. testimony * Esa 8.20 To the law and testimony if they speake not according to this word it is because there is no light in them Here the Prophet teacheth saith M.P. what is to be done in cases of difficulty men must not run to the Wisards and Southsayers but to the law and to the testimony commending the written word as sufficient to resolue all doubts whatsoeuer Answ By the law and testimony in that place the 5. bookes of Moses are to be vnderstood if that written Word be sufficient to resolue all doubts whatsoeuer what need we then the Prophets what need we the Euangelists and the Epistles of the Apostles what Wizard would haue reasoned in such sort The Prophet willeth here that the Israelites who wanted wit to discerne whether it be better to flie vnto God for counsell then vnto Wizards and Soothsayers do see what is written in the law of Moses concerning that point of consulting-Wizards which is there plainely forbidden in diuerse places Now out of one particular case whereof there is expresse mention in the written word to conclude that all doubts and scruples whatsoeuer are thereby to be decided is a most vnskilfull part arguing as great want of light in him as was in those blind Israelites R. ABBOT If M. Perkins had thought himselfe to be so wise as M. Bishop doth himselfe we should certainely haue condemned him for a wizard what we thinke of M. Bishop in the meane time we leaue it to him to consider of The Prophet in the place alledged dehorteth the faithfull from yeelding to the wicked motions and counsels of hypocrites and vnbeleeuers who casting away all trust and confidence in God and relinquishing the yoke of obedience to him sought by other helpes and meanes to secure and establish themselues against the daungers which they imagined to themselues who as they had giuen themselues ouer to idolatrie so followed the course of idolaters in this behalfe and for aduice and direction in such things as concerned theÌ„ for their safetie they sought taught one another to seeke to Southsayers and such as vsed familiar spirits and tooke vpon them to call vp the soules of dead men to giue answer to such things as should be demanded of theÌ„ By them they would be instructed what to do and what course to take for their owne good hereby were hardened in their abhominations and apostacie froÌ„ God to the further prouocation of his wrath against themselues He therefore aduertiseth the faithfull and godly not to ioyne with them in any such doings but when they shold perswade them to enquire of any such wicked persons rather to answer them a Esa 8.19 Should not a people enquire at their God Euery nation seeketh to their owne God The Lord is your God will ye not seeke to him will ye go for the liuing to them that are dead Hereupon he addeth the words here questioned b Vers 20. To the law and to the testimonie if they speake not according to this word it is because there is no light in them Wherin he giueth to the people of God a generall direction to go to the law to the testimony to be instructed what waies they ought to walke in and to hearken to none to follow none but only such as speake vnto them according to that word The Prophets of God called men one way false Prophets wizards and Southsayers called men another way he teacheth them therefore a sure way to know to whom to commit themselues by considering who spake according to that word Now to this the wizard giueth vs a wizard like answer that the Prophets willed them to see what was written in the law of Moses concerning that point of consulting wizards So then there is no more here said but this that if the wizards do not say vnto theÌ„ that they are not to consult with wizards it is because there is no light in them and who but a wizard would haue made such a construction of the place The Prophet teacheth them in generall to seeke to the law of God for aduice and answer of such things as touching which they went to consult with wizards southsayers to be directed thereby in seeking to prouide for their owne safetie thence to take resolution of their doubts and to take it for certain that they led them in darknesse whosoeuer should draw them to other waies then could be warranted thereby c Basil in Esa cap. 8. Vnaquaeque natiorem ambagiosam quaestionem de quae cupiebat edoceri suo proporebat Deo dissoluendaÌ„ Quos supponebaÌ„t esse Deos his offerebant diluendas inquisitiones suas Euery nation saith Basil vpon that place did propound to their God the doubt and question wherof they desired to be taught to haue resolution thereof whom they tooke to be gods to them they offred their questions to be answered Therfore he sheweth that the people of God for answer of their doubts should go to God in going to the law and to the testimony d Aducit Deus legem velut manuductionem viam tibi praemumentem Vis certò persuaderi quae sint futura Prouide
sedulò vt quae tibi lex facienda praescripsit opere expleas diligentèr certus opperitor iucundissimaÌ„ fruitionem repositoruÌ„ tibi bonoruÌ„ c. Bonis perfruâ— siquidem desideres quae praescripta sunt mandata opere exequitor which God hath giuen as to guide vs by the hand to direct vs the way Wilt thou then saith he be certainly perswaded what shall hereafter befall thee Prouide diligently to do the things which the law coÌ„mandeth thee to do and waite assured of the most ioyfull fruition of the good things which are prouided for thee If thou desire to enioy good things performe the commandements that are prescribed vnto thee By Basils iudgement then it is plaine that the words haue further meaning then to refer theÌ„ to the law concerning that one particular of consulting wizards But Hierome goeth yet further tels vs the meaning of the Prophet in this sort e Hieron in Esa cap 8. lib. 3. Si de aliquo dubitaris c. si vultis nosse quae dubia sunt maÌ„gis vos legi et testimonijs tradite scripturarum If ye doubt of any thing if ye would know the things that ye doubt of referre your selues to the law and to the testimonies of the Scriptures What wil M. Bishop say now wil he cal Hierom a wizard as he hath done M.P. for saying the Prophets meaning to be that the Scripture the written word shold resolue theÌ„ of al that they doubted towards God Yea the law it self sufficiently warranteth vs so to coÌ„ceiue f Deut. 12.32 Whatsoeuer I coÌ„mand you take heed you do it saith Moses thou shalt put nothing therto nor take ought therefroÌ„ Those words M. Bish vulgar Latin expoundeth thus g Quod praecipio tibi hoc tantùm facito Domino What I coÌ„mand thee that onely do to the Lord thou shalt put nothing thereto c. Now we haue seene before that Moses committed to writing whatsoeuer he commaÌ„ded If then nothing were to be done to the Lord but what Moses commanded and all that Moses commanded was written then by the written word all doubts were to be resolued as touching those things that were to be done to the Lord and nothing to be done but that that was written But saith M. Bishop what need we then the Prophets what need we the Euangelists and the Epistles of the Apostles I haue answered him before but yet let me tell him here that Faustus the Maniche denying God the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ to be the author of the old Testament when he was vrged that Christ approueth the same in saying I came not to destroy the lawe but to fulfill it replied that it could not be that Christ should say so because the author of the Law had said that nothing should be added to the law nor taken from it Saint Austine answereth him that h August cont Faust Manich. lib. 17. cap. 6. Venit legem adimplere non vi legi adderentur quae decrant sed vt fierent quae scripta erant quod ipsa eius verba iestantur Non enim ait Joâ—a vnum aut vnus apex non transiet à lege donec addantur quae desunt sed donec omnia fiant Christ came to fulfill the Law not as that any thing should be added which was wanting to the law but that the things should be done which are written therein as his words saith he do shew for he doth not say Not one iot or title of the law shall passe till the things be added which are wanting but till all things be done Hence therefore we answer M. Bishop once againe that the Prophets writings were no additions of doctrine but onely explanations of the law and so likewise that the writings of the new Testament do adde nothing to the law but onely do further declare and withall set foorth the accomplishment of those things that were foreshewed prophecied in the law And therefore Paul in preaching the Gospell professeth i Act. 26.22 to say no other things then those which the Prophets and Moses did say should come so that to vse the distinction that Vincentius Lyrinensis vpon other occasion vseth though the Euangelists and Apostles spake in a new manner yet they spake k Vincent Lyr. Eadem quae didicisti doce vt cùm dicas nouè non dicas noua no new matter or to allude to Saint Austines words though they varied in the tense yet they differed not in the signification of the word but in both times or in all times the same doctrine was preached the same faith continued the latter affirming nothing but what was confirmed by the writings of them that went before 7 W. BISHOP 3. Testimony * Ioh. 20.31 These things were written that ye might beleeue that Iesus is the Christ in beleeuing might haue life euerlasting Here is set downe the ful end of the Gospell that is to bring men to faith and consequently to saluation to which the whole Scripture alone is sufficient without Traditions Answ Here are more faults then lines first the text is craftily mangled things being put instead of miracles For S. Iohn saith Many other miracles Christ did c. but these were written c. Secondly S. Iohn saith not that for faith we shall be saued but beleeuing we shold haue saluation in his name which he clipped off thirdly remember to what faith S. Iohn ascribes the means of our saluation not to that wherby we apply vnto our selues Christs righteousnesse but by which we beleeue Iesus to be Christ the Messias of the Iewes and the Sonne of God which M. Perkins also concealed Now to the present matter S. Iohn saith that these miracles recorded in his Gospell were written that we might beleeue Iesus to be the Sonne of God and beleeuing haue saluation in his name c. Therefore the written word containes all doctrine necessary to saluation Answ S. Iohn speakes not a word of doctrine but of miracles and therfore to conclude sufficiency of doctrine out of him is not to care what one saith But M.P. foreseeing this saith it cannot be vnderstood of miracles only for miracles without the doctrine of Christ can bring no man to life euerlasting true and therefore that text speaking onely of miracles proueth nothing for the sufficiencie of the written Word Christs miracles were sufficient to proue him to be the Sonne of God and their Messias but that proueth not S. Iohns Gospell to containe all doctrine needfull to saluation for many other points of faith must be beleeued also And if it alone be sufficient what need we the other three Gospels the Acts of the Apostles or any of their Epistles or the same S. Iohns Reuelations Finally admit that S. Iohns Gospell were al-sufficient yet should not Traditions be excluded for Christ saith in it in plaine termes * Ioh. 16. that he had much more to say vnto his Apostles but
of Tobie of Iudith are not in the Canon Thus he reckoneth the Ecclesiasticall and Apocryphall bookes vnder one name of Apocryphall Some on the other side vnder the name of Canonicall bookes contained all that were not of the last sort that is of those bastards and counterfeits which were wholy exploded and reiected out of the Church Thus S. Austin doth extending the name of Canonicall to all that was admitted publikely to be read and therefore comprehending the bookes called Ecclesiastical ioyntly vnder that name But here the name of Canonicall is not properly vsed because the Scriptures are called canonicall of being the Canon that is to say the rule of our faith which those Ecclesiasticall bookes are not as before we haue heard And what doth Austine make them all of equall and like authoritie Nothing lesse for in the first place cited by Master Bishop where he setteth all those bookes downe vnder one name of canonical he giueth this rule t Aug. de doct Christ lib. 2 ca. 8. In Scripturis canonicis ecclesiaruÌ„ Catholicarum quamplurium authoritatem sequotur c. Tenebit igitur hunc modum in Scripturis Canonicis vt cas quae ab omnibus accipiuntur ecclesus praeponat eis quas quaedam non accipiunt in eis verò quae non accipiuntur ab omnibus praeponat caâ— quas plures grauioresque accipiunt eis quas pauciores minorisque authoritatâ— ecclesiae tonent In the Canonicall Scriptures let a man follow the authority of the greater number of catholike Churches and this course he shal hold to preferre those which are receiued of all catholike Churches before those which some do not receiue and in those which are not receiued of all let him preferre those which the more Churches and of greater authority do receiue before those which are holden of the fewer and of lesser authority or account He would not haue vsed any such exception if he had taken all those bookes to be alike inspired of God and therfore doth manifestly teach vs to make some difference betwixt them and coÌ„sequently not to account the bookes of Machabees properly canonicall inasmuch as few or no Churches esteemed them so to be And this may somewhat further appeare in the second place which M. Bishop citeth where speaking of the Princes of the Iewes after the reedifying of the temple he saith u Aug. de ciu Dei lib 18. cap. 36. Quorum supputatio temporum non in Scripturis sanctis quae canonicae appellantur sed in alijs inuenitur in quibus sunt MachabaeoruÌ„ libriquos non Iudaei sed ecclesia pro Canonicis habet propter quorundam martyrum passiones vehementes atque mirabileâ— c. The account of their termes is not found in the holy Scriptures which are called canonicall but in other bookes amongst which are the bookes of the Machabees which not the Iewes but the Church reckoneth for canonicall because of the great and wonderfull sufferings of some martyrs who before the incarnation of Christ striued euen to death for the law of God Where we see him first plainly secluding those bookes from the canonicall Scriptures according as they were secluded by the Iewes albeit withall he saith that the Church in a particular respect admitted of them as canonicall that is publikely to be read to giue knowledge of the constant suffering of some therein mentioned for the testimony of the law of God But in what sort it was that the Church admitted of them and the rest of that kind Hierome giueth vs to vnderstand x Hieron praefat in lib Solom Sicut Judith Tobiae Machabaeorum libros legit quidâ—m ecclesia sed eos inter canonicaâ— Scripturas non recipit sic haec duo volumina sapientiae Ecclesiastici legat ad aedificationem plebis non ad authoritatem ecclesiasticâ—rum dogmatum confirmandum The Church readeth them but accounteth them not amongst the canonicall Scriptures it readeth them for the edification of the people not to confirme the authority of the doctrines of the Church And this that Hierome saith is confirmed also by Austine himselfe where he teacheth that y August de ciu Dei lib. 17. ca. 20. Aduersus contradictores non tanta firâ—â—â—â—â—â— prâ—â—eruntur quae scripta non sunt in Canone Iudaeorum those things which are not written in the canon of the Iewes are not with so great strength or authority alledged against them that contradict vs. Hereby therefore they are proued to be no canonicall Scriptures properly so called because canonicall Scriptures being the rule and measure of our faith do conuince those that contradict which S. Austine acknowledgeth these do not The third place alledged by M. Bishop helpeth yet further to cleare this matter where Gaudentius the Donatist alledging the example of Razias killing himselfe in the second booke of Machabees for defence of their Circumcellions casting themselues downe froÌ„ rocks and prouoking others to kill them that they might be accounted martyrs S. Austine first condemneth the fact which the Author of that booke commendeth and then addeth for exception further z Idem cont Epist Gaudent li. 2. ca. 23. Hanc Scripturam quae appellatur Machabaeorum Iudaei non habent sicut legem Prophetas Psalmos quibus Dominus testimoniuÌ„ perhibet tanquaÌ„ testibus suis dicens Oportebat impleri c. Sed recepta est ab ecclesia noÌ„ inutiliter si sobriè legatur vel audiatur maximè propter illos Machabaeos qui pro Dei lege sicut veri martyres à persecutoribus tam indigna atque hâ—rrenda perpessi sunt c. This Scripture which is called of the Machabees the Iewes account not as the law and the Prophets and the Psalmes to which the Lord giueth testimony as his witnesses saying All things must be fulfilled which are written of me in the law of Moses and in the Prophets and in the Psalmes but it is receiued of the Church not vnprofitably if it be soberly read or heard specially for those Machabees who for the law of God like true martyrs suffered so vnwoorthy and horrible things at their persecutors hands Where we see how coldly he speaketh of the receiuing of that booke as rather to excuse the Church then to defend it for so doing that it was done not vnprofitably and yet with this exception if it be soberly read and the reason of the receiuing of it not for the authority of the booke but for the story of those Machabees who there are recorded so constantly to haue suffered torments for their obseruing the law of God But withall he absolutely sheweth that those bookes are none of theÌ„ a Luk. 24.44 to which Christ gaue testimonie as his witnesses who notwithstanding calleth those witnesses by the name of b Ver. 27. all Scriptures thereby giuing fully to vnderstand that these are no Scriptures Hereby therefore we conceiue that S. Austine well discerned the defect of these bookes and rightly vnderstood that they are not so
That many of the Propheticall bookes were lost may be proued out of the history of Paralipomenon which they translate Chronicles Now as for M. Perkins guesses that some of them are yet extant but otherwise called some were but little roles of paper some prophane and of Philosophie I hold them not worth the discussing being not much pertinent and auowed on his word onely without either any reason or authoritie R. ABBOT Of this argument well propounded we deny the minor propositiō We say that some of the Scriptures though some other had miscaried should containe all doctrine needfull to saluation The consequence that he maketh thereof that then those other are superfluous is childish and absurdly iniurious to the Scripture The same doctrines are contained in a hundred places of holy Scripture and who will hereupon conclude that they are superfluous in one place because they are contained in another The Euangelists diuers times record the same stories and euen word for word and must it follow that the latter did superfluously write that which the former had set downe There is no point of necessary doctrine and faith contained in any one booke of holy Scripture but the same hath testimonie and witnesse of other bookes Matters of fact and circumstance there may be one where which otherwhere are not mentioned but points of necessary doctrine and faith haue manifold testimonie of the written word Supposing it then to be true which M. Bishop saith that some of the old bookes were lost which the wisedome of God thought necessary for those times though vnnecessary for vs yet it cannot be inferred hereof that any doctrine was thereby lost because though there might be some matters of storie there onely mentioned yet there could be no matter of doctrine that was not contained in Moses law And if Maister Bishop will needs perswade vs that some points of doctrine were there deliuered that are not in other scripture and must now be learned by tradition we desire to vnderstand whether by tradition he haue learned what those traditions were and that out of their Churches treasury of traditions he will discouer these secrets of which neither the Prophets nor Euangelists nor Apostles nor Fathers nor Councels were euer able to informe vs. He telleth vs that Chrysostome affirmeth the losse of those books but doth Chrysostome tell him of any doctrines deriued by tradition from those books Surely he wanted some proofe for the Popes triple crowne his yeare of Iubile and the great storehouse of merits and satisfactions at Rome and dreaming it in his sleepe beleeued it when he was awake that these matters were written of in these bookes and the bookes being now lost they come to vs by a tradition of which the world neuer heard any thing for the space of two or three thousand yeares But we must thinke that he wrote not these things for vs but for them who he thought would be more ready to beleeue him then we are Now M. Perkins further answereth that though those bookes were lost yet it followeth not that any part of the Canon of the Scripture was lost because there might be bookes which were not reckoned for Scripture bookes For proofe hereof he bringeth the words of the Apostle a Rom. 15.4 Whatsoeuer things were written before time were written for our learning arguing hereof that because bookes that be lost cannot serue for our learning and all the books of scripture that were formerly written were to serue for our learning therefore no bookes of scripture formerly written could be lost M. Bishop after his manner calleth it a shamefull answer but saith not a word to disproue it He telleth vs that there were such bookes but he proueth not that they were bookes of scripture and to the reason alledged out of the Apostles words he replieth nothing at all and therefore I passe him ouer without any further answer 19. W. BISHOP Master Perkins his fourth obiection of the Iewish Cabala is a meere dreame of his owne our argument is this Moses who was the pen-man of the old Law committed not all to writing but deliuered certain points needfull to saluation by tradition nor any Law-maker that euer was in any country comprehended all in letters but established many things by customes therfore not likely that our Christian law should be all written That Moses did not pen all thus we proue it was as necessary for women to be deliuered from originall sinne as men Circumcision the remedie for men could not possible be applied to women as euery one who knoweth what circumcision is can tell neither is there any other remedy prouided in the writen law to deliuer women from that sinne therefore some other remedy for them was deliuered by tradition Item if the child were likely to die before the eight day there was remedy for them as the most learned do hold yet no where written in the law Also many Gentiles during the state of the old Testament were saued as Iob and many such like according to the opinion of all the auncient Fathers yet in the Law or any other part of the old Testament it is not written what they had to beleeue or how they should liue wherefore many things needfull to saluation were then deliuered by tradition To that reason of his that God in his prouidence should not permit such a losse of any part of the Scripture I answer that God permitteth much euill Againe no great losse in that according to our opinion who hold that tradition might preserue what was then lost R. ABBOT It concerneth M. Bishop to speake well of the Iewish Cabala for if the Cabala be not good certainly Popish traditions are starke naught the Iews hauing as good warrant for the one as the Papists for the other Both of them to purchase credit to their owne fancies and deuices betooke themselues to this shifting pretence that the word of God was deliuered first by Moses and then by Christ and his Apostles partly written and partly vnwritten Whatsoeuer they haue listed to bring in either of curiositie or for profit they haue referred it to the vnwritten word and this hath bene the sinke of all both Iewish and Popish superstition both verifying in themselues that which our Sauiour obiecteth to the one a Mat. 15.6 Ye haue made the commaundement of God of no authoritie by your tradition M. Bishop here like a louing brother taketh the Iewes by the hand and will help them for the maintenance of their traditions that by them he may gaine some reputatiō to his owne His proofs for them are such as that without doubt they being but dul-heads in cōparisō of him were neuer able for themselues to deuise the like That Moses committed not all to writing he proueth because it was necessary for women to be deliuered from originall sin but they could not be deliuered from it by circumcision not being capable therof and no other remedy is prouided in
the written law therefore some other remedie was delivered for them by tradition Further he alledgeth that there was remedy for children dying before the eight day before which they might not be circumcised but there is none found written therefore it was deliuered by tradition O the excellent wit of this man he hath with these arguments so troubled the whole pack of the Protestants as that not one of them can tel what to say But for our learning M. Bishop we are desirous to know of you what these remedies were that you speake of What was the ceremonie for the freeing of women from originall sinne and children dying before eight dayes old Where haue ye found or how can ye prooue that there was any such Surely you that can see so farre into a milstone of traditions are able I trow to informe vs what it was if any such thing were Ridiculous vain man bringing in steed of proofes fantasticall imaginations whereof he hath no ground nor can giue vs any testimony at all either from the Iewes themselues or from other ancient writers but only out of the presumptions and idle dreames of some of their owne schoolmen Yea and in this deuice of his he crosseth the doctrine of his owne part for tell vs M. Bishop did circumcision take away originall sin If it did so what difference then betwixt the sacraments of the old Testament and of the new You are wont to tell vs that the sacraments of the old Testament did signifie grace but not giue grace that they did signifie the taking away of sinne but not take it away that they did signifie iustification but did not iustifie Therefore Bellarmine accordingly determineth that circumcision did not iustifie or take away sinne but in that respect was of as little force as vncircumcision yea and argueth that if circumcision had iustified then iustification should haue bene proper to men because men onely are circumcised so farre is he from conceiuing that some other remedie was prouided for women in steede of circumcision For expounding the Apostles words b Rom 3.29 Is God the God of the Iewes onely as if he had said c Bellar. de effec sacram cap. 14. Quasi dicat Deus est omnium Deus quomodo igitur credibile est cum dedisse remedium contra peccatū solis Iudaeis Possumus nos etiam hinc alitèr argumentari An masculorū Deus tantū nonne et foeminarum Quis ergo credat Deum dedisse remedium quod solis masculis prosit God the God of all how then is it credible that he should giue remedy against sinne to the Iewes onely he addeth We may hence also argue Is God the God of men onely is he not also the God of women Who then will beleeue that he gaue a remedy against sinne that should be auaileable for men onely His resolution then is that circumcision was no remedie against sin because God would not appoint a remedy against sinne as he conceiueth which should not be common to the Gentiles as well as to the Iewes to women as well as men Now therefore inasmuch as M. Bishops foundation faileth surely that which he buildeth vpon it must needs fall and looke what he will say was the deliuering of men from originall sinne the same he must confesse hath bene the deliuering of women also so that either he must resolue one meanes for both out of the written word or passe ouer to tradition vnwritten and if he haue not a tradition for both then all his matter of Iewish tradition must come to naught and there is nothing proued but that Moses committed all to the written law But his phrase of deliuering from originall sinne implieth an errour before confuted in the question of that point Our regeneration consisteth in the forgiuenesse of sinnes and the first fruites of the sanctification of the holy Ghost the same spirit working sometimes without any signe or sacrament of initiation as in the fathers vntil the time of Abraham who himselfe was iustified before the sacrament of Circumcision sometimes with that signe of circumcision proper in execution to men onely but yet sealing the fruite of Gods promise and the effect of his spirit both to men and women d Ephes 1.5.9 according to the purpose of the grace of God sometimes with a signe common both to men and women as in our baptisme we see thereby shewing that he worketh freely according to his owne will not tying himselfe to outward signes but sauing onely by his grace either with signes where they are or without where either there is no institution as in the beginning or there wanteth meanes and oportunitie of execution as oft befell in circumcision of the old Testament and doth befall in baptisme of the new Now as touching M. Bishops third reason it is as reasonlesse as the former so that we may wonder that the author of it should be so without reason Iob and many such like Gentiles saith he were saued Very true But in the Law or any other part of the old Testament it is not written what they had to beleeue or how they should liue But that is not true for seeing there is but e Eph. 4.5 one faith f 2. Corin. 4.13 the same spirit of faith of the whole body of Christ from the beginning to the end by that faith that is written in the law of Moses we know what they had to beleeue and according to that faith how they ought to liue Yea and where it is written what they did beleeue and how they did liue there it is written what they had to beleue and how they were to liue But in the booke of Iob it is written of himself and of his friends what they did beleeue and what the ordering of their life was all according to the law of Moses and the faith therein contained It is therefore vntrue which M. Bishop saith that it is not written what they had to beleeue or how they were to liue But yet giuing the man his way let vs see what his conclusion is Therefore saith he many things needfull to saluation were then deliuered by tradition We may see his head was troubled and he had forgotten what he was to conclude for this his conclusion should haue bene Therefore Moses committed not all to writing But this would not follow for though it were not namely written of Iob what he had to beleeue yet we cannot hereof inferre that therefore he had any thing else to beleeue but that that is written What hindereth I say but that Moses may be conceiued to set downe the faith whereby Iob was to be saued though he do not expresly say that Iob was to beleeue thus But it may be that M. Bishop meant that that conclusion should be subordinate to the former and so would reason thus Iob and such like receiued many things by tradition therefore Moses committed not all to writing Yet neither can this
stand good because nothing letteth but that Moses might commit to writting all that faith that Iob receiued by tradition Iob was g Ambros Offic. lib. 1. caep 36. Iob antiqutor Mose c. auncienter then Moses as Ambrose saith and might receiue the doctrine of faith by word and tradition of other men but yet we see that that faith is no other but what Moses after comprised in the written law Albeit what that tradition was hath bene i Sect. 1. before declared not resting in relation from one man to another but continually renewed and confirmed by reuelation and illumination immediatly from God being certainly corrupted by tradition where he did not graciously shew himselfe for the preseruation of it And as for other Gentiles whosoeuer they were that were saued after the writing of the Law they were saued onely by that faith which the scriptures of Moses and the Prophets haue described vnto vs. But M. Bishop not content to bring Moses alone for a patron of traditions telleth vs beside that not any law-maker in any country comprehended all in letters but established many things by custome therefore saith he it is not likely that our Christian law should be all written Where we may iustly hisse at his grosse and wilfull absurditie that will measure the Law-maker of heauen with the law-makers of the earth and by imperfection in the lawes of men will argue imperfection in the lawes of God No vnderstanding of man can either by laws or by customes prouide for all occurrents of the commonwealth but dayly there are arising and growing the occasions of new lawes and will he then frame the light of God to the measure of our darknesse And yet what lawmaker hath there bene or is there in the world who if he were able to comprehend an absolute perfection of all lawes would not certainly take course to set the same downe in writing as being the only secure and safe way for the perpetuating therof And if we will thus conceiue of any wise and reasonable man how much more should we attribute it to the wisedome of God that knowing the slippernesse and mutabilitie of the minds thoughts of men he would for safetie and assurance set downe in writing whatsoeuer he would haue to stand for law of worship and seruice towards him I need not to stand vpon this for the comparison is of it selfe so odious and absurd as that euery man may wonder that the mans discretion should faile him so far as to reason in this sort For conclusion of this section a toy took him in the head concerning somwhat said by M. Perkins in the sectiō before It was said that it should cal the prouidence of God in question to say that any part of Scripture should be lost M. Bishop answereth that God permitteth much euill True but he permitteth no euill iniurious to his owne glory M. Perkins supposeth out of that that was said before that all Scripture was at first written for our learning To say that it was intended for our learning and yet is now lost what is it but to call in question the prouidence of God His other answer that there should be no great losse because tradition might preserue that which was then lost is a temerarious and witlesse presumption contrary to the experience of all ages whereby it is found that nothing is continued according to the first originall which is deliuered by word only from man to man And his assertion is so much the more ridiculous in this behalfe for that he knoweth not any thing that Tradition hath preserued that was written in those bookes If Tradition haue preserued any thing thereof from being lost let him acquaint vs with it or if he cannot do so let him giue vs leaue to take him for that we finde him a meere babler giuing himselfe libertie to say any thing without feare or wit 20. W. BISHOP Now insteed of M. Perkins his fift reason for vs of milke and strong meate wishing him a messe of Pap for his childish proposing of it I will set downe some authorities out of the written word in proofe of traditions Our Sauior said being at the point of his passion * Iohn 16.12 that he had many things to say vnto his Apostles but they could not as then beare them * Acts 1. Our Sauior after his resurrection appeared often vnto his Disciples speaking with them of the kingdome of God of which little is written in any of the Euangelists * 1. Cor. 11. I commend you brethren that you remember me in all things and keepe the Traditions euen as I haue deliuered them to you * 1. Tim. 6. O Timothy keepe the depositum that is that which I deliuered thee to keepe * 2. Tim. 1. Hold fast by the holy Ghost the good things committed vnto thee to keepe which was as S. Chrysostome and Theophylact expound the true doctrine of Christ the true sence of holy Scriptures the right administration of the Sacraments and gouernement of the Church to which alludeth that auncient holy Martyr S. Irenaeus * Lib. 3. c. 4. saying that the Apostles layd vp in the Catholicke Church as in a rich treasury all things that belong to the truth S. Iohn who was the last of the Apostles left aliue said * Epist 3.13 that he had many other things to write not idle or superfluous but would not commit them to ink and pen but referred them to be deliuered by word of mouth And to specifie for example sake some two or three points of greatest importance where is it written that our Sauiour the Sonne of God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is of the same substance with his Father Where is it written that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Sonne as well as from the Father Where is it written that there is a Trinitie that is three persons really distinct in one and the very same substance And that there is in our Sauiour Christ Iesus no person of man but the substance of God and man subsisting in the second person of the Trinitie Be not all and euery of these principal articles of the Christian faith and most necessary to be beleeued of the learned and yet not one of them in expresse termes written in any part of the holy Bible Wherefore we must either admit traditions or leaue the highest mysteries of our Christian faith vnto the discretion and courtesie of euery wrangler as shall be more declared in the argument following R. ABBOT The messe of pap hath scalded M. Bishops mouth and he would faine put it off to M. Perkins He is ashamed of the childishnesse of this reason yet not denying it to be one of theirs but onely blaming M. Perkins his maner of proposing it whereas we imagine he would haue done it if he had knowne how to haue proposed it in better sort But because he is so desirous to passe it ouer let vs
be content also to let it go leauing the messe of pap to them whose the reason is and let vs follow him to examine the authorities which he bringeth for proofe of their traditions The first is from the words of Christ a Iohn 16.12 at the point of his passion saying that he had many things to say vnto his Apostles but they could not as then beare them Which words being of old a speciall refuge b Tertul. de veland virgin of Montanus the heretike an ancient Papist we cannot wonder to be vsed now by the Papists for the shrowding of that trash and the like as they haue borowed of him But of these words so much hath bin said c Sect. 7. before as that I need not here to stand vpon them any further His second authoritie is that in the Acts concerning our Sauiours appearing to his Disciples d Act. 1.3 by the space of fortie dayes and speaking of the things which appertaine to the kingdome of God Of these things saith M. Bishop little is written in any of the Euangelists And we desire to know what he hath learned of those things by tradition and if he will name to vs these or these things we desire to know how he can proue that those were the things whereof Christ spake if he cannot proue it we reiect his foolish presumption and can much better denie then he affirme What those things were by tradition we know nothing but by Scripture we do know The effect of all his speeches is set down by S. Luke in his last chapter There he maketh his Apostles e Luke 24.48 witnesses of those things which he spake What they witnessed appeareth in their sermons euery where in the Acts of the Apostles and in their Epistles and writings all consonant and agreeable to that briefe summe there expressed by S. Luke Now then to argue as we haue done before we are sure as touching the things that are written that they are of those things wherof Christ spake but how doth M. Bishop proue that he spake any thing more then that that is written It is expressed by S. Luke that the things whereof Christ spake were things appertaining to the kingdome of God But S. Paul f Acts 28.23 testified the kingdome of God out of the law of Moses and out of the Prophets The things therefore which Christ spake as is also imported in the g Luk 24.27.44 46. last of S. Lukes Gospell were no other but according to the scriptures of Moses and the Prophets and therefore M. Bishops conceit of matters vnwritten must needs be an idle dreame Thirdly he alledgeth the Apostles words commending the Corinthians for that h 1. Cor. 11.2 they kept the traditions euen as he had deliuered the same vnto them Where we find the name of traditions which we denie not but traditions of doctrine that should remaine vnwritten we find not By traditions we vnderstand here out of the circumstance of the words following rites and ceremonies prescribed by the Apostle for order and decencie in the publicke assembly of their Church which kinde of traditions M. Perkins hath acknowledged in the beginning of this question If M. Bishop will alledge that this is but a shift and will needs enforce that it must be vnderstood of matters of doctrine we wil gratifie him so farre but still we require him to proue that those matters of doctrine were any other then were afterwards put in writing There was but litle of the new Testament written at the writing of this Epistle Those things which were afterwards written must needs be vnderstood in these traditions whereof the Apostle speaketh if we vnderstand them of doctrine because we know that by his preaching he had deliuered those things vnto them And if the Apostles words be necessarily to be vnderstood of those things that are written we desire to know how they can enforce any necessitie of vnderstanding any other things thereby One of these traditions he mentioneth afterwards i Ver. 23. the institution of the Lords Supper It is written by himselfe it is written by the Euangelists Here is then a tradition but no tradition vnwritten The sacrament of Baptisme was another of his traditions but that is written also Another tradition he himselfe expresseth to haue bene k 1. Cor. 15.3 the death and resurrection of Christ but that tradition is also plentifully contained in the Scriptures So elsewhere he signifieth it to haue bene his l 2. Thess 3.6 tradition that he which would not labour should not eate and that tradition he hath also m Ver 1 there set downe in writing Now sith these were of the number of his traditions and yet are written what should hinder but that the rest are written as well as these M. Bishop alledgeth the place and so leaueth it without head or taile there is the name of traditions and that is enough for him whereas if he should draw an argument from thence for their traditions he knoweth that his folly would too plainly appeare His next citation is out of S. Paul to Timothy n 1. Tim. 6.20 O Timothy keepe the depositum saith he Where we see that one ape will be like another his masters of Rhemes would affect a foolish kind of singularitie in translating and he wil shew himselfe as wise as they Why could they not as well haue giuen vs English and said keepe that that is committed vnto thee to keepe seeing that is the signification of the word depositum Yet in the other place he is content to leaue them o 2. Tim. 2.14 Hold fast by the holy Ghost the good things cōmitted vnto thee to keep where they reade keep the good depositum But what is that that was thus committed to Timothy to keepe He telleth vs that it was the true doctrine of Christ the true sence of holy Scriptures the right administration of the Sacraments and the gouernment of the Church But what of all this We expected vnwritten traditions and in all these things we see no necessitie to vnderstand any thing but that that is contained in the Scriptures In the Scriptures we learne the true doctrine of Christ and whatsoeuer is contained in the true sence of Scripture is contained in the Scripture There we learne whatsoeuer necessarily belongeth to the administration of Sacraments and gouernment of the Church But our question is here of necessary doctrines which are neither contained in the word nor sence of holy Scripture and M. Bishop doth amisse in the citing of these places vnlesse he can make it good that such were committed to Timothy by S. Paul Albeit those particulars are neither set downe by Chrysostome nor Theophylact onely Theophylact generally expoundeth the words thus p Theop. in t Tim. cap. 6. Quaecunque scilicet tibi sunt per me demandata tanquam Domini praecepta seruata nec horū quicquam imminues p 2. Tim.
Church nor Councell can define any thing but as shall be pleasing to the Pope The Church cannot erre the Councell cannot erre but the reason is because the Pope cannot erre Set aside the Pope and the Church may erre and the Councell may erre but the Pope onely cannot erre This is a drunken fancie witlesse senslesse such as the auncient Fathers neuer imagined or dreamed of nay vnworthy whereof there shold be any question whether those godly Fathers approued it or not If we would argue froÌ„ the temporall state as M. Bishop doth what state is there or hath bene that maketh one man Iudge and interpreter of all lawes He nameth it to haue bene so in the old Testament amongst the Iewes but either he knoweth not or impudently falsifieth the storie in that behalfe For the law of Moses did not make the high Priest alone a Iudge but onely as elsewhere it is expounded l 2. Chro. 19.11 the chiefe of them that were appointed Iudges for al matters of the Lord. There was a whole Councell to which those causes were referred and by common consultation and iudgement things were agreed vpon and the sentence accordingly pronounced by the Priest He had not to say I determine thus or thus but as we haue example in the Gospell he said m Mat. 26.66 What thinke ye as being to haue consent of the rest before he could giue a sentence Therefore Moses setteth all downe in the plurall number as of many n Deut. 17.8.9 If there arise a matter too hard for thee c. thou shalt come to the Priests of the Leuites and to the Iudge that shall be in those dayes and aske and they shall shew thee the sentence of iudgement and thou shalt do according to all that they of that place shall shew thee According to the law which they shall teach thee thou shalt do c. Onely because the sentence in common agreed vpon was pronounced by the Priest as the chiefe therefore it is added o Ver. 12. And the man that shall do presumptuously not hearkening to the Priest as touching matters of the Lord or to the Iudge as touching ciuill causes for we see these two plainely distinguished each from other that man shal die Now if God would not in that small kingdome haue all to depend vpon the iudgement of any one how improbable is it that to one should be committed a iudgement of all matters of the Lord throughout the whole world And how do they make it good that any such power or authoritie should belong vnto him They tell vs much of Peter but we find not that attributed to Peter which they ascribe to the Pope neither do they giue vs any warrant froÌ„ Christ that that is descended to the Pope which is attributed to Peter Surely if Christ would haue had the Pope to succeed in Peters place the Popes should haue bene qualified as Peter was But we see the contrarie for amongst all the generations of men since the world was it cannot be shewed that euer there was such a succession of rake-hels and hel-hounds such monsters and incarnate diuels as haue bene amongst them men that haue giuen themselues wholy to the diuell as their owne stories do report Heretikes Apostaties Atheists dogges most vnworthy of all other to haue the Sunne shine vpon them or the earth to beare them Alphonsus de Castro said once though afterwards he was made to vnsay it p Alphâ—nsâ—â—e Castro lib. 1 ca 4 contra haeres CuÌ„ consâ—â—t plâ—â—res corâ—â—â— adâ—â—â—sse illâ—teratos vt Graâ—â—â—atram penitùs ignoraÌ„t qui fit vt sicras literas interpretari pâ—â—sâ—â—t Thus it was printed twice at first but after for thâ— Popes credit he was instructed to leaue it out When as it is certaine that many Popes are so vnlearned as that they are vtterly ignorant of their very Grammer how can it be that they should be able to expound the Scriptures Surely very vnlikely it is and who doth not see it to be the most certaine and ineuitable danger of the Church that the moderation thereof and the detennining of the faith should be committed to one but specially to such a one Gregorie Bishop of Rome saw it well when the Patriarch of Constantinople making claime to be vniuersall Bishop he gaue this for one reason against that vniuersalitie for that q Gregor lib. 4. Ep. 32. Vniuersa Ecclâ—sia quod absit à statu suo corruâ—t quando is qui appellâ—tur vâ—â—uersaelis cadit Et lib. 6 Epâ— 24. if there be one to be vniuersall Bishop in his fall must be the fall of the whole Church And that God by the multitude of the ouerseers of his church hath prouided for the safetie thereof Cyprian well obserueth who one where affirming that r Cipria de simp Praelat Episcopatus vâ—â—â—â— est câ—â—â—â—â— a singulis in sâ—â—â—dum pâ—â—â— tâ—â—â—tur the office of Bishopricke is but one whereof euery Bishop fully hath his part and therefore signifying that none hath therein to challenge prerogatiue aboue another addeth further in another place that Å¿ Idâ—â—â— lib. 3. Ep. 13 〈…〉 erâ—â—runt c. vt si quis ex hoc coâ—â—â—â—io haereâ—â—◠〈◊〉 gregeÌ„ Christ â—â—cerare vâ—stare tâ—â—â—rit saâ—ueni 〈◊〉 caererâ— quasi pâ—â—teres vtilâ—s 〈◊〉 Sâ—â—cordâ—s 〈◊〉 Dominicâ—s 〈…〉 therefore the corporation of Bishops consisteth of many that if any one of this Colledge or company shall assay to bring in heresie and to rend and waste the flocke of Christ the rest shold helpe and as good and compassionate Pastors should gather the Lordes sheepe into his fold This prouision of God Antichrist the man of sinne the Bishop of Rome being to bring the abhomination of desolation into the church of Christ hath defeated and made voide challenging to himselfe alone an vniuersall power and authoritie of iudgement ouer the whole Church and vnder pretence thereof deuising and establishing in the Church whatsoeuer he list to the dishonour of God to the peruerting of the faith of Christ and to the destruction of infinite soules making a meaning of the word of God to serue his turne that nothing which he saith or doth may seeme to be controlled or checked thereby To this purpose they haue bewitched the world to entertaine this paradoxe which in the old Christian world was neuer heard of that t Hosius de expresso Dei verbo Siquis habeat interpretationem Ecclesiae Romanae de aliquo loco Scripturae etiaÌ„si nec sciat nec intelligat an quomodo cum Scripturae verbis conueniat tamen habet ipsissimum verbuÌ„ Dei if a man haue the interpretation of the Church of Rome of any place of Scripture albeit he neither know nor vnderstand whether and how it agreeth with the words of the Scripture yet he hath the very word of God And in like sort do our Rhemish impostors labour to perswade their Reader that u Rhem. Testam Argument of
in councell the controuersie was ended which S. Paule afterward deliuered in his preaching commanding all to obserue and keepe the decree and ordinance of the Apostles * Acts 16. And if it would not be tedious I could in like manner shew how in like sort euery hundredth yeare after errors and heresies rising by misconstruction of the written word they were confuted and reiected not by the written word onely but by the sentence and declaration of the Apostles scholers and Successors See Cardinall Bellarmine * Tom. 1. lib. 3. cap. 6. I will onely record two noble examples of this recourse vnto Antiquitie for the true sense of Gods word the first out of the Ecclesiasticall historie * Lib. 11. cap. 9. where of S. Gregorie Nazianzen and S. Basil two principall lights of the Greeke Church this is recorded They were both Noble men brought vp together at Athens and afterward for thirteeene yeares space laying aside all profane bookes employed their studie wholy in the holy Scriptures The sense and true meaning whereof they sought not out of their owne iudgement as the Protestants both do and teach others to do but out of their Predecessors writings and authoritie namely of such as were knowne to haue receiued the rule of vnderstanding from the Tradition of the Apostles these be the very words The other example shall be the principall pillar of the Latin Church S. Augustine who not onely exhorteth and aduiseth vs to follow the decree of the auncient Church if we will not be deceiued with the obscuritie of doubtfull questions * Lib. contra Crescon 1. c. 33 but plainely affirmeth That he would not beleeue the Gospell if the authoritie of the Church did not moue him vnto it * Conâ—ra Epist sund cap. 5. Which words are not to be vnderstood as Caluin would haue them that S. Augustine had not bene at first a Christian if by the authoritie of the Church he had not bene therunto perswaded but that when he was a learned and iudicious Doctor and did write against heretikes euen then he would not beleeue these books of the Gospell to haue bin penned by diuine inspiration and no others this to be the true sense of them vnlesse the Catholike Church famous then for antiquitie generalitie and consent did tell him which and what they were so farre was he off from trusting to his owne skill and iudgement in this matter which notwithstanding was most excellent R. ABBOT M. Bishop here setteth the stocke vpon it and at one game he is minded to winne all but indeed as a cousening gamester by shifting and iugling beguileth honest simple men so doth he abuse the simple Reader with goodly glorious words crauing leaue as it were to giue him satisfaction in a high point and applying himselfe vnder this colour most trecherously to delude him Consider saith he that our coelestiall lawgiuer gaue his law not written in Inke and Paper but in the hearts of his most faithfull subiects For this he quoteth the words of God by the Prophet Ieremy a Ierem. 31.33 After those dayes saith the Lord I will put my law into their inward parts and write it in their hearts c. and the words of the Apostle to the Corinthians b 2. Cor. 3.3 Ye are manifest to be the Epistle of Christ ministred by vs not written with inke but with the spirit of the liuing God not in tables of stone but in fleshly Tables of the heart Now therefore he will haue vs to conceiue that which Andradius one of the great masters of the Trent-Councell hath told vs that c Andrad Orth. explicat lib. 2. Non spectauit Christus vt EuaÌ„gelium literit descriptum aut in membranu exaratum iaceret sed vt verbis explicatum omni creaturae promulgaretur Christ did not looke that the Gospell should lye written in letters or printed in parchments but that by declaration of words it should be published to all creatures Where we see how they apply themselues so much as in them lyeth to impeach vilifie the authoritie of Scriptures as if they were written onely of priuate fancie and Christ had had no care or regard to haue it so But how impertinently those places are brought for proofe hereof appeareth very plainely out of the words themselues For what was the law that God promised by Ieremy to write in the hearts of his people Was it not the law giuen before by Moses concerning which Moses also expresseth the same promise that Ieremy doth d Deut. 30.6 The Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seede that thou maist loue the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soule that thou maist liue Now e Exod. 34.1 that law God himselfe had deliuered in writing and f Vers 27. commaunded Moses also to write the same Therefore the words of Ieremy as touching writing Gods law in our hearts can import nothing against the writing of it with inke and paper but onely that the lawes which were before by the ministerie of Moses deliuered onely in inke and paper should by the power of the holy Ghost through the faith of Christ be wrought and written in the affections of the heart that God in Christ would not administer onely outwardly the letter of the lawe whether in writing or in preaching but would in both by the regeneration of the spirit giue grace inwardly for the fulfilling of it As little to that purpose is the other place The false Apostles laboured to impeach the credit of S. Paules Apostleship as if he had had no sufficient commission or warrant of it S. Paul for himselfe alledgeth that the Corinthians were as an Epistle from Christ whereby he was sufficiently commended and his calling testified vnto them in that the Gospell by his ministery had had so great successe taken so great effect amongst them That singular effect of his preaching he importeth to haue bene a greater assurance vnto them then any epistle written with inke and paper and to haue commended his ministerie aboue the ministerie of Moses who gaue the Law onely in tables of stone because here the spirit of God concurred with the outward seruice and wrought mightily in their hearts for the receiuing of the doctrine of the faith of Christ and conuerting of theÌ„ vnto God Now to say that the CorinthiaÌ„s were an epistle not writteÌ„ with ink nor in tables of stone what is it to shew that the celestial law-giuer gaue not his lawes written with inke and paper Surely the difference of the two testaments which is the thing that M. Bishop would insinuate was neuer holden to consist in this that the one should be written and the other vnwritten because euen in the old testament the new was written but herein it stood that the one either written or taught by word ministred onely knowledge what we ought to do not anie grace
1. Non vtilitatis sed honoris duntaxit gratia vt PetruÌ„ spectaret not for any benefit but for honors sake to see him saith Theophylact. Not for any such honors sake as M. Bishop imagineth as to acknowledge him his superior in place office S. Paul himself professing himself e 2. Cor. 12.11 in nothing to haue bene inferiour to the very chiefe Apostles but for that honours sake of which the same Apostle saith f Rom. 12.10 In giuing honor go one before another wherof we are wont to say that we name a man honoris gratia for honors sake by which g Theophyl vt supra Vt cum qui aetate esset prouectâ—or veneraretur magnificeret the yonger honoreth the elder the equall his equall yea the superior his inferior For otherwise it is true which Cyprian saith that h Cyprian de simpl Pralat Hoc eraÌ„t reliqui Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari conserito praediti hoacris potestatis the rest of the Apostles were the same that Peter was indued with equall fellowship both of honour and of power But to go forward i Gal. 2.1 14. yeares after befell that that M. Bishop here speaketh of that Paul went vp againe to Ierusalem The occasioÌ„ whereof was that that the mentioneth here as another matter about the question of the Gentils obseruing of Moses law Paul and Barnabas had preached the Gospell with great successe amongst the Gentils and namely at Antioch Whilest they were abiding there k Act. 15.1 there came downe certaine froÌ„ Iudea taught the brethren Except ye be circumcised after the maner of Moses ye cannot be saued Hereupon there was great dissention and great disputation of Paule and Barnabas against theÌ„ These false Apostles pretended theÌ„selues to haue come froÌ„ the Apostles at IerusaleÌ„ and to haue receiued their instructions froÌ„ theÌ„ as may appeare by those words of their answer l Ver. 24. We haue heard that certaine which departed froÌ„ vs haue troubled you with words and cumbred your minds saying ye must be circumcised keep the law to whom we gaue no such commandement Vnder this colour they slandred Paul as teaching another Gospell then the other Apostles did Now when as they thus preteÌ„ded the Apostles names and made shew to haue receiued commandement from them it was necessarie for the satisfaction of the Church that the matter should be cleared by the Apostles themselues Wherefore it was thought good God m Gal. 2.2 by reuelation also so directed as the Apostle signifieth that n Act 15.2 he and Barnabas some other of theÌ„ should go to IerusaleÌ„ to the Apostles and Elders about this question This occasion of his going let S. Ambrose declare o Ambr. in Gal. 2. A Iudaeis causa legis mala illi siebat opinto quasi discordaret à praedicatione caeteroruÌ„ Aposto lorum hinc fiebat multis scrupulus ita vt gentes possent perturbari ne in aliud inducerâ—â—tur ab eo quà m tradebant Apostoli qui cum Domino fuerant Nam ipsa occasione subuersi suÌ„t Galatae à Iudaeis dicentibus quiae aliud tradebat Paulus quam Petrus Hinc factum est vt admonitus reuelatione Domini ascenderet HierosolymaÌ„ c. The Iewes saith he caused an euill opinion of him in behalfe of their law as if he disagreed froÌ„ the preaching of the rest of the Apostles herby some scruple grew to many so as that the Gentils might be troubled or perplexed with doubt left by him they should be drawne to any thing else then the Apostles deliuered who had bene with the Lord. For by this occasion the Galathians were peruerted by the Iewes saying that Paul deliuered or taught otherwise then Peter did Hence it came to passe that being admonished by reuelation from the Lord he went vp to Hierusalem What to do to be examined and approued of theÌ„ as his superiors iudges as M. B. saith What had he preached the Gospell now 17. yeares doth he now at length remember himselfe to come to his superiors to be examined of them no such matter He came as he saith p Ver. 2. to confer with them of the Gospell which he preached among the Gentils Now q Hiero. in Gal. 2. Aliud est coÌ„ferre aliud discere Inter conferentes aequalitas est inter docentem discenteÌ„ minor est ille qui discit it is one thing to confer saith Ierome another thing to learne There is equality bewixt theÌ„ that conferre but betwixt him that teacheth and him that learneth he that learneth is the lesser He conferred then with the other Apostles as his equals not in respect of himselfe as to haue any thing added to himself by theÌ„ but only for satisfactioÌ„ of the Church that the scandall of the slander of the false Apostles might be remoued all the Church might know that in their doctrine they coÌ„sented al in one that so neither his labor thenceforth nor that that he had bestowed might be bestowed in vaine by reason of any such false suggestions of his dissenting from the rest And to shew that he conferred with theÌ„ to no other end he saith afterwards that r Ver 6. they added nothing further to him that Å¿ Ver. 7. they saw that the Gospel of the vncircumcision was committed to him as the Gospell of the circumcision was committed to Peter t Ver. 9. that they who seemed to be pillars Iames Peter and Iohn gaue vnto him and Barnabas right hands of fellowship yea that he was so farre from being inferiour to them as that at Antioch u Ver. 11. he withstood Peter to his face as iustly to be blamed for not going the right way to the truth of the Gospell in that he seemed by his cariage to draw the Gentiles to the obseruation of the law contrary to that which before had bene acknowledged by him Now then the reason is manifest of S. Pauls going vp to the pillars of the Church albeit he were as great a pillar as any of them And as for the sentence of the Councel it did not teach him any thing which he knew not but onely signified the common acknowledgement of that which he had before taught x Chrysost in Gal 1. Ab initio quid esset agendum perspexerat nec opus hâ—bebat vllo doctore sed quae post multaÌ„ discussioneÌ„ erant Apostoli decreturi haec ipsa citra discussionem coelitus hâ—bebat apud se certa indubitata He vnderstood from the beginning saith Chrysostome what was to be done and needed no teacher but what the Apostles after much debating should decree the same had he certain and vndoubted with himself from heauen without debating Now by this that hath bene said we may conceiue what to thinke of those allegatioÌ„s which M. Bishop for a shew hath quoted in the margeÌ„t That which Tertullian saith is
differ much as first in the definition of a Vow which he defineth thus A Vow is a promise made to God touching some dutie to be performed to him This definition cometh too short of a Vow and agreeth vnto all other couenants made betweene God and man and so Adams acceptance not to eate of the forbidden fruite should be a Vow and Noes building of the Arke and briefly euery acceptance and promise to fulfill any of Gods commandements and consequently euery breach of them must needs be two seuerall sinnes the one of disobedience in such a precept the other of infidelity by breaking of our vow All which absurdities necessarily follow of M. Perkins his definition and be things vnheard of either in holy Scriptures or among the ancient holy Fathers proceeding onely out of the drosse of their owne deuices and therfore with as great facilitie to be denied of vs as they do with audacitie auouch them To make vp then the definition we must adde that the promise to God be of some better good proceeding from our owne free choise and libertie so that no vow is made without a mans free choise to bind himself ouer and besides all other necessary bonds which to be of the nature of a vow we gather first out of the holy Scriptures * Deut. 23. If thou make a vow be not slow to performe it but if thou wilt not promise thou shalt be without sin What can be more cleare then that a maÌ„ may chuse whether he wil vow or no which is confirmed in S. Paul He that decreeth in his heart not hauing necessity but hauing power ouer his owne wil c. So that this libertie to promise or not to promise is of the substance of a Vow and that if he list not to vow he doth not sinne which were very false if the acceptance of necessary duties were Vowes For he that refuseth to accept them doth sin as if a man should refuse to performe any of Gods commaundements Hence it followeth most manifestly that the promise which we make to God in Baptisme of keeping Gods commaundements is no vow if a vow be taken properly because it lieth not in vs to refuse it without we will withall refuse the grace of Baptisme and remaine in the state of damnation And M. Perkins affirming it to be a Vow and often repeating it doth not once confirme it with any shadow of proofe but takes that for granted which he knowes we do denie flatly R. ABBOT What the nature of a Vow is we shall best conceiue by the vse thereof which we find expressed in the Law of God which if we wel weigh consider we shall conceiue that a Vow is nothing else but a deliberate and solemne promise made to God of some honor or seruice to be done vnto him interposed for a motiue to the obtaining and receiuing of some speciall benefite at his hands The matter of Vowes in the law of Moses is vsually noted to be some ceremoniall worship God hauing thereby prescribed to his people certaine formes of externall obseruations whereby they should vpon occasions testifie their thankfulnesse and deuotion towards him As in other their legall seruice they were restrained froÌ„ following their own deuice so in this point also of Vowes they were limited neither might any thing be done by vow to God but whereof God had giuen warrant and approbation by the law Albeit because deuotion and thankfulnesse is a matter of free and voluntary affection and ready of it selfe to shew it selfe therefore God though he himselfe directed in that case what might and should be done by him that vowed yet did not by expresse commandement tie any man to vow but left it so farre forth to issue from the free and voluntary motion of his owne heart Now the vse of vowes we find in Scripture to haue commonly bene vpon condition of receiuing some benefit and mercy at Gods hands Thus Iacob being to go to his vnkle Laban for auoiding the fury of his brother Esau a Gen. 28.20 vowed a vow saying If God will be with me and keepe me in this iourney which I go and will giue me bread to eate and clothes to put on so that I come againe to my fathers house in safety then shall the Lord be my God and this stone which I haue set vp as a pillar shall be Gods house and of all that thou shalt giue mee will I giue the tenth vnto thee So the sonnes of Iacob the Israelites in the wildernesse b Num 21.2 vowed a vow saying If thou wilt deliuer and giue this people which were of the Canaanites into mine hands I will make their cities anathema that is I will vtterly destroy them reseruing the spoyle thereof to be consecrated vnto thee Thus c Iudg 11.30 Iephthe vpon condition of victory against the Ammonites vowed for a burnt offering to the Lord whatsoeuer at his returne should first meete him out of his owne house d 1. Sam. 1.11 Hannah vpon condition of hauing a sonne vowed him for a perpetuall Nazarite to the Lord e Psal 66.12 Dauid maketh vowes to God in the time of his trouble namely vpon condition of being deliuered therefrom and Absolon though counterfeitly yet expressing the manner and vse of vowing saith to Dauid his father f 2. Sam 15.8 Thy seruant vowed a vow when I remained in Geshur in Aram saying If the Lord shall bring me againe to Ierusalem I will serue the Lord pretending thereby the offering of some sacrifices and offerings by which he would shew himselfe thankfull to God And thus as in all other seruice of the Law the performance of outward ceremonies was required not for themselues but for the spirituall duties that were shadowed thereby euen so was it in vowes that not for the carnall and outward things that were vowed but for the inward affections and deuotions thereby exercised they were acceptable vnto God For it is true which Tertullian saith g Tertul. aduers Marc. lib 3 Non exigens Deus quae fiebant sed propter quod fiebant ob honorem sciâ—icet Dei God did not require the things themselues that were done but that for which they were done which was for the honor of God Therefore to speake properly and principally of the intention of vowes the matter of them was spirituall and inward deuotion though acted by carnal seruice But spirituall acts and duties of religion are the same now that they were then and the same then as now Therefore the thing properly and principally meant in vowes continueth now the same as it was also then Whereof it must follow that they who make vowes of other intendment then they did make promises to God of other matters then were meant in their vowes do deale very sinisterly and corruptly in alledging their example for the warrant of them Yea and seeing the spiritual deuotions intended in their vowes are common to all persons
Thomas Aquinas his braines who seeing that that which he was to say for their other vowes could not well hang together if the promise of baptisme should be taken for a perfect vow hewed and pared the definition of a vow that it might be fitted for his turne Azorius the Iesuite telleth vs that e Azor. lib. 11. cap 14. Baptisma esse votū propriè dictum veteres Theologi cū magistro videntur sentire sed probabilius est quod scholastici alij tenent the auncient Diuines as also the Master of the Sentences seeme to thinke that baptisme is a vow properly and truly so called but saith he it is more probable which the rest of the Schoole-men hold Thus against the iudgement of the ancient Diuines they frame all things as they list and we must take euery of their blinde sophismes to be a certaine rule of truth But we refuse them to be our masters and chuse to follow that which the Church before them hath followed accounting all those things the matters of our vowes to God which were figured by those ceremonies and sacrifices which were vowed by the law euen all the spirituall sacrifices of praise and thanksgiuing and al good works whereby we honor and glorifie almightie God all which according to our state of life we promise to God in baptisme and therefore do account that promise a vow because it containeth the spiritual substance of those ancient vows The compiler of the book of Sentences in S. Austins works hath frō one or other gathered this sentence f Sent. apud August to 3. in fine Quisquis benè cogitat quae voueat Deo quae vouendo persoluat seipsum voueat reddat Hoc exigiur hoc debetur Whosoeuer well bethinketh him what to vow to God and what in vowing to pay let him vow himselfe and pay himself This is required of God and this is due to God If this be the right conceit of a vow then the promise of baptisme is a vow and it is not true which M. Bishop saith that there is no vow properly so called of necessary duties because we vow that which God requireth and which is due to God Albeit for conclusion I am to aduertise thee gentle Reader that we make not the matter of vowes to consist onely in necessary duties that is such duties as God namely requireth of vs but that sometimes we vow those things which rest vpon our choise and whereof in particular we are commanded nothing For albeit God require thankfulnesse and dutie for the mercies which we haue receiued of him yet he hath not precisely set downe that by way of thanks a man should always do this or that but hath left the deuout and thankfull minde to cast and consider which way he may testifie the affection of his heart by doing some good worke whereof he hath vnderstanding by the word of God that it shal be acceptable vnto him Thus a man though not bound to it yet may vow to do seruice to God in the ministery of the Church and being a minister conceiuing his seruice in this or that sort to be profitable to the Church may by vowing himself thereto abridge himselfe of that libertie which otherwise he might enioy So may a man vow a part of his goods to the poore as g Luke 19.8 Zacheus did when as by no commaundement he is vrged so to do The like may men do for the building and endowing of Schools Hospitals Colledges and such other godly charitable vses when yet these things by precept are not necessarily layd vpō them Yea neither do we question but that a man vpon good grounds and so long as he shal not therby be h 1. Cor. 7.35 intangled in a snare may priuatly vow vnto God a single life to the end that he may the more commodiously apply himselfe to the seruice of i Mat. 19.12 the kingdome of God this vow being conditionall only so far as it shal be seconded with the gift of God and so long as it shal stand with peace of conscience towards him In these such like is the true imitation of the outward ceremony of the law wherin men were at their liberty whether to vow or not works wherof generally we haue warrant by the word of God but whereof in particular there is no necessitie imposed vpon vs being left vnto vs at large thereby freely and voluntarily to exercise our zeale and deuotion towards God Wherin notwithstanding we are to remember that caution that Chrysostome giueth k Chrysos in psal 49. Si quis autē exactè perpenderit etsi minimè promittatur virtus tamen ei debetur Id Christus fignificans dicebat Quae debuimus facere fecimus If a man exactly weigh the matter our vertues are due to God albeit they be not promised or vowed which Christ signifieth when he saith We haue done that that was our dutie to do For seeing we are bound l Luke 10.17 to loue the Lord our God with all our hart with al our soule with all our mind with al our strength we must conceiue that though nothing be directed vnto vs in particular as touching the necessity of such or such a worke yet in the generall we do nothing therein but what we owe to God because whatsoeuer is within vs or whatsoeuer is without vs we owe all to him Yea and the vow of our baptisme doth after a sort containe all these other vowes in that being there consecrated wholy to God we vndertake thereby to take all occasions and oportunities to do honor vnto God As for popish vows being as they are for the most part brainsick idle fancies such as whereof neither in the general nor in the particular we haue any testimonie from God that they are accepted in his sight they are onely apish counterfeits of those legall and ceremoniall vowes but do no way carrie the true resemblance of them nor that life of spirituall worship and seruice that was shadowed thereby 2. W. BISHOP The second point of our supposed consent is that Vowes were some part of Gods worship in Moses law but are not so in the Gospell which we also deny M. Perk. proues his assertion thus Vows belonged to the ceremonies of Moses law but all those ceremonies are abolished by Christs passion Ans That Vowes in thēselues were no part of the ceremonies of Moses law but true parts of the worship of God in all estates as well in the state of nature and the Gospel as in Moses law but this point M. Perk. handleth againe in the first point of our difference where it shall be discussed Thirdly he saith that speciall vowes may be made in the new law to performe some bodily exercise for some good end as to fast to taske our selues to prayers or study of holy Scripture and such like but many rules must then be obscrued that we vow an honest thing agreeable to
Gods word this we allow Secondly that it be so made that it may stand with Christian libertie that is that it make not such things necessarie in conscience which Christian religion leaues at libertie This rule of his is flat repugnant to the nature of a vow and contrary to himselfe For he saith a little before that a Christian may vow fasting prayer 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
their more earnest seeking the kingdome of heauen And thus the other sentences which he alledgeth out of Austin in the maine drift of theÌ„ contrarie nothing that we say onely in two respects we differ from him and he from vs. First we hold the texts of Scripture which he bringeth to be verie vnsufficient for the proofe of that which he inteÌ„deth For the words of the Prophet Esay are not spoken of Eunuches as for following some speciall kind of life in the Church but for imbracing the common faith and religion of the Church and are properly referred to them who properly truly are called Eunuches M. Bishop to make them serue his turne falsifieth and corrupteth them the text being in this sort o Esa 56 3. Let not the sonne of the stranger which is ioyned to the Lord speake and say The Lord hath surely separated me from his people neither let the Eunuch say Behold I am a drie tree for thus saith the Lord vnto the Eunuches that keepe my Sabboths and chuse the thing that pleaseth me and take hold of my couenant euen vnto them I will giue in mine house and within my wals a place and a name better then of sonnes and daughters or otherwise better then to the sons and daughters I will giue them an euerlasting name that shall not be put out Which words and the rest that follow do manifestly tend to take away froÌ„ them of whom he speaketh all opinion of separation from the people of God or of being excluded from hauing name and portion in his house The Gentiles were p Eph. 2.12 aliens and strangers from the commonwealth of Israel and thereby strangers from the couenants of promise but God giueth to vnderstand that in Christ this difference shall be taken away and whosoeuer of the Gentils shall cleaue to the Lord and embrace his couenant their prayers shall be acceptable vnto him and they shall haue like place in the house of God Againe God gaue it as one part of his blessing vnto Abraham that q Gen. 22.17 his seede should be multiplied and as one branch of that blessing he promised vnto the seed of Abraham r Deut. 7.12.14 If they should hearken vnto his lawes and obserue them they should be blessed aboue all people and there should be neither male nor female barren amongst theÌ„ Wherefore to be barren and without children was with them a matter of much sorow and shame and as a token of not being beloued of God but Å¿ Cyril in Esa lib. 5. com 3. Gloria eorum in parâ—ubus parturitionibus conceptionibus their glory as Cyril citeth was in birthes and bringing forth and conceiuing Now vpon the Eunuch or gelded man the law of Moses had layd it as a matter of curse and reproach that t Deut 23.1 he should not come into the congregation of the Lord he should haue no place amongst them in their assemblies which were sacred and holy to the Lord. This therefore might seeme to stand still as a bar against such froÌ„ being reckened amoÌ„ngst the people of God but God signifieth that in Christ this barre also should be taken away Cyril expoundeth the words thus u Cyril vt supra Siquis sit Euâ—uchus id est careus liberis sobole ne dicat apud seipsum ego sum lignum aridum id est ne molestè ferat orbitatem Apud DeuÌ„ enim nihil est nec eum veijciet If any man be an Eunuch that is wanting children and issue let him not say with himselfe I am a drie tree that is let him not take grieuously his being depriued thereof For with God this is nothing neither will he for that cause reiect him He saith indeed afterwards x Jbid. Nihil etiam nocet imò necesse esse dico vt mentionem faciamus nunc eorum qui se propter regnum coelâ—rum Eunuchos reddiderunâ— quibus cratio ae Deo hoc loco habita non abire accoÌ„modari potest It is not hurtfull yea it is necessarie I say that we here make mention of theÌ„ who haue made themselues Eunuches for the kingdome of heauen to whom the speech here vsed by God may not impertinently be applied but he plainely enough importeth that the proper construction of the wordes is that that he hath before deliuered God therefore willeth the Eunuch not to account himselfe a drie tree as not y Psal 91.12 to be planted in the house of God and as being depriued of the blessing of the people of God but to know that howsoeuer there lay vpon him a note of exclusion by the Law yet now if he would ioyne himselfe in faith religion to the people of God he shold be altogether as one of theÌ„ and howsoeuer his name might seeme to die for want of sons daughters yet he should haue a name better then the name of sons and daughters euen an euerlasting name which shal neuer be put out but be glorious with God for euer Men ioy much in the continuance of their name by their issue and posterity by sonnes daughters but to be named amoÌ„gst the people of God and called one of his is a farre greater name then the name of many sonnes and daughters Otherwise if we reade it a better name then to the sonnes and daughter it hath reference to the people of the Iewes who for being of the seede of Abraham were peculiarly reckoned for the children for sonnes and daughters Thus is it said of them by our Sauiour Christ z Mat. 8.12 The children of the kingdome shall be cast out and againe a Cap. 15.26 It is not meete to take the childrens bread and to cast it to dogs Therfore he giueth to vnderstand that the Eunuch by being the child of God through the faith of Iesus Christ hath a more glorious name then if he were named of Abrahams seede in the title whereof the Iewes so proudly vainely reioyced In a word the maine drift of the Prophets words generally of strangers and particularly of Eunuchs is to signifie in Christ the pulling downe of the whole b Eph. 2.14 partition wall of all legall separations that we should know there is an end of those differences and vncleannesses which the law imputed and that now c Gal. 3.28 there is neither Iew nor Greeke bond nor free male or female no difference of maimed or whole but all are one in Christ Iesus and d Act. 10.35 in euery nation and of euery sort of men he that feareth God and worketh righteousnesse is accepted with him This is the true and proper effect and meaning of that place neither can it without wresting and violence be expounded of Eunuchs in that sence as S. Austin speaketh of theÌ„ And wheras S. Austin so taketh the words as that God should giue to these Eunuchs a better name then to sonnes and daughters which to expresse M. Bishop translateth very
which the Apostle gaue for the direction of Christian life 18. W. BISHOP The next place is * Pro. 30.8 Giue me neither riches nor pouerty Answer The Prayer is good and fitteth the persons of honest men who liue in the world and was of some perfection too in the state of Moses law in which it was made as disswading from couetousnesse of great riches but it commeth too short of the perfection of the Gospell wherein we are counselled to esteeme as dung all worldly riches R. ABBOT He blamed M. Perkins answer in the former Section as deuoid of natural wit and sence but I pray thee gentle Reader if thou light vpon him to aske him where his wits were when he gaue this answer To the one part he answereth a Pro. 30.8 Giue me not riches but to the other part Giue me not pouerty which is the thing vrged against him he answereth nothing We are counselled in the Gospel he saith to esteem as dung all worldly riches True therfore we say Giue me not riches But yet in the Gospell we are taught to pray for that that is conuenient according to our place and condition when we say Giue vs this day our daily bread and therefore we say Giue me not pouertie whereupon it is added Feede me with foode conuenient for me The praier saith he fitteth the persons of honest men that liue in the world Hypocrite who taught thee this distinction of praiers Hath the spirit of God set it down as a praier of the wisest man and is it now come to be posted ouer to I know not what honest men It was of some perfection he saith in the state of Moses law but commeth too short of the perfection of the Gospell Hypocrite the Apostle hath taught vs that b Rom. 15.4 whatsoeuer things were written before time were written for our learning and must we vpon the word of an idle Sophister be perswaded that that praier is too base for vs to learn And what were not men taught in the state of Moses law to esteeme as dung all worldly riches Did not Dauid say c Psal 62.10 If riches increase set not your heart vpon them Did not Solomon say of riches d Prou. 23.5 Wilt thou cast thine eies vpon that that is nothing Did not Esay say e Esa 40.6 All flesh is grasse and all the glory thereof as the flower of the field Were they not as fully taught to despise the world and to ioy in God as we are But the man so dreameth of perfection perfection as that we may very well thinke that there is some very great imperfection in his head In a word therefore God hath taught a man to say Giue me not pouerty but they teach a man to say I will vow pouerty and what do they then but teach a man to contrary that which God hath taught 19. W. BISHOP M. Perkins his third reason is taken out of Deut. 28.22 where pouerty is numbred among the curses of the law none of which are to be vowed Answer It is one thing to be punished with pouerty for transgressing of Gods law and another I trow for the loue of God to giue away all we haue to the poore The former was a curse in the law of Moses the latter is a blessing and the first blessing in the Gospell * Luc. 6. Blessed are the poore for theirs is the kingdome of heauen Which sentence albeit it may be applied very well vnto humility yet more literally signifieth voluntary pouerty as by the sentence opposed against it is manifest * Ver. 23. Woe be to you rich men c. R. ABBOT The words of Moses are a Deut. 28.44 The stranger shall lend to thee and thou shalt not haue to lend to him b Ver. 48. Thou shalt serue thine enemies in hunger and thirst and in nakednes and in need of all things Christ hath taught vs before that it is a blessing to haue wherof to giue and Moses teacheth vs that it is a curse to be in want not to haue wherof to lend what is then the vow of pouerty but the renouncing of a blessing and the voluntary vndergoing of a curse M. Bishop answereth that it is one thing to be punished with pouerty for trāsgressing the law of God another for the loue of God to giue all to the poore But then is it done for the loue of God when God calleth vs to the doing of it otherwise it is no matter of the loue of God but of humane presumption and selfwil Therfore his answer here is al one as if he shold say It is one thing for a man to be accursed of God another thing voluntarily to lay Gods curse vpon himself and how wel that serueth his turne let himselfe iudge Yet he will proue that it is a blessing yea the first blessing in the Gospel And how forsooth because Christ saith c Luke 6.20 Blessed are the poore for theirs is the kingdom of heauē We may see the poore man was driuē to poore shifts when he was faine to vse this text for the making good of his vow of pouerty If his leisure had serued him he would haue turned to the fift of Mathew and there haue seen our Sauior expounding himself d Mat. 5.2 Blessed are the poore in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heauen Now a man would think that M. Bishops learning should haue taught him long before this that a man may be rich in worldly goods and yet poore in spirit and that vndoubtedly Abraham the father of all beleeuers was such a one Yea saith he it may wel be applied to humilitie yet more literally it signifieth voluntary pouerty And how may that appeare forsooth by the sentence opposed against it it is manifest Wo be to you rich men But I maruel what strings M. Bishop hath to tie this argument together Christ saith Wo be to you rich men therfore that which he saith before Blessed are ye poore must necessarily be vnderstood of volūtary pouerty What doth Christ absolutely meane wo to all that be rich When he expoundeth the poore to be poore in spirit doth he not teach vs proportionably to vnderstand the rich This childish collection is reproued by our Sauior Christ whē his disciples being astonished at that which he said e Mark 10.23 How hardly do they that haue riches enter into the kingdome of God he answereth f Ver. 24. Children therby reprouing their weaknes of vnderstanding how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God The wo then is not to all that are rich but to such as trust in riches but there are men who g 1. Tim. 6.17 are rich in this world who yet are not high minded and trust not in vncertaine riches but in the liuing God Christ hauing shewed the end of the man that trusted in riches addeth
vncleannesse towards God in any externall or outward things Concerning this liberty against the Monkish vow of obedience M. Perkins alledgeth the Apostles words a Gal. 5.1 Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made you free Here Maister Bishop being somewhat pleasurable asketh Doth your breath or heart faile you Sir that you stop thus in the midst of a sentence Why I pray what is the rest of the sentence And wrap not your selues againe in the yoke of bondage And what meaneth that Marry binde not your selues to the obseruation of Moses law as ye shall doe if ye be circumcised And was it then the meaning of the Apostle that they should not wrap themselues in the yoke and bondage of Moses law which was giuen of God but they might wrap themselues in the yoke and bondage of the lawes of men Did God ease vs of his yoke to giue men libertie to yoke vs againe with their deuises What an idle exception is this of his and why doth he not remember that the Apostle maketh this instruction generall against all yokes of humane imposition where he saith b 1. Cor. 7.23 Ye are bought with a price be ye not made the seruants of men S. Austine lamenteth it as touching the condition of his time that c Aug epâ—st 119. Ipsam religioneÌ„ quaÌ„ paucissimis manifestissimu celebrationuÌ„ Sacramentis misericordia Dei esse liberaÌ„ voluit seruilibâ—s oneribus premunt vt tolerabilior sit conditio Iudaecâ—uÌ„ qui etiamsi teÌ„pus libertatis noÌ„ agnouerint legalibus tamen sarcinis non humanis praesumptionibus subijciuntur whereas the mercy of God would haue religion to be free hauing very few and those very manifest Sacraments or mysteries of obseruations men did so oppresse it with seruile burdens as that the state of the Iewes was more tolerable who albeit they knew not the time of liberty yet were subiect to the burdens of the law of God and not to humane presumptions It is plaine then by S. Austines iudgment which therein is very true that the liberty of Christian faith and religion is not onely from the burdens and yokes of Moses law but also from all burdens of humane presumptions and therefore M. Bishops answer is very vnsufficient to our obiection The vnsufficiencie whereof will the better appeare in considering the other place alledged by M. Perkins and omitted by M. Bishop d Col. 2.16.20 Let no man iudge you in meate and drinke why are ye led with traditions or decrees Touch not tast not handle not which all perish in the vsing being after the doctrines and commandements of men By which words he plainly sheweth that by the liberty of Christ no rules may be set downe whereby men should be iudged in conscience about meates and drinkes about touching tasting handling or any thing decreed by the doctrines and precepts of men And what doth he then but thereby condemne all Monkish institutions whereby the consciences of men are burdened and intangled with so many obseruations about meates drinkes apparell and other matters reckoned as a purchase of the forgiuenesse of sinnes and the merit of eternall life This cannot be auoided but that since the doctrines and coÌ„mandemens of men as touching meats drinks and such other things be condemned therefore Friar Frauncis his fellow Dominicke with the rest of them were superstitious hypocrites to prescribe rules and to require obedience to be performed vnto them in such things Yea and let M. Bishop be reckoned with them who setteth such before vs vnder the name of superiours to be obeied and calleth those good orders which the Apostle reiecteth because they are but mens traditions and nameth that a holy Church which contrary to the Apostles doctrine approueth such orders As for that which S. Austine saith e Aug. epist 45. Foelix est necessitas quae in meliora compellit Happy is the necessity that compelleth to the better it is true where the thing is good whereto we are compelled but vnhappy is the necessity whereby wee tye our selues to those things which are superstitious and offensiue vnto God Where he saith that if Christs sufferings without his obedience had not bene auaileable for our iustification no doubt but the works which are garnished with the vertue of obedience are more acceptable in Gods sight he notably plaieth the hypocrite to make Christes obedience to his father a cloke for their Friarly obedience to superstitious and absurd men It is true indeede which S. Austine saith that f Aug in Psal 70. Nihil tam expedit animae quà m obedire there is nothing so expedient for the soule as to obey but it is then true when we obey them who according to God are to be obeied g Origen in CaÌ„tic hom 2. Ornamentum monile ceruicis ecclesiae obedientiae Christi est The obedience of Christ saith Origen is the ornament and iewell of the Churches necke and therefore in Christes behalfe we are to obey none but onely them in whom we obey Christ We are to obey them who h Math. 28.20 teach the things which he hath commanded not those things which they themselues haue deuised i Tertul. de praescript Nec ipsi Apostoli quicquam ex suo arbitrio quod inducerent elegerunt The Apostles saith Tertullian gaue themselues no liberty to bring in any thing of their owne will and we are to follow none but such as haue followed the Apostles to deliuer faithfully Christes words not presumed rules and orders of their owne inuention k Ibid. Sed ne eligere quod aliquis de suo arbitrio induxerit We are not saith he to chuse or follow any thing which any man of his owne discretion hath brought in Mathew of Paris telleth a story of l Math. Parisan Henr. 3 anno 1227. Friar Frauncis that when he deliuered his rule to the Pope to be viewed and confirmed the Pope considering the same and beholding the deformed condition of the man bid him get him to the swine wallow with theÌ„ and bestow his paines to preach to them The Friar presently went where swine were and tumbled himself amongst theÌ„ and froÌ„ top to toe beraied himself all ouer with mire and dirt In this habite he goeth to the Pope againe saying My Lord I haue done as thou commandedst I pray thee now to hearken to my request The Pope admired the man and being sorie for that he had said to him granted him the confirming of his rule Were not here two fooles well met and may we not make it a question whether was the greater foole whether the Friar for so doing or the Pope for approuing that which he did Yet this brain-sick and drunken trick of a dirty beast goeth with M. Bishop for a vertue of obedience and was one of those worthy acts for which of a Friar he became a Saint Such is the rest of the obedience that their vow
meanes giue ouer till he had left vs this stinke of Images This is one of the grosse and palpable abhominations of the kingdome of Antichrist the filth whereof there is no man but seeth saue onely they a 2. Cor. 4.4 in whom being vnbeleeuers the god of this world hath blinded their mindes that the light of the glorious Gospell of Iesus Christ which is the Image of God should not shine vnto them By this the Church of Rome hath matched all the idolatries of the heathen and brought all their iugling deuices into the Church abusing the ignorance and simplicity of the people as grossely and damnably as euer they did But in this field I haue walked at large before in b Sect. 12. answer of the Epistle to the King and therefore I will here tye my selfe to those things which Master Bishop giueth vs occasion to consider of M. Perkins in his third conclusion affirmeth a lawfulnesse of making Images to testifie the presence and effects of the maiestie of God when God himselfe hath so commanded as he exemplifieth in Moses his making of the brazen serpent in figure of Christ crucified the Cherubin set ouer the mercy seate God there promising his presence and signifying the attendance of Angels to do him seruice Concerning this point Tertullian being vrged by idol-makers with the example of the brasen serpent answereth very rightly c Tertul. de Idol Benè quod idem Deus lege vetuit similitudinem fieri extraordinario praecepto serpentis similitudinem interdixit Si eundem Deum obserues habes legem eius Ne feceris similitudinem Si praeceptum factae posteà similitudinis respicis tu imitare Mosen Ne feceris aduersus legem similitudinem nisi tibi Deus iusserit It is wel that the same God both did forbid by law that any likenesse should be made and by extraordinarie commandement did appoint the likenesse of a serpent If thou worship the same God thou hast his law Thou shalt not make the similitude or likenesse of any thing if thou looke to the coÌ„mandement of making a similitude afterward do thou imitate Moses do not against the law make an image vnlesse God command thee also God giueth not lawes to himselfe but to vs what he commandeth to the contrarie by his owne authoritie is no iustification of our presumption For this cause M. Perkins obserueth that in the commandement it is said Thou shalt not make TO THY SELFE any grauen image to thy selfe that is saith he vpon thine owne head or vpon thine owne will and pleasure M. Bishop saith that this is a wilfull peruerting of the words which cannot signifie but to thine owne vse that is to adore Thus he cannot abide that they should be restrained from doing somewhat of their owne heads and at their owne will it is death to them to be hedged from that walke Yet Moses gaue it for a lesson from God d Deut. 12.8.32 vulg Hoc tantuÌ„ facito Domino Ye shall not do euery man what seemeth good in his owne eyes What I command thee that onely do to the Lord thou shalt put nothing to nor take ought therefrom Whereby it appeareth that M. Perkins exposition containeth a truth that to the Lord or by way of seruice to God no image might be made but what God himselfe commaunded neither doth the text declare any thing to the contrarie but that that is the true meaning of the words which he expoundeth In his fourth conclusion he saith that the right Images of the new Testament are the doctrine and preaching of the Gospell and all things that by the word of God do thereto appertaine whereby e Gal. 3 1â— Iesus Christ is described before our eyes as the Apostle saith euen as crucified amongst vs. This saith he is an excellent picture whereby Christ with his benefites is liuely represented vnto vs. These are Metaphoricall pictures saith M. Bishop not belonging to this purpose But why doth he admit that which M. Perkins citeth out of Origen affirming that Christians haue no other f Origen contra Celsum lib. 8. Simulachra Deo dicanda sunt non fabrorum opera sed à verbo Dei dedolata formataque in nobis videlicet virtutu ad imitationem primogeniti totius ereaturae in quo sunt iustitiae temperantiae fertitudinis sapientiae pietatis caeterarumque virtutuÌ„ exempla Hae sunt statuae Deo dicata in animuÌ„ virtutes exertentium quibus deceÌ„tèr honorari credimus omniuÌ„ huiusmodi statuarum archetypum primuÌ„ c. The images to be dedicated to God are not the workâ—s of Carpenters but hewed by the word of God and framed in vs namely vertues to the imitation of him who is the first borne before all creatures in whom are the examples of iustice fortitude temperancie wisedome pietie and other vertues These are Images dedicated to God in the minds of them that exercise such vertues wherewith we beleeue the principall of all such Images the image of the inuisible God who is God the onely begotten to be conueniently honoured He knew no other images lawfull amongst Christians but onely such as wherein we beare the image of God and of his Son Iesus Christ but this M. Bishop thought not good to take knowledge of As for that which he saith that he beleeueth not our doctrine to be as M. Perkins hath set downe because the Magistrates publikely take away pictures from Catholikes and teare them downe and burne them he must vnderstand that it is nothing to vs what he beleeueth Our Magistrates know how to put difference betwixt the lawfull vse of things the vnlawfull abuse they know well how such pictures and images are by Papists turned to Idols and therefore to shew the detestation of the dishonor that thereby is done to God they burne them and teare them and deface them being found with them that they may no more be abused to such idolatrie Where otherwise they are found and are not subiect to their superstitious and false deuotions our Magistrates do nothing against them because they are not offended at the hauing but at the abusing of them By reason of those idolatrous fancies it is that our more feruent disciples as he calleth theÌ„ cannot abide a Crosse staÌ„ding by the high way side or in any other place They carie therein a true zeale to God though not alwaies so aduisedly managed as it ought to be But if any of priuate fancie proceed to the demolishing and destroying of such publike monuments we approue it not and they that do it deseruedly receiue their check We are well enough perswaded that they who first began the erecting of those Crosses did it meerely in the honour of the name of Christ that where before had stood the ensignes of false and idoll Gods g Ezec. 16.25 at the head of euery way there might be lifted vp a trophee and standard as a monument and token of the exaltation
the likenesse of any thing in heauen c. The Papists say that the commandement is meant of the Images of false Gods but it must needs be vnderstood by the Image of the true Iehouah and it forbids to resemble God either in his nature or in his properties and works for so saith the Romane Catechisme vpon the second commandement Answer This passeth all kind of impudencie to quote the Romane Catechisme in defence of that opinion which it doth of set purpose disproue It teacheth indeede that the very nature and substance of God which is wholy spirituall cannot be expressed and figured by corporall lineaments and colours and alledgeth the places produced by M. Perkins to proue that vnlawfull yet by and by annexeth these words Let no man therefore thinke it to be against religion and the law of God when any person of the most holy Trinitie is purtraited in such sort as they haue appeared either in the old or new Testament c. But let the Pastor teach that not the nature of God but certaine properties and actions appertaining to God are represented in such pictures If the man be not past grace he will surely blush at such a foule error His texts of Scripture are taken out of the same place of the Catechisme and do proue only that Gods proper nature cannot nor may not be resembled in any corporall shape or likenesse Then Master Perkins returnes to confute the answer made him that Idols are there only prohibited and saith that we then confound the first and second commandement For in the first was forbidden all false Gods which man frames vnto himselfe by giuing his heart and the principall affections thereof vnto them Good and in the second admitting it to be the second is forbidden to draw into any materiall likenesse that Idoll which the heart had before framed vnto it selfe and to giue it any bodily worship which is distinction good enough to make two seuerall commandements Now the Romane Catechisme following Clement of Alexandria Lib. 6. Stromat and Saint Augustine Quest 71. super Exod and Ep. 119. cap. 11. and the Schoole-doctors in 3. Sent. distinct 37. doth make two commaundements of the Protestants last distinguishing desiring thy neighbours wife from coueting thy neighbours goods as they do Thou shalt not commit adulterie from Thou shalt not steale and make but one of the first two because the former doth forbid inward and the second outward Idolatry and the outward and inward actions about the said obiect are not so distinct as the desiring of so diuerse things as a mans wife for lecherie and his goods of couetousnesse And yet besides adde another reason very probable that the reward and punishment belonging alike to all the Commandements cannot in good order be thrust into the middle of them but must be placed either with the first or last Now comprehending the two former in one the reward is annexed conueniently to the first whereas if you make them two it is out of order and without any good reason put after the second This I say not to condemne the other diuision which many of the auncient writers follow but to shew how little reason Maister Perkins had to trust to that answer of his that we should confound the first and second which he saw the very Catechisme cited by himselfe doth make but one of both R. ABBOT M. Bishop doth much amisse here to put M. Perkins to the blush for an ouer-sight as touching the Romaine Catechisme and therin very ill prouideth for himselfe who in his owne booke hath scarcely written one leafe wherein there is not cause for himselfe to blush Verily he hath little cause to be so angry with M. Perkins for thinking better of the Romaine Catechisme then it doth deserue he onely pointed at it in a marginall note by memory which oftentimes deceiueth the carefullest man Albeit it may be that M. Bishop and I are both deceiued and so is it very likely that by ouer-sight of the writer or the printer the marginall note is put after which should be applied to the words before The Papists say the commandement is meant of the Images of false Gods But the point of question is whether it be lawfull to make an Image to represent God We say it is not lawfull because God hath wholy forbidden it when he saith Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen image c. That hereby God forbiddeth the making of any Image to him we proue for that God after the giuing of the law aduertiseth his people by Moses as to declare the intent of this commaundement that therefore a Deut. 4.15 they saw no image in the day that the Lord spake vnto them in Horeb out of the midst of the fire because they should take heede vnto themselues not to corrupt themselues by making them a grauen Image or representation of any figure Againe by the Prophet Esay he expostulateth the matter with idolaters saying b Esa 40.18 To whom will ye liken God or what similitude will ye set vp vnto him M. Bishop answereth that those texts do proue onely that Gods proper nature cannot or may not be resembled in any corporall shape or likenesse But if these places proue onely this what do they proue more then the heathen idolaters themselues freely confessed such at least as were of any capacity or discretion amongst them They knew their Images to be but corruptible things hauing beginning and end and therefore that they could not expresse the nature and condition of the Godhead which they knew to be immortall Hermes Trismegistus as Cyrill alledgeth said that c Cyril cont Iulian lib. 1. Jncorpâ—reum corpore significare impossibile perfectum imperfecto coÌ„prehendere non possibile sempiternum conferre cum momentaneo dâ—fficile it is impossible to signifie the incorporeall God by a body or by a thing vnperfect to comprehend that that is perfect or to compare that that is eternall to that that is but for a moment Zenophon a follower of Socrates acknowledgeth that d Minut. Felix in Octa. apud Arnob. ZenophoÌ„ Socraticus formaÌ„ Dei veri neg ac videri posse ideò queri non oportere Aristo Chius comprehendi omninè non posse vterque maiestatem Dei intelligendi desperatione senserunt the forme of the true God cannot be seene and therefore is not to be enquired of as also Aristo Chius that the same cannot be comprehended They both saith Arnobius perceiued the maiestie of God by despaire to attaine to the vnderstanding of him Antisthenes the Cynicke affirmed that e Clement Alexand. in proâ—â—ept Antisthenes dicit Deum nulli esse similem quare eum nemo potest discere ex imagine God is not like to any and therefore that no man can learne him by an image So doth Euripides for the notifying of God vse these words f Ibid Qui cuncta cernu ipse sed noÌ„ cernitur Who seeth
him to make two Cherubins one at the one end of the mercy-seat and the other at the other end so as that with their wings stretched out they shold couer the mercy-seate Which done he saith d Exod. 25.22 There will I declare my selfe vnto thee and from aboue the mercy-seate betweene the two Cherubins which are vpon the Arke of the Testimonie I will tell thee all things which I will giue thee in commandement vnto the children of Israel According to this commaundement Moses did but what was done with those Cherubins which Moses set vp it is vncertaine whether by the enemies taking of the Arke as most likely it is they were taken away or whether they fitted not the place of the Temple where they should stand the Tabernacle and furniture thereof being before made portable to be remoued from place to place Howsoeuer that were this is certaine that Solomon by vertue of the same commandement and to obserue that which by Moses was prescribed made two Cherubins to stand in the same place as the other did and to the same vse The worke therefore being finished e 1. King 8.5.6 king Solomon and all Israel being assembled together the Priests brought the Arke of the couenant of the Lord into his place into the oracle of the house the most holy place euen vnder the wings of the Cherubins for the Cherubins stretched out their wings ouer the place of the Arke and the Cherubins couered the Arke Inasmuch then as God had by the law directed in what sort this should be done Solomon needed no further speciall cōmandement for the doing of it but had trespassed against God if being appointed to build a house vnto God he had not done it according to such rules as the law before had limited for the doing of it so idle a fancy is it which M. B. here deliuereth that out of his owne high wisedome onely he thought it lawful for him to imitate that which Moses had done before and consequently so vaine a cauill is it which he vseth that the obiection being mooued of the Cherubins made by Solomon M. Perkins answereth by the commandement giuen thereof to Moses when as there was the very same respect of both and Solomon renewed them by the same commandement by which Moses at first made thē Now these 2. Cherubins of which the questiō is specially moued were erected in the most holy place whether as the Christiā saith to the Iew before spokē of in the 2. Nicen coūcell f Nycen Synod 2. Act. 5. ex Leont Quo sanè nulli mortalium dabatur accessus praeterquam summo Sacerdoti idque semel in anno it was grāted to no mortal man to haue accesse but onely to the high priest that once only in the yeare yea and there was also g Exod. 26.33 2. Chron. 3.14 a veile drawne before to make a separation betwixt the holy place and the most holy so that no man had the sight of any thing therin Very falsly therfore vnhonestly doth M. B. deale to cōfound these Cherubins with the rest as touching their place and generally to say There they were placed not onely in the inward but also in the outward parts of the Temple vpon the walles and very doores that they might be seene of all the people it being euident that these were neuer to be seene of the people nor of any saue onely the high Priest and consequently were such as can giue no warrant at all to setting vp of Popish images As for the rest of the Cherubins which the text mentioneth they were of other sort wrought in the curtaines and feeling of the wals and vpon the dores and vessels onely for garnishing and beautifying the works but Cherubins that were standing images there were none but only those two The veile of the most holy place was h 2. Chro. 3.14 wrought with Cherubins i Kings 6.29 the wals were carued with grauen figures of Cherubins palme trees and other grauen flowers k Ver. 35. the doores also with the like l Cap. 7.29 the bases whereupon the caldrons were to stand were grauen in the borders with Lions Buls and Cherubins Here it is plaine then that the Cherubins were of no other respect or vse but as the figures of palme trees Pomgranats Flowers Lions Buls and other such like not in any sort for exercise of the deuotion of the people but onely for the adorning of the house Yea and to these also the people had no accesse within the house being prohibited to come any further thē to the doore neare to which stood the altar to which they were to tender their sacrifice the Priest receiuing the same to do with it according to the law but they themselues might not go in There was one part of the Temple which was called m Exod. 26.33 Heb 9.6.7 the holy place into which the Priests and Leuites ordinarily went to performe their ordinary seruice another part was called the most holy place into which only the high Priest went once a yeare these two parts are most properly called n Luk. 1.21 the Temple in which Solomon bestowed all that curiositie of worke But without these was the vast roome into which the people resorted where they waited o Ver. 10. in prayer whilest the Priests performed the seruice wherin they were accustomed to be taught and our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles preached vnto them going also in generall vnder the name of the temple yet not hauing in any sort that glorious beauty of workmanship that the other parts had neither can M. B. tell vs of any Cherubins therein Seeing then there were no standing Cherubins in Solomons temple but onely two which were wholy remooued out of sight and the rest had no other vse but onely the same as the figures of Lions and Bulles and Flowers and Palme trees and such like and of dead men there were no images at all not of Abraham Isaac Iacob or any other we should thinke that that temple yeeldeth so small grace to Romish Idols as that like Dagon they must fall to the ground and breake their necks vnlesse there be some better means and helpe found for the vpholding of them As for the vse whereto Solomon intended those workes of his who is there that maketh question of it Who doubteth but that by curiositie of Imagerie of caruing and grauing and painting men may beautifie either their houses or their Churches in the like sort as he did Yea M. Bishop well knoweth that we do not thrust Images wholly out of our Churches because we haue in Westminster in Paules and commonly in the rest of our Churches throughout the land many images of our deceased Kings and Queenes of our Nobles and States higher and lower which we preserue and adde more to them from day to day We determine nothing absolutely against Images but we determine against images in case of superstition and
Tertul. Apol. cap. 16. Solem credunt Deum nostrum c. Inde suspicio quod innotuerit nos ad Orientis regionem precari prayed to or towards the East thought they worshipped the Sunne and gaue out that they made the Sunne their God The Christians worshipped Christ onely in bending themselues towards the East and so the faithfull Iewes in bending or bowing towards the Arke intended the worship of God onely and therefore a senslesse part it is to alledge those wordes of the Prophet for the defence of the worship of Popish idols And if they would proue the worshipping of any thing thereby or the praying at or before any thing it should be the worshipping and praying before that that was prefigured by the Temple and the Arke The Temple one way was a figure of heauen as before was shewed wherein Gdd doth dwell and hath n Dan. 7.10 thousand thousands of Angels standing before him and tenne thousand thousands ministring vnto him M. Bishop then should by his course of interpretation conclude from the Prophets words that we should worship heauen But he should rather conceiue that as we worship and pray towards heauen but yet do not worship heauen or pray to heauen so did they also worship and pray towards the Temple and the Arke but did not worship or pray to them Another way the Temple was a figure of the Church of Christ and of euery faithfull man o 1. Cor. 3.16 Know ye not saith the Apostle that ye are the Temple of God and againe p 2. Cor. 6.16 ye are the Temple of the liuing God The Arke whereat and whereby he is present with vs and dwelleth in vs is the faith of Iesus Christ our q Rom. 3.25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 propitiatorie and mercy-seate and by his presence the Angels also attend vpon vs r Heb. 1.14 being ministring spirits sent foorth for their sakes that shall be heires of saluation Now therefore M. Bishop shold rather proue by the Prophets words our kneeling in our prayers before a faithfull man or worshipping a faithfull man then our kneeling before an Image or worshipping an Image and if it be absurd thereby to affirme the worshipping of a liuing man in whom God dwelleth much more the worshipping of a dead and senslesse blocke which hath no fellowship with God Yea and if by those words it were warranted to set vp the images of dead men and to worship them what was the cause that the Iewes conceiued not so much Why were they without that heauenly shew as M. Bishop in the height of his earthly wisedome calleth it If they neuer conceiued it neuer practised it what shall we but take them for cousiners and deceiuers who offer this violence to the Scriptures and most impudently wrest theÌ„ to the maintenance of that filthinesse and abhomination which expresly they condemne But yet Master Bishop telleth vs that it is otherwise very euident that the Israelites worshipped the Arke And how I pray you First none but the high Priest might come into the place where it was Well and what then It was carried before the campe with great solemnitie to search out a resting place for the whole hoast True and what more When they were to fight against the Philistines they had great confidence in the presence of the Arke There was great cause why they should so carrying themselues respectfully towards God because it was the token that God had giuen them of his presence amongst them let vs heare the rest Fiftie thousand of the Bethsamites were slaine for seeing the Arke It is true indeed that for looking into the Arke so many of theÌ„ were slaine is there any thing yet behind Oza was by God smitten to death for touching the Arke Well and what of all this Doth not all this conuince in what reuerence the Arke was had euen by Gods owne testimonie As if to proue M. Bishop to be a profound Clearke a man should say He hath learned a little Rhetoricke and lesse Logicke and is per saltum a Doctor of Diuinity and per inopiam a Priest and doth not all this conuince that he hath some learning Witlesse cauiller is there any thing in all those allegations that importeth the worshipping of the Arke Nay marke gentle Reader that whereas he propoundeth to prooue that the Arke was worshipped he maketh his conclusion that the Arke was had in great reuerence But they had the temple also in great reuerence and the altars and the offerings and al things that by the law were coÌ„manded to be holy and will he thereof inferre that all these were to be worshipped They were to haue the Priests in great reuerence and specially the high Priest and shall we therefore say that they worshipped the Priests What is this reuerence but a religious respect and care of the sacred and due vsage of holy things according to their kind Thus are we to haue our Churches in reuerence with those vtensils and implements that belong to them that they be had and vsed with that decencie and seemelinesse as fitteth to things that serue for holy ministrations As for Hierome M. Bishop wholy abuseth falsifieth his words for he saith nothing at all of worshipping the Arke for the Cherubims and pictures of Angels that were erected at the ends of it this is a very wilfull and impudent forgerie but he saith that Å¿ Hieron ad Marcel vt cont nâ—gret Bethleem Venerabantur quondam Iudaei Sancta sanctoruÌ„ quia ibi erant Cherubim propitiatorium arca testameÌ„ti Manna virga Aaron altare aureum the Iewes of old reuerenced the Sancta sanctorum because there were the Cherubims and the mercy-seate and the Arke of the TestameÌ„t and Manna and Aarons rod and the golden altar He knew well that if he had reported Hieroms words aright they would not sound for his purpose but to frame them to his turne he changeth the reuerencing of the holy place because of the Cherubims and the Arke into worshipping the Arke because of the Cherubims as if worship were performed properly to the Cherubims whereas * Origen contra Cels lib. 5. Coelestes Angelos nemo adorat qui se legi Mosis subdedit by the lawe of Moses as Origen saith no worship was done to the Angels themselues and much lesse to the Cherubims which represented the Angels The word venerari which Hierome vseth albeit it be often vsed for worship and seruice done to God yet is of so large signification as that it is yeelded to all those things to which we yeeld any reuerend and dutifull respect So doth t August de doctr Christ li. 3. cap. 9. Sicuti est baptismi Sacramentum celebratio corporis sanguinis Domini Quae vnusquisque imbutus agnoscit vt ea noÌ„ carnali seruitute sed spirituali potius libertate veneretur Saint Austine vse the word of the reuerence that we vse to the Sacraments not onely the