standing oracle of a written law to which all men at all times might resort to be informed as touching duty and seruice towards God And as in the creation of the world howsoeuer the light were at first sustained and spread abroad by the incoÌ„prehensible power of God yet when he created the Sun he conueighed the whole light of the world into the body thereof so that though the Moone starres should giue light yet they should shine with no other light but what they receiued from the Sun euen so in the constitution of the Church howsoeuer God at first preserued continued the knowledge of his truth by immediate reuelation from himselfe to some chosen men by whose ministerie he would haue the same coÌ„municated to the rest yet when he gaue his word in writing he conueighed into the body of the Scriptures the whole light of his Church so that albeit there should be Pastours and teachers therein to shine as starres to giue light to others yet they should giue no other light but what by the beames of the written law was cast vpon theÌ„ Which beames albeit they shined not then altogether cleare bright many things being lapped vp in obscure dark mysteries rather signified by figuratiue ceremonies then expressed in plain words yet were they not to walk by any other light nor to go without the coÌ„passe of the writteÌ„ word only what was obscure therin God by his Prophets froÌ„ time to time made more more apparent vntill by Iesus Christ in the writings of his Apostles Euangelists he set vp a most full perfect light Now then in M. Perkins meaning it is true that from Adam to Moses the word of God passed from man to man by tradition that is by word onely not by writing and thus as M. Bishop alledgeth good fathers godly maisters taught their childreÌ„ seruants the true worship of God true faith in him But it is true also which he signifieth in the second place that they whoÌ„ God thus raised vp to be teachers instructours of others receiued not the word only by tradition from others but had reuelation confirmation thereof immediatly from God himselfe Therefore there is no argument to be taken hence to giue any colour to Popish tradition nay we may iustly argue that if God would haue had the religion of Christ to be taught in any part without writing he would haue taken the course which he did then by immediate reuelation to continue and preserue the integritie and truth thereof 2. W. BISHOP His 2. Concl. We hold that the Prophets our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles spake and did many things good and true which were not written in the Scriptures but came to vs by Tradition but these were not necessary to be beleeued For one exaÌ„ple he puts that the blessed virgin Mary liued died a virgin but it is necessary to saluation to beleeue this for Helui dius is esteemed by S. Augustine an Heretike for denying it * De haeres ad Quod. hae 84. R. ABBOT It is necessary to saluation to beleeue that our Sauiour was conceiued and borne of a virgin We perswade our selues also according to the common iudgement of the Church that she so continued and died but yet we deny it to be any matter of saluation so to beleeue We say as S. Basil doth that a Basil de human Christi generat Hoc nunc suspicionem generat ne forsan posteaquam puritate sua generationi dominicae per spirituÌ„ sanctuÌ„ administratae seruiuit tum demuÌ„ nuptialia opera viro Maria noÌ„ negauerit Nos verò licet nihil hoc doctrinae pretatis â—ffiâ—eret nam donec dispensabatur Christi generatio necessaria erat virginitas quid verò postea sit factuÌ„ ad mysterij huius doctrinam non anxiè coÌ„â—ungenduÌ„ est vâ—runtameÌ„ c. it should be no whit preiudiciall to the doctrine of faith that the virgin Mary after that she had in her virginity serued for the generation of Christ should performe the office of a wife to her husband Her virginity was necessary till the birth of Christ was accoÌ„plished but what was afterwards done is not too scrupulously to be adioined to the doctrine of this mysterie But yet that no man might to the scandall and offence of deuout persons affirme rashly that she ceased to be a virgin he sheweth that the places of the Gospell which seeme to giue suspition thereof do not euict it but may well be construed otherwise And therefore Heluidius for mouing an vnnecessary question hereof to giue occasion of publike disturbance and for affirming rashly that which he had no warrant sufficiently to proue was iustly condemned reiected by the Church neither can we approue any thâ—t shall do as he did 3. W. BISHOP His 3. Concl. We hold that the Church of God hath power to prescribe ordinances and Traditions touching time place of Gods worship And touching order comlinesse to be vsed in the same mary with these foure caneats First that it prescribe nothing childish or absurd See what a reuerent opinion this man carieth of the Church of God gouerned by his holy spirit that it neuerthelesse may prescribe things both childish and absurd But I must pardon him because he speaketh of his owne Sinagogue which is no part of the true Church Secondly that it be not imposed as any part of Gods worship This is contrary to the conclusion for order and comelinesse to be vsed in Gods worship which the Church can prescribe is some part of the worship Thirdly that it be seuered froÌ„ superstition c. This is needlesse for if it be not absurd which was the first prouiso it is already seuered from superstition The fourth touching multitude may passe these be but meere trifles That is of more importance that he termeth the decree registred in the 15. of the Acts of the Apostles a Tradition whereas before he defined Traditions to be all doctrine deliuered besides the written word Now the Acts of the Apostles is a parcell of the written word as all the world knowes that then which is of record there cannot be termed a Tradition R. ABBOT The cautions set downe by M. Perkins are materiall necessary against the vsurpations of the Church of Rome which hauing forsaken the direction of the spirit of God in the word of God is now led by a 1. Kings 22.23 a lying spirit by b 1. Tim. 4.1 spirits of errour and therefore in her ordinances and traditions swarueth from the grauity and wisedome of the holy Ghost The ceremonies of the Masse are apish and ridiculous toies whereby in that which Christ instituted for a most sacred and reuerend action they make the Priest more like to a iugler or to a vice vpon the stage in his duckings and turnings his kissings crossings his lifting vp and letting downe his putting together the forefinger the
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
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
them But if Christ had left any such matters to be deliuered by traditioÌ„ then it should vndoubtedly be knowne which and what they were We desire then by M. Bishop to be aduertised particularly therof and to know what those high mysteries were which the disciples could not beare What shal we think that Christ spake of that trash which they deliuer vnto vs vnder the name of traditions But S. Austin again cutteth him off froÌ„ all answer in that behalf u Ibid. tract 96. Quae cùm ipse tacuerit quis nostrum dicat ista vel illa sunt aut si dicere audeat vnde probat Quis enim est tam vanus aut temerarius qui cum dixerit etiaÌ„ vera quibus voluerit quae voluerit fine vllo testimonio diuino affirmet ea esse quae tuÌ„c dominus dicere noluit Quis hoc nostruÌ„ faciat non mâ—ximaÌ„ culpam remeritatâ— incurrat in quo nec Prophetica nec Apostolica excellit authoritas Seeing Christ himself hath bin silent of those things who of vs can say they are these these or if he dare to say it how doth he proue it For who is there so vaine or so rash who though he say things that are true will affirme without any testimony froÌ„ God that those are the things which Christ wold not say Which of vs should so do and not incurre a note of great presumption not hauing any authority either of a prophet or an Apostle Now if it cannot be known what those things were of which Christ spake then M. Bishop can haue no proofe for their traditioÌ„s hereby because wheras his words import that S. Iohn in his gospel recordeth somewhat hereof though not much after the resurrectioÌ„ of Christ we see nothing in that which he recordeth but that the matter of all the rest may be contained in the rest of his and the other Apostles writings But for the more full clearing of this matter it is to be noted that our Sauior before hath said to his Apostles x Iohn 15.15 All things that I haue heard of my Father haue I made knowne to you And again in his prayer to the Father y Chap. 17.8 I haue giuen vnto them saith he the words which thou gauest me and they haue receiued them If Christ deliuered all the words of God to his disciples before his death then it must needs follow that he deliuered no other words vnto them after his resurrection Therfore those many things which he had to speake vnto them are not to be vnderstood of any other things then he had taught them before but of a more full perfect reuelatioÌ„ for the more ful perfect apprehension vnderstanding of the same things To which purpose we are againe to note against M. Bishops fraudulent collection that our Sauior here saith not that he wold declare those things vnto them himself after his resurrectioÌ„ but deferreth the same to the coming of the Spirit saying z Chap. 16.13 Howbeit when he is come which is the spirit of truth he wil leade you into al truth Now how he shold lead them into all truth he hath before shewed a Chap. 14.26 He shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance which I haue told you He shold teach them all things not by teaching them other things but by bringing all things to their remembrance which they had bin taught by Christ himself Therfore here Christ saith further for he shal not speak of himself but whatsoeuer he shal heare that shal he speake Wherby he importeth that the holy Ghost shold speake according to his example and he stil professeth that b chap. 7.16.17 he speaketh not of himselfe that c Chap. 8.28 he doth nothing of himself but as the Father hath taught me saith he so I speake these things Christ spake d Chrysost de sanct adoran spiritu Non discessit à lege non discessit à Prophetis c. Non locutus est ex seipso sed ex Prophetis c. A seipso enim loqui extra legeÌ„ loqui est not of himself as Chrysostom noteth because he spake out of the Law and the Prophets for to speake of himself is to speake without or beside the Law So then the holy Ghost shall not speake of himselfe but as Christ spake according to the words of the Father in the law and the Prophets so the holy Ghost should speake according to the words of Christ and therefore according to those things that are written in the Law and the Prophets Therefore those many things which Christ had to speake vnto them and into the truth and knowledge whereof the holy Ghost was to leade them were no other things but what were contained in the written word of the Law and the Prophets whereof as yet they were not capable because as yet they did not so well e Iohn 20.9 know the Scripture nor could do vntill he should f Luk. 24.45 open their vnderstanding that they might vnderstand the same Origen vnderstandeth the words spokeÌ„ to the Apostles g Origen contra Cels l. 2. Fortassis vt Judaeis in litera legis Mosaicae educatis Apostolis habebat dicenduÌ„ quae sit vera lex c. VideÌ„s perdifficile esse ex animo reuellere penè conata et vsque ad grandem aetateÌ„ coalita dogmata adeòque pro diuinis habita vt amouere illa videretur imptum c. Jdeo dictum Deducet vos in omnem veritateÌ„ id est in omnem veritatem earuÌ„ rerum in quatuÌ„ figuris versantes putabatis vos vero cultu DeuÌ„ colere as Iewes brought vp in the letter of Moses law our Sauior seeing that it was very hard to pull out of their minds the opinions which had grown vp with theÌ„ to those yeers which were taken to be of God so as that it should seeme impious to remoue them Therefore where Christ saith The spirit shall leade you into all truth it is saith he as if he had said Into all the truth of those things in the figures whereof ye haue bin conuersant thinking thereby truly to worship God Here is then no warrant at all for M. Bishops vnwritten mysteries here is nothing as Origen conceiueth but that the spirit shold afterwards instruct them of the abolishing of the ceremonies of Moses law which they were not yet well able to conceiue And therefore against all illusions of heretikes pretending for their vnwritten traditions and doctrines the holy Ghost as the Church of Rome doth Chrysostom taking it for granted that what Christ spake is set foorth vnto vs in the writings of the Apostles and Euangelists giueth this most notable rule h Chrysost vt supra Si quis eoruÌ„ qui dicuntur habere spiritum sanctuÌ„ ex seipso loquitur non ex Euangelijs non credite Venit Manes dicit Ego sum Paracletus c.
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
as written For inke and paper brought no new holinesse nor gaue any force vertue vnto either Gods or the Apostles words but they were of the same value and credit vttered by word of mouth as if they had bene written Here the question is principally of diuine traditions which we hold to be necessary to saluation to resolue and determine many matters of greater difficulty For we deny not but that some such principall points of our Faith which the simple are bound to beleeue vnder paine of damnation may be gathered out of the holy Scriptures as for example that God is the Creator of the world Christ the Redeemer of the world the holy Ghost the sanctifier and other such like Articles of the Creed R. ABBOT Traditions saith M. Bishop are of three sorts Diuine Apostolicall Ecclesiasticall Which distinction in some meaning standeth good but as he expresseth the meaning of it it is absurd For if Apostolike traditions be expounded of doctrines as he expoundeth them what warrant hath he to put difference betwixt diuine and Apostolike traditions when the Apostles for doctrine deliuered nothing but what they themselues had receiued froÌ„ God Our Sauiour limited their commission in this sort a Mat. 28.20 teaching them to do whatsoeuer I haue commanded you Accordingly they professed to do b 1. Coâ— 11.23 I haue receiued of the Lord that which I haue deliuered vnto you saith Saint Paul c 1. Thess 4.2.8 We gaue you commaundements by the Lord Iesus and he that despiseth these things despiseth not man but God d Gal. 1.11 12. The Gospell which was preached by me I receiued it not of man nor was taught it but by the reuelation of Iesus Christ Therefore Tertullian saith of them that e Tertul. de praescript Nec ipsi Apostoli quicquam ex suo arbitrio quod inducerent elegeruÌ„t sed acceptam à Christo disciplâ—nam fideliter nationibus adsignauerunt they did not vpon their liking make choise of any thing to bring in but faithfully assigned to the Nations the doctrine which they had receiued of Christ So that if Traditions be vnderstood of doctrine there is no reason to make any difference betwixt the traditions of Christ the traditions of the Apostles because they are both one But if we wil make difference betwixt them we must call Apostolike traditions onely such ordinances whether written or vnwritten as the Apostles prescribed for ceremony vsage in the Church as the obseruation of the memoriall of the natiuity death resurrection of Christ the alteration of the seuenth day from the Iewes Sabbath to the day of Christes resurrection the precept of the Apostle of preaching bareheaded such like And in these traditions we may note that they were sometimes subiect to diuersity according to diuersity of places as was at first the feast of Easter sometimes subiect to alteration change where there might be reason of any such alteration as were f Iude vers 12. the feasts of charity first vsed by the Apostles afterwards abolished for the abuse of them as that order of the Apostle for preaching bareheaded it being by the custome of that time a signe of honour and authority so to do whereas since it is become a matter of authority to preach with the head couered The obseruation of g Acts. 20.7 Apoc. 1.10 the Lords day we hold perpetuall vnchangeable because we find it noted in the Scriptures to haue bene froÌ„ the Apostles and there can be no reason of reuersing or altering what they ordered therin If thus M. Bishop will speake of Apostolike traditions we acknowledge the name of theÌ„ but Apostolike doctrines we know none but such as are also to be acknowledged for diuine Thus therefore the question is of diuine traditions that is doctrines of faith of the worship and seruice of God which we deny to be any but what are comprised in the written word of God Now of diuine traditions he telleth vs some parabables which it seemeth he himselfe did not well vnderstand We hold them saith he to be necessary to saluation to determine matters of greater difficulty Be like then they are not necessary for theÌ„selues but only to determine matters of greater difficulty and those that are not necessary for the determining of matters of greater difficulty are not necessary to saluation By this meanes a number of their traditions must fall Purgatory praier for the dead inuocation of Saints Popes Pardons worshipping of idols images and the rest because no matters of difficulty are determined thereby Againe we deny not saith he but that some such principall points of our faith which the simple are bound to beleeue vnder paine of damnation may be gathered out of the Scriptures It seemeth then that the simple are not bound vnder paine of damnation to beleeue the rest that cannot be gathered out of the Scriptures if he say they be so bound then that clause of his was very idlely and impertinently inferred But we must pardon him it seemeth he wanted sleepe the night before and therefore being very drowsie could not well consider of that he wrote 5 W. BISHOP M. Perkins goeth about to proue by these reasons following that the Scriptures containe all matter of beliefe necessary to saluation Testimonie * Deut. 4.2 Thou shalt not adde to the words that I coÌ„mand thee nor take any thing there from Therefore the written word is sufficient for all doctrine pertaining to saluation If it be said that this is spoken as well of the vnwritten as written word for there is no mention in the text of the written word then M. Perkins addeth that it must be vnderstood of the written word onely because these words are as a certaine preface set before a long Commentarie made vpon the written Law Answer Let the words be set where you will they must not be wrested beyond their proper signification The words cited signifie no more then that we must not either by addition or subtractioÌ„ change or peruert Gods commandements whether they be written or vnwritten Now to inferre that because they are as a preface vnto Moses law that therfore nothing must be added vnto the same law is extreame dotage Why theÌ„ were the bookes of the old Testament written afterward if God had forbidden any more to be written or taught besides that one booke of Deuteronomie Shall we thinke that none of the Prophets that liued and wrote many volumes after this had read these words or that they either vnderstood them not or that vnderstanding them well did wilfully transgresse against theÌ„ one of these the Protestants must needs defend or else for very shame surcease the alledging of this text for the al-sufficieÌ„cy of the writteÌ„ word R. ABBOT M. Bishops allegations are too simple childish to moue the Protestants to surcease the opposing of that text of Moses against vnwritten traditions doctrines a Deut.
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
Vincentius Lyrinensis either as doing damage to vs or yeelding any gaine or aduantage to themselues 14. W. BISHOP Thus M Perkins hauing ended with the Law and Testimony addeth in a postscript two other slender reasons to his former the first that Christ and his Apostles vsed alwayes to confirme their doctrine with the testimonies of Scriptures and not with Tradition Answ First for our Sauior Iesus Christ be out of his diuine wisdome deliuered his doctrine most commonly in his owne name But I say vnto you and very seldome confirmeth it with any testimony out of the Law The Euangelists do often note how Christ fulfilled the old prophecies but neuer or very seldome seeke to confirme his doctrine by testimonies their owne they do sometimes but to say they neuer wrote any thing out of Tradition proceeds of most grosse ignorance Where had S. Mathew the adoring of the Sages S Iohn Baptists preaching briefly that was done before his owne conuersion but by tradition S. Marke wrote the most part of his Gospell out of Tradition receiued from Peter as witnesseth Eusebius * Lib. 2. hist cap. 14. S. Luke testifieth of himselfe that he wrote his whole Gospell * Cap. 1. as he had receiued it by Tradition from them who were eye-witnesses What desperate carelesnesse was it then to affirme that the Apostles neuer vsed Tradition to confirme any doctrine when some of them built not onely parcels but their whole Gospels vpon Traditions R. ABBOT The reasons seeme slender to M. Bishop but yet the Reader must needs take them to be very strong in that they are put off with so slender and weake an answer If the doctrine of faith and of the seruice of God had stood in the old Testament in any part vpoÌ„ tradition vndoubtedly our Sauiour Christ would haue made some mention therof and as he often referreth himself to the Scriptures so would sometimes haue appealed to tradition also But that doth he neuer he reproueth traditions and condemneth them but neuer vseth one word to approue any M. Bishop answereth that Christ most commonly deliuereth his doctrine in his owne name I say vnto you and very seldome confirmeth it out of the Law But that is a very weak and silly shift yea there is in it apparent and manifest vntruth For we find our Sauiour in the Gospel more often citing and alledging the Scriptures then we heare him saying I say vnto you as euery Reader may obserue Againe where he doth say I say vnto you he teacheth vs to vnderstand that a Iohn 14 10. he speaketh not of himselfe but what he saith he speaketh as Chrysostome before hath taught vs to construe it b Chrysost supra sect 7. out of the Law and the Prophets according to the written word of the law and the Prophets deliuering no point of doctrine but what hath witnesse and confirmation from thence Thirdly it is much to be obserued against M. Bishop that where our Sauiour doth most often vse those words c Mat. 5.18.20 I say vnto you he vseth them to challenge the written Law froÌ„ the corruption of Tradition and to affirme the original truth thereof For Tradition had taught men to vnderstaÌ„d the law literally only of outward actions but he shewes in the commandements d Ver 22.28 of murther and adultery that the intention of the Law is extended to the affections of the heart Tradition had diminished the integritie of the Law and taken from it e Ver. 34. teaching onely not to forsweare but he teacheth that the truth of the Law extendeth to vaine and idle swearing Tradition had added to the Law of it owne deuice and where God had said Thou shalt loue thy neighbour by a corrupt glose put to it Thou shalt hate thine enemie but he teacheth that the name of f Ver. 44. a neighbour reacheth to them also that are our enemies Thus he rectifieth that which Tradition had made crooked but for Tradition he saith nothing Surely they that thus peruerted the written Law would haue peruerted Traditions also if there had bene any and Christ would haue restored the integritie thereof but there is no surmise giuen vs of any such matter We heare him often saying g Mat. 19.4 Haue ye not read and h Chap. 21.13 It is written and i Luke 10.26 What is written in the law how readest thou but we neuer heare him saying Haue ye not thus receiued by Tradition He telleth the Saduces k Mat. 22.29 Ye erre because ye know not the Scriptures and the cause of the Disciples error was noted l Iohn 20.9 As yet they knew not the Scripture but no where doth he note the not knowing of Tradition for any cause of error He saith m Iohn 5.39 Search the Scriptures they testifie of me but he neuer saith search after Traditions they are they that testifie of me n Mat. 26 54. How then should the Scriptures be fulfilled saith he but neuer mentioneth the fulfilling of any thing that was deliuered by tradition o Luke 24.27 He interpreted to his Disciples in all Scriptures the things which were written of him but out of Tradition he interpreted nothing vnto them p Ver. 45. He opened their vnderstanding that they might vnderstand the Scriptures but we reade not of giuing them vnderstanding of Traditions Thus the Euangelists from place to place vpon diuers occasions do set downe q Mat. 1.22 2.17 c. the fulfilling of those things which were spoken by the Prophets mentioning the things which are wriâ—â—en but neuer once speake of the fulfilling of Tradition And what will M. Bishop haue vs to dreame as idlely as he doth that there were Traditions from God beside the Scriptures when we find these infinit references to the Scriptures and to Traditions none at all He telleth vs a childish tale that the Euangelists very seldome confirme Christs doctrine by testimonies but their owne they do sometimes as if the doctrine of the Euangelists were not the doctrine of Christ and shewing that he is little acquainted with the reading of the Euangelists who maketh that very seldome which is so often done And when it is done it is done by Scripture only neuer by Tradition which is the point whereto he should haue answered and he saith nothing to it Onely he lewdly abuseth the ignorant Reader by seeming to say somwhat when that which he saith is but an impertinent vagary and concerneth not that that is obiected to him To say that they neuer wrote any thing out of tradition saith he proceedeth of most grosse ignorance Where had Mathew the adoring of the Sages c. Pelting brabler what is this to that that M. Perkins saith Christ and his Apostles in infinite places confirme that which they preach by the doctrine of former times they signifie the fulfilling of those things which were of old taught vnto the people of God They neuer confirme
is not in the generall signification whether the Gospell were a tradition that is a thing deliuered frō God or whether it were a tradition by word that is a thing deliuered by word but whether of that traditiō that is of that doctrine deliuered from God by word any part were left vnwritten to go thenceforth vnder the name of vnwritten tradition We denie not but that the whole Law and Gospell is the Lords tradition we denie not but that the Euangelists in the historie of Christ had things first deliuered vnto them by word which they should afterwards commit to writing although in the writing thereof inspired of God e Iohn 14.26 the holy Ghost bringing all things to their remembrance and guiding them in what sort they should set them downe but we denie that either in the Law or in the Gospell there was any thing left vnwritten that concerneth vs to know for attaining of true faith and righteousnes towards God To come now to the point howsoeuer the Euangelists built their Gospels vpon Tradition that is vpon that that was then deliuered vnto them whether by Christ or by his Apostles yet what is this to prooue that they confirmed any doctrine that is any part of this tradition now deliuered vnto them by tradition of former times that is by any doctrine left vnwritten by Moses and the Prophets This was the matter in hand why then doth M. Bishop seeke thus in a cloud to steale away He telleth vs of desperate carelesnesse thinking to carry the matter with desperate words but we must tell him that it is desperate trechery in him thus to mocke his Reader with boisterous babling when he saith nothing to prooue that that he should that either the Apostles prooued any doctrine by vnwritten tradition of the old Testament or left any thing to be prooued by vnwritten tradition in the new 15. W. BISHOP His other reason is that if we beleeue vnwritten traditions were necessary to saluation then we must as well beleeue the writings of the ancient Fathers as the writings of the Apostles because Apostolicall traditions are not elsewhere to be found but in their bookes but that were absurd for they might erre Answer That doth not follow for three causes First Apostolical traditions are as wel kept in the mind of the learned as in the ancient fathers writings and therefore haue more credit then the Fathers writings Secondly they are commonly recorded of more then one of the Fathers and so haue firmer testimony then any one of their writings Thirdly if there should be any Apostolicall tradition related but of one auncient father yet it should be of more credit than any other thing of his owne inuention because that was registred by him as a thing of more estimation And a-againe some of the rest of those blessed and godly personages would haue reproued it as they did all other falshoods if it had not bin such indeed as it was termed which when they did not they gaue a secret approbation of it for such and so that hath the interpretatiue consent at least of the learned of that age and the following for Apostolicall tradition But Master Perkins proues the contrary by Saint Paul who saith * Act. 26.22 That I continue to this day witnessing both to small and great saying no other thing then that which the Prophets and Moses did say should come Why make you here a full point let Saint Paul make an end of his speech and tell vs for what points of doctrine he alledgeth Moses and the Prophets Marrie to proue that Christ should suffer death and rise againe and that he should giue light to the Gentiles For these and such like which were euidently fore-told in holy writ he needed not to alledge any other proofe but when he was to perswade them to abandon Moses Law he then deliuered to them the decrees of the Apostles and taught them to keepe them * Act. 16. As also when he instructed the Corinthians in the Sacrament of the Altar he beginneth with Tradition saying * 1. Cor. 11. I deliuer vnto you as I haue receiued from our Lord not in writing but by word of mouth And in the same Chapter putteth downe the contentious Scripturist with the custome of the Church saying If any man lust to striue we haue no such custome so that out of S. Paul we learne to alledge Scriptures when they be plaine for vs and when they beare not so cleare with vs to pleade Tradition and the custome of the Church R. ABBOT It is strange to see how M. Bishop hath slubbered ouer this matter being of so great moment and importance for the authoritie and credit of their traditions They tell vs that traditions vnwritten are a part of the word of God The councell of Trent professeth a Cōcil Trident. ses 4 cap. 1. Pari pietatis affectu ac reuerentia suscipit c. to receiue them with the like affection of pietie and reuerence as they do the holy Scripture Now we desire to know by what testimonie or warrant we may be secured particularly what these traditions are for if they be alike to be esteemed with those things that are contained in the Scriptures there is reason that they be approued vnto vs by testimoniall witnesse equiualent to the Scriptures If then the writings of the auncient fathers be made the witnesses of these traditions we must beleeue the writings of the auncient fathers as well as we beleeue the Scriptures M. Bishop telleth vs that traditions are as well kept in the mindes of the learned as in the auncient fathers writings and therefore haue more credit then the fathers writings So then belike the mindes of the learned together with the writings of the auncient fathers are of equall credit and authoritie with the Scriptures and if Maister Perkins had put in both these then Maister Bishop had not had a word to say But we must yet aske further whence or vpon what ground do the mindes of the learned accept of these traditions If he will say that they receiue them of the fathers then the argument still standeth good If he say that they receiue them of other learned that were before them then it must be said that they also receiued them from other learned that were before them and so vpward till we come to the fathers and so in fine it must fall out that the fathers must be alike beleeued as the holy Scriptures If M. Bishop be ashamed to say so let him tell vs otherwise what it is that we shall certainly rest vpō But alas good man we see he cannot tell what to say only Bellarmine telleth vs that b Bellarm. de sacram lib. 2 ca. 25. Omnium cōciliorū veterum omnium dogmatum firmitas ab authoritate praesentis ecclesiae dependet the assured certainty of all councels and of all doctrines of faith dependeth vpō the authority of the present
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
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
take to be that which M. Perkins doth meane by those his words that the will must be first moued and acted by grace before it can act or will He mistooke vs thinking that we required some outward helpe onely to the will to ioyne with it or rather that grace did but as it were vntie the chaines of sinne wherein our will was fettered and then Will could of it selfe turne to God Not vnderstanding how Catholikes take that Parable of the man wounded in the way Luk. 10. betweene Ierusalem and Ierico who was not as the Papists onely say but as the holy Ghost saith left halfe and not starke dead Now the exposition of Catholikes is not that this wounded man which signifieth all mankind had halfe his spirituall strength left him but was robbed of all supernaturall riches spoyled of his originall iustice and wounded in his naturall powers of both vnderstanding and Will and therein left halfe dead not being able of his owne strength either to know all naturall truth or to performe all moral duty Now touching supernaturall workes because he left all power to performe them not being able so much as to prepare himselfe conueniently to them he in a good sence may be likened vnto a dead man not able to moue one finger that way of grace and so in holy Scripture the father said of his prodigall Son Luk. 15. He was dead and is reuiued Yet as the same sonne liued a naturall life albeit in a deadly sinne so mans will after the fall of Adam continued somewhat free in actions conformable to the nature of man though wounded also in them as not being able to act many of them yet hauing still that naturall facultie of Free-will capable of grace and also able being first both outwardly moued and fortified inwardly by the vertue of grace to effect and do any worke appertaining to saluation which is as much as M. Perkins affirmeth And this to be the very doctrine of the Church of Rome is most manifestly to be seene in the Councell of Trent where in the Session are first these words in effect concerning the vnablenesse of man to arise from sinne of himselfe Euery man must acknowledge and confesse that by Adams fall we were made so vncleane and sinfull that neither the Gentiles by the force of nature nor the Iewes by the letter of Moses lawe could arise out of that sinfull state After it sheweth how our deliuerance is wrought and how freedome of will is recouered in speciall and wherein it consisteth saying The beginning of iustification in persons vsing reason is taken from the grace of God preuenting vs through Iesus Christ that is from his vocation whereby without any desert of ours we are called that we who were by our sinnes turned away from God may be prepared by his grace both raising vs vp and helping vs to returne to our owne Iustification freely yeelding our consent vnto the said grace and working with it So as God touching the heart of man by the light of the holy Ghost neither doth man nothing at all receiuing that inspiration who might also refuse it neither yet can he without the grace of God by his Free will moue himselfe to that which is iust in Gods sight And that you may be assured that this doctrine of the Councell is no other then that which was taught three hundred yeares before in the very middest of darknesse as Heretikes deeme 12. q. 109. Art 6. see what S. Thomas of Aquine one of her principall pillars hath written of this point in his most learned Summe Where vpon these words of our Sauiour Ioh. 6. No man can come to me vnlesse my Father draw him he concludeth it to be manifest that man cannot so much as prepare himselfe to receiue the light of grace but by the free and vndeserued helpe of God mouing him inwardly thereunto And this is all which M. Perkins in his pretended dissent auerreth here and goeth about to proue in his fiue reasons following the which I will omit as being all for vs. And if any man desire to see more to that purpose let him reade the most learned workes of that famous Cardinall and right reuerend Archbishop Bellarmine R. ABBOT Here is another contradiction framed vpon the anuile of M. Bishops ignorance whilest he vnderstandeth not that workes morally good may be spiritually euill and whilest they a Luk 16.15 are highly esteemed with men for the substance of the act yet may be abhominable with God by the vncleannesse of the heart Which if he had duly considered he might well haue seene that both these assertions may stand together that man hath freedome of will to do the outward acts of morall vertues and yet that all that man deuiseth frameth or imagineth is wholy euill because his morall vertues without grace are in Gods sight but so many corruptions of good workes being poysoned in the roote of vnbeleefe and wholy diuerted from their true and proper end so that God hath no respect to them because in them there is no respect at all to God This followeth afterwards more fully to be handled towards the end of this question but in the meane time we see how simply he collecteth of this latter point that M. Perkins leaueth a man no naturall strength to performe any part of morall dutie and as if he had very wisely handled the matter addeth his epiphonema So vncertaine are the steps of them that walke in darknesse very fitly agreeing to himselfe who neither vnderstandeth what the aduersarie saith nor what he himselfe is to say for his owne part Whereupon it is that he conceiueth that M. Perkins fully agreeth with the Romish Church in this matter of Free will whereas they are as farre different one from the other as heauen is from earth The agreement forsooth is in that M. Perkins granteth Free will in the state of grace But so did Luther Caluin and so do we all as far as M. Perkins doth The Papists say that man hath in his owne nature a power of Free wil which being only stirred and helped can and doth of it selfe adioyne it selfe to grace to accept thereof and to worke with it This is it that we denie we say that freedome of the will to turne to God and to worke with him is no power of nature but the worke of grace that it is in no sort of man himselfe but wholy and onely the gift of God that howsoeuer God do offer grace yet that man hath no power in himselfe or in his owne will to assent and yeeld vnto it but it is God himselfe that withall worketh in him to accept thereof that to the conuersion of a sinner there ariseth nothing from the motion of his owne will howsoeuer assisted and helped of God but what God by his Spirit doth worke in it Vpon this point onely Luther and Caluin and we all insist to chalenge all wholy vnto God
the grace of God he saith which Pelagius also would say but both teaching no other grace but what the heathens themselues confessed that m Arist de mundo Cic. de Nat. Deer Nemo vir magnus sine aliquo afflatud uino vnquam suit Neminem nisi inuante Deo talem fuisse creuoÌ„ dum est neuer any man proued great and excellent without some diuine instinct so that Aristotle and Tully and such other acknowledging the same must now be taken for Preachers of the grace of God Wherein we may wonder at their impudencie that doubt not to affirme a thing so plainely absurd and so resolued against by S. Austin in his defences against the Pelagians concluding by imitation of the Apostles words that n Aug de nat grat cap. 2. Seâ—er uniturum iullâ—â—a sutilla fâ—dâ— assiâ—â—s Christi resurrectious instâ—tans cego Câ—â—ssâ—â— gratis â—â—â—â—us est if by the law of nature there be righteousnesse without the faith of the passion and resurrection of Christ then Christ died in vaine And againe that o Ibid. cap. 9. Fece quod est crutem Chr sti euâ—cuare sine illa quenquam per naturalem legem voluntatis arbitrium iustificari posse contendere to affirme that a man may be iustified by the law of nature and Free will is to make the crosse of Christ of no effect But by all this we see that their speech of grace for conuerting of man to God is but collusion and meere Pelagian hypocrisie as whereby indeed they attribute no greater a work to God in bringing man to righteousnesse then to the diuell in bringing man to sinne Which being condemned in the p Frosp de lib. arbit Ostendere volun inter boni mali contrarius suasiones ita omnem hâ—minem proprie discretiom esse commissum â—t câ—â—mplus a Deo praesidij quà m a Diabolo fis periculi Pelagians as a horrible impietie and blasphemie yet by Costerus the Iesuite in his Enchiridion is manifestly acknowledged to be their meaning q Coster Enchirid cap 5. Sicut daemon tentatione mentem nostram praua cogâ—tatione concupiscentiae motu tangit ac pulsat afficereque conatur voluntatem vtiâ— peccatum consentiat quae sua libertate motiones has omnes admittere potest reijcere tia sunt in nobis dâ—umi quidam insiuxus aliquddo quidem aliquando constantiores qui cor nostrum pulsant relicta interim voluntati sua libertate qua fieri potest vt vel susciptan tur vel repulsam patiantur that as the diuell by temptation and suggestion toucheth our minds and knocketh at the doore of the heart and seeketh to moue the will to consent to sinne which notwithstanding is at it owne libertie to admit or reiect the same so are the influences of Gods preuenting grace whether sudden or more constant which do beate and knocke at the hart but so as it is left in the libertie of the wil to accept or refuse euen in as plain termes as Pelagius said r August Epist 107. Consentire hominis libero arbitrio constitutum est c. Libertate naturali si vult facit si non vult non facit that to consent to God consisteth in mans Free wil and that by libertie of nature he doth so if he will This paines I haue taken to vnhood M. Bishop and his Councell of Trent and to make good that that I haue before affirmed that the Church of Rome now maintaineth the heresie of Pelagius which anciently was condemned by the Church of Rome That which he alledgeth out of Thomas Aquinas is of the same stampe neither can his antiquitie of three hundred yeares adde any grace to that which eight hundred yeares before him was vniuersally condemned by the whole Church Whether M. Perkins his reasons do destroy their assertion of Free will vpon determining the state of the question in the next section it shall appeare 6. W. BISHOP Now the verie point controuersed concerning Free will M. Perkins hath quite omitted which consisteth in these two points expressed in the Councell First whether we do freely assent vnto the said grace when it is offered vs that is whether it lie in our power to refuse it And secondly when we concurre and worke with it whether we could if we listed refuse to worke with it In both which points we hold the affirmatiue part and most sectaries of this time the negatiue Of which our Author is silent only by the way in his fourth reason toucheth two texts out of Saint Paul which are commonly alledged against Free will R. ABBOT This true point of the controuersie is contained in the proposition of the Pelagians that a Aug. ep 107. Vt Euangelio consentiamus non est donum Dei sed hoc nobis est à nobis id est expropria voluntate quam nobis in nostro corde non operatus est ipso to consent to the Gospell is not the gift of God but that this we haue of our selues that is to say of our owne will which he hath not wrought for vs in our hearts For thus you haue M. Bishop all this while affirmed that grace hauing performed and done what appertained to it for the conuersion of man there is behind a distinct and proper act of the will which either by consenting and yeelding maketh good or by dissenting and refusing maketh frustrate all that grace hath done This you all inculcate beate vpon that that when God hath wholy done his part it is in mans will either to make or marre and so do plainly teach with Pelagius that God doth helpe b Idem de grat Certisti to it Pelag. Celest lib. 1. cap. 25. possibilitatem naturae our naturall power that we may be able to consent and will but actually to consent and will is left still free to our owne will and choise And thus M. Bishop you your selfe informe vs when propounding the first part of the question Whether we do freely assent vnto grace when it is offered vs that is whether it lie in our power to refuse it you hold affirmatiuely that by Free will we assent vnto grace hauing it in our power and choise to refuse the same Whether this be so or not is the point and we resolue with S. Austin c Idem ibid. Non solùm Deus posse nostrum donauit atque adiuuat sid etiam velle operatioperatur in nobis that God doth not onely giue vs and helpe vs to be able to will and to worke but also worketh in vs to will and to worke he doth not so offer vs grace as to leaue vs to assent vnto it if we will but himselfe worketh also in vs to be willing and to giue our assent vnto it who d De praedest sanct cap. 20. Cum Deus vult aliquid fieri quod non nisi volentibus hominibus oportet fieri incitnantur eorum cordae vt hoc vt
Paule plant and Apollo water yet God onely giueth the increase and neither he that planteth is any thing nor he that watereth which is in vaine spoken if he that is planted or watered be any thing by his owne Free will but God onely that giueth the increase Another comparison he vseth of the earth What more dead saith he then the earth and yet it being tilled and sowne doth bring foorth and beare goodly corne Whereof he maketh application thus Now the word and grace of God is compared by our Sauiour to seed and our hearts to the earth that receiue it What maruell then if we otherwise dead yet reuiued by this liuely seed do yeeld plentie of pleasing fruite Where we see how loth he is that the Pelagians in any absurditie should go beyond him As before he made one roote so here he maketh one ground of Free will common and indifferent to good and euill and which is strange maketh it as naturall to this ground or earth to bring foorth fruite of the seed of Gods word as it is to the tilled ground to yeeld corne of the seed that is sowne vpon it Moreouer of grace he maketh no other matter but the seed which is the word of God r August contr Pelag. Celest lib 1. cap. 7. Epist 107. Gratiam Dei poâ—â—â— in lege atque doctrina the law and doctrine and exhortation euen as Pelagius did and that by this seed of Gods word Free will is reuiued to bring forth plentie of pleasing fruite But our Sauiour Christ in the Gospell maketh foure sorts of ground and thereof one onely good ground which is not good of it selfe but made good hauing nothing in it whereof to bring foorth fruite of the seed or Gods word Å¿ Esa 32.15 vntill the spirit be powred vpon it from aboue that of a wildernesse it may become a fruitfull field So that the grace of God consisteth not in the seed of the word but importeth a spiritual and heauenly influence of the blessing of God altering and changing the nature of the soyle of mans heart that it may be fit to receiue the seed and to fructifie thereby For otherwise the Scripture teacheth vs that mans heart is a t Prech 36 26. stonie heart that his u Esa 48.4 forehead is brasse and his necke an iron sinew and that to bestow labour vpon him by the word of God is but as to wash x Ierem. 13.23 an Aethiopian or a Leopard to take away the blacknes and spots of them or to y Amos 6.12 plow vpon the rocke where there is no entrance neither for plow nor seed Therefore howsoeuer the seed be sowne it auaileth nothing neither can the will of man fructifie thereby vntill it do z Ioh. 6.45 heare and learne of the Father to come to Christ a August de Praedest sanct cap. 8 Nihil est aliud quà m donum accipere à Patre quo credat in Christum that is vntill it receiue a gift of the Father whereby to beleeue in Christ b Idem de peccat nun remis li. 2. cap. 17. Sciat quam verè non de terra ista sed spiritualiter dictum sit Dominus Dabit c. it being meant not of the very earth saith Austin but spiritually which is said The Lord will yeeld his sweetnesse and our land or earth shall giue increase as to note that not by any power of our Free will but onely by his sweet and heauenly dew c Ose 10.12 the raine of righteousnesse d Ezech. 34.26 the raine of blessing which he raineth vpon vs we bring foorth the seed of the word of God 10. W. BISHOP Hauing hitherto explicated the state of the question and solued such obiectioÌ„s as may be gathered out of M. Perkins against it before I come to his solution of our arguments I will set downe some principall places both out of the Scriptures and auncient Fathers in defence of our doctrine because he proposeth but few for vs and misapplyeth them too Genes 4. First then God saith to Caine If thou do well shalt thou not receiue a reward But if thou do euill thy sinne will presently be at the gates but the appetite of it shall be vnder thee and thou shalt beare dominion ouer it Here is plaine mention made of the power which that euill disposed man Cain had not to sinne if he had listed which was no doubt by the assistance of Gods grace and on the other side that grace did not infallibly draw him to good but left it to his free choice whether he would follow it or no. And because they who secke out all manner of starting holes wrest these words of ruling and bearing sway as spoken of his brother Abel and not of sinne first to see their iniquitie marke the text where is no mention of Abel neither in that verse nor in the next before but expresse mention is made of sinne in the next words before therefore those Pronounes that are to be referred to the words next before must needes in true construction be referred to sinne and not to his brother Besides this plaine construction of the text S. Augustine followeth saying as it were to Cain Lib. 15. de ciuit Dei cap. 7. Hold thy selfe content for the conuersion of it shall be to thee and thou shalt rule ouer it What saith he ouer his brother God forbid that so wicked a man should rule ouer so good Ouer what then but he shall rule ouer sinne See how manifestly that worthy Doctor hath preuented their cauill And if it were need I might ioyne with him that most skilfull Father in the Hebrew text S. Hierome * In quaest Hebraicè who in the person of God expoundeth it thus Because thou hast Free will I admonish and warne thee that thou suffer not sinne to ouercome thee but do thou ouercome sinne R. ABBOT M. Perkins he saith proposed but few places for them and misapplied them to and therefore he will himselfe set downe some principall places both out of the Scriptures and fathers in defence of their doctrine But what ill hap had he at first to light vpon an example whereby as Austin noteth it is so manifest a August de ciuit Dei lib. 15. ca. 16 Spiritus sanctus operatur intrinsecus vt valeat aliquid medicina quc adhibetur extriâ—fecus Aâ—equm etiamsi Deus ipse vtens creatura sibi sub ect vinaeâ—qua specie humanâ— sensus alloquatur humanos c. nec interiore gratia mentem regat atque agat nihil prodest homini omnâ—s praedicatio veritatis Facit hoc Deus à vasis misericordiae irae vasa discernens c. Et cap. 7. Hoc ipsum cùm Deus locutus esset ad Cain quid ei prosuit c. that howsoeuer God himselfe do speake to the sense of man either to his outward or inward senses yet if he
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
free except he be made free by him that saith If the Sonne shall make you free then are ye free indeed If any of them thought otherwise they erred in that they thought neither learned they so to thinke of the Apostles or their best scholers as M. Bishop idlely talketh but either borrowed it of heathen Philosophers or presumed it of themselues And whatsoeuer they thought or meant their manner of speaking was not Apostolike neither learned they it by the word of God and therefore those times were not the purest times which had thus in phrase and speech varied from that y Rom 6.17 character and forme of doctrine whereto the Church was first deliuered And if M. Bishop will say that they learned these things of the Apostles then he must condemne S. Austine and the whole Catholike Church of that time in which Austine liued for teaching otherwise then they taught which if he will not do he must perforce acquit vs as well as him and let the blame rest vpon them to whom it doth appertaine Whom we account no further to be pillars of Christs Church then they themselues continued built vpon the Gospell which Christ hath made z Iren lib. 3. ca 1. Euangelium nobis in Scripturis tradiderunt Apostoli columnaÌ„ fâ—â—d amentuÌ„ fâ—aci nostrae futurum the pillar and fortresse of our faith neither doubt we to say of them that they were in darknesse where the a Esa 8.10 word of the law and testimony did not giue them light Now for conclusion he vpbraideth vs againe with the heresie of the Manichees onely to shew himselfe a perfect scholer of the Pelagian schoole For so did the b Aug. contra 2. Epist Pelag li 3 cap. 9. Excogitaverunt Maâ—â—chaeoruÌ„ detestabili nomine imperitos quos potuerint dâ—terrere ne aduersus eoruÌ„ dogmata peruersissima aures accommodent veritati Pelagians obiect to Austine and other teachers of the Catholike Church that they tooke part with the Manichees and defended their heresie in the denying of Free will They called them Manichees and of theÌ„selues said c Ibid. lib. 2. ca. 1 Pro Catholica fide contra Manichaeorum sicut loquuntur profa nitatem consensionem Orientalium EpiscoporuÌ„ videntur exposcere c. that they dealt for the Catholike faith against the prophane opinion of the Manichees onely to colour their owne heresie and enmitie against the grace of God by falsly vpbraiding their aduersaries with another But S. Austin answered them d Ibid. cap. 2. Manichaei negant homini bono ex libero arbitrio fuisse initria malâ— Pelagiani dicunt etiam hominem malum sufficienter haebere liberum arbitrium ad faciendum praeceptuÌ„ bonum Catholicae vtrosque redarguit c. The Manichees deny that to man being made good Free will became the beginning of euill the Pelagians say that man being become euill hath a will sufficiently free for the doing of the commandement of good The Catholike Church condemneth them both saying to the Manichees God made man iust and to the Pelagians If the Sonne shall make you free then are you free indeed Let M. Bishop turne the name of the Pelagians into Papists and take this answer to himselfe The Pelagians and Papists are not therefore to be approued because they condemne the heresie of the Manichees but are therefore to be detested because they haue set vp another heresie of their owne e Ibid. possunt duo errores inter se esse contrarij sed ambo sunt detestandi quia sunt ambo contrarij veritati Two errors saith S. Austine may be contrarie one to the other and both to be detested because they are both contrarie to the truth So is it with the Manichees and Papists and we take the course that the auncient Church did to condemne them both But of this matter I haue spoken sufficiently before in answering his Epistle and therefore need not here to stand vpon it 15. W. BISHOP Here I wold make an end of citing Authorities 2. Inst ca. 2. q 4. were it not that Caluin saith that albeit all other auncient writers be against him yet S. Augustine as he vaunteth is clearely for him in this point but the poore man is fouly deceiued aswell in this as in most other matters I wil briefly proue and that out of those workes which S. Augustine wrote after the Pelagian heresie was a foote for in his others Caluin acknowledgeth him to haue taught Free will De spi lit 34. De gra Chr. 14 Ad Simpli q. 2. Tract 72. in Ioan. Epi. 47. Of our Freedome in consenting to Gods grace he thus defineth To consent to Gods calling or not to consent lyeth in a mans owne will Againe Who doth not see euery man to come or not to come by Free will but this Free will may be alone if he do not come but it cannot be holpen if he do come In another place that we will do well God will haue it to be his ours his in calling vs ours in following him Yea more To Christ working in him a man doth cooperate that is worketh with him both his owne iustification and life euerlasting will you heare him speake yet more formally for vs. We haue dealt with your brethren and ours as much as we could that they would hold out and continue in the sound Catholike faith the which neither denieth Free will to euill or good life nor doth attribute so much to it that it is woorth any thing without grace So according to this most worthie Fathers iudgement the sound Catholike faith doth not deny Free will as the old Manichees and our new Gospellers do nor esteeme it without grace able to do any thing toward saluation as the Pelagians did Lib 4. contr Iul. c. 8. And to conclude heare S. Augustines answer vnto them who say that he when he commendeth grace denyeth Free will Much lesse wold I say that which thou lyingly dost affirme me to say Free will to be denyed if grace be commended or grace to be denyed if Free will be commended R. ABBOT Caluin indeed confesseth as the truth is that the a Institut lib. 2. cap. 2. Sect. 4. auncient Writers saue onely Austin haue written so diuersly and intricately or obscurely of Free wil as that hardly a man can gather from them any certainty as touching that point But yet he saith further that b Ibid. Sect. 9. albeit they went too farre sometimes in extolling Free will yet he dareth to affirme that they aimed at this marke to turne man altogether away from the confidence of his owne strength and to teach him to make the repose of his strength in God onely But whereas Caluin thinketh that Austin is cleare for him in this point M. Bishop saith the poore man was fouly deceiued as well in this as in most other matters Where I cannot but smile to see how euery ignorant brabler will haue a snatch
way stirreth yet the inward corrupt qualitie sticketh still euen as a man is truly said to be i Jbid. Sicut inest timiditas ho mini tâ—â—ido etiaÌ„ quando ne sumet timorous fearfull when yet for the present time he feareth nothing Now the question here is of both these both the sticking euill qualitie and the first and immediate motions and stirrings thereof before they be apprehended and consented vnto by the will For many times euill cogitations and thoughts arise in the heart which yet a man checketh and for which he is grieued at himselfe and reproueth himselfe and by no meanes will yeeld way vnto them Of these therefore together with the fountaine whence they spring the controuersie is whether they do properly vndergo the name of sinne Now what sinne is the Apostle Saint Iohn briefly instructeth vs saying that k 1. Ioh. 3.4 sinne is the transgression of the law His word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth all priuation or defect whereby we come short of that that is commaunded or required by the lawe To which purpose the Apostle Saint Paule telleth vs that l Rom. 3.20 by the lawe is the knowledge of sinne and that m Cap 7.7 he had not knowne sinne but by the law For how is sinne knowne by the lawe but by that we vnderstand it to be sinne whatsoeuer declineth or swarueth from the lawe euen as the Apostle for example addeth that he had not knowne lust to be sinne except the lawe had said Thou shalt not lust presuming it as graunted that it is sinne whatsoeuer is forbidden by the lawe And this the Apostle Saint Iohn further confirmeth in that he saith that n 1. Ioh 5.17 all vnrighteousnesse is sinne For what is vnrighteousnesse but the transgressing of the lawe which is the rule of righteousnesse If then all vnrighteousnesse be sin and all transgression of the lawe be vnrighteousnesse then all transgression of the lawe is sinne The heathen Orator Tully could say that o Tul. Paradox 3. Est peccare tanquam transire lineas peccare to sinne is as a man would say to go without or beyond the bounds or lines We are listed and bounded by the lawe of God it draweth vs lines within the compasse whereof we are to keepe our selues What is it then to sinne with vs but to breake the bounds prescribed vnto vs and to go beside that which we are directed by the law Therfore saith Origen p Origen in Ro. cap 7. Peccati natura hac est si fiat quod lex fieri vetat This is the nature of sin if any thing be done which the law forbiddeth to be done Oecumenius out of the ancient Commentaries of the Fathers saith to the like purpose that q Oecum in 1. Joan cap. 3. Conueniunt inter se circa idem sunt Rectè discipulus Domini vtrunque in ideÌ„ commutauit sin and transgression of the law do agree together and that rightly S. Iohn did make them both one So r Grego Moral lib. 11. cap. 21. Inter peccatum iniquitatem nihil distare perhibet Ioannes qui ait peccatuÌ„ est iniquitas Gregorie Bishop of Rome calling transgression of the law by the name of iniquity as the vulgar Latin translateth it saith that betwixt sin and iniquity that is betwixt sin and the transgression of the law S. Iohn doth witnesse that there is no difference In like sort Bede saith that Å¿ Beda in 1. IoaÌ„ 3. Omne quod ab aequitatis ratione discrepat in peccatis numeratur all that swarueth from the rule of righteousnesse is sinne Caesarius the brother of Gregory Nazianzene telleth vs that t Caesar dialog 3. apud Nazianz. Peccatum mihi esse videtur omnis aduersus virtuum resistende coâ—atus repugnantia he taketh it that sinne is all assay of resistance and all repugnancie against vertue Saint Austine saith that u Aug. de nat grat cap. 14. Ideo est peccatuÌ„ quia non debet fieri therefore a thing is sinne because it ought not to be done and that x Contra Iulian. lib. 4. cap. 3. Qui malè facit aliquid profecto peccat to do any thing amisse is to sinne Againe he defineth y August cont Faust Manich. lib. 22. cap. 27. Peccatum est factum vel dictuÌ„ vel concupitum aliquid contra legem aeternam sinne to be euery thing that is said or done or coueted against the euerlasting law of God Yea Thomas Aquinas saith that z Thom Aquin. 1. 2. q. 109. art 4. in corp Nihil est aliud peccare quà m transgredi diuina mandata to sinne is nothing else but to transgresse the commandements of God In a word the curse of God belongeth to nothing saue to sinne onely But the curse of God belongeth to euery swaruing from the law of God for a Gal. 3.10 cursed is he that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the lawe to do them Therefore euery swaruing from the lawe of God is properly and truly reckoned to be sinne And surely this is a truth so apparant and euident as that we may wonder not at the blindnesse for vndoubtedly they see it well enough but at the extreame peruersenesse and impudencie of the Papists that so stiffely stand in the deniall thereof Now then the question being whether concupiscence or lust in it selfe be sinne in the regenerate man the resolution is very readie and plaine and the answer manifestly apparant that because euery diuerting or swaruing from the lawe is sinne therefore concupiscence must necessarily be sinne in as much as it is a declining from the lawe saying Thou shalt not lust And therefore doth the Apostle say that he knew lust to be sinne as before was noted because the law sayd Thou shalt not lust He calleth and tearmeth it sinne againe and againe so as that we may wonder that he should call it sinne sinne and yet his meaning should be that it is not sinne For as Tertullian saith b Tertul. aduers Hermogen Acuius habitu quid diuertit pariter à vocatu eius recedit Looke from the being and nature whereof a thing departeth it departeth also from the name and calling thereof If therefore concupiscence had lost the nature of sinne it should consequently also be depriued of the name But now whereas M. Perkins alledged the words of the Apostle that sinne dwelling in him made him to do the euill which he hateth M. Bishop telleth vs that contrarie to M. Perkins purpose and intention those words do proue that sinne must be there taken improperly And how so I pray you For saith he if it made him to do the euill which he hated then could it not be sinne properly for sinne is not committed but by the consent and liking of the will Where by Aequiuocation of tearmes he meerely abuseth his Reader For the
reputed with men who account no sinne at all but either in the performance of the act or in the resolution and purpose of the will We fall not into sinne that is into any morall or actuall sinne into any outward sinne euen in the like sort as S. Iames saith that o Iam. 1.15 concupiscence when it hath conceiued bringeth foorth sin when yet he did not meane but that concupiscence also it selfe is sinne as shall afterwards appeare 3. W. BISHOP Now to the second O wretched man that I am who shall deliuer me from this body of death Here is no mention of sinne how this may be drawne to his purpose shall be examined in his argument where he repeateth it so that there is not one poore circumstance of the text which he can find to proue S. Paule to take sinne there properly Now I will proue by diuers that he speakes of sinne improperly First by the former part of the same sentence It is not I that do it all sinne is done and committed properly by the person in whom it is but this was not done by S. Paul ergo Secondly out of those words I know there is not in me that is in my flesh any good And after I see another law in my members resisting the law of my mind Thus sinne properly taken is seated in the soule but that was seated in the flesh ergo it was no sinne properly The third and last is taken out of the first words of the next Chapter There is now therefore no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus that walke not according to the flesh c. Whence I thus argue there is no condemnation to them that haue that sinne dwelling in them if they walke not according vnto the fleshly desires of it therefore it is no sinne properly For the wages of sin is death that is eternall damnation R. ABBOT Now to the second saith he and when he hath done saith nothing of it but putteth it ouer to the handling of the argument and therfore there will we also examine his examination But though he shift off the one circumstance with ignorance and the other with saying nothing yet as if he had very effectually done what he pretendeth he inferreth that not one poore circumstance of the text could be found to proue that S. Paule tooke sinne there properly marry he will bring vs diuers to proue that he taketh sin improperly Wel then let vs see what these diuers proofes be we doubt they are like his answers the one very bad and the other starke naught First he will proue it by the former part of the sentence It is not I that do it All sinne saith he is committed properly by the person in whom it is but this was not done by S. Paule ergo But we deny his minor proposition and it is altogether absurd and senslesse How should concupiscence do any thing in S. Paule which is not done by S. Paule Can the accident of the person be an efficient cause of any thing by it self without the person The accident is but the instrument of the person and what the accident doth the person doth it by the accident And therefore accordingly S. Paule saith a Rom. 7.14.23 I am carnall sold vnder sinne I do that I would not the law of my members leadeth me captiue to the law of sinne I in my flesh serue the law of sinne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euen I my self in my mind serue the law of God and in my flesh the law of sinne This S. Austine well obserued b August de verb. Apost Ser. 5. Adhuc concupisco vtique etiam in ipsa parte ego sum Non enim ego alius in mente alius in carne Sed quid igitur ipse ego Quia ego in mente ego in carne ex v troque vnus homo Igitur ipse ego ego ipse mēte seruio c. Euen in that part that lusteth it is I also for here is not one I in the mind and another in the flesh Why doth he say I my selfe but because it is I in the mind and I in the flesh euen one man of both these Therefore I my selfe euen I my selfe in mind serue the law of God but in my flesh the law of sinne But yet though being but one and the same person he diuideth himselfe as it were into two parts being in part renewed and in part yet continuing old And hereupon he saith It is not I that do it that is not I according to that that is renewed in me and yet I according to that whereby I am still carnall and sold vnder sin not I according to the inner man wherein I delight in the law of God and yet I according to the flesh whereby I am still captiue to the law of sinne of which flesh I say not I because I account my selfe that that I ioy to be and which I shall euer be not that which though it be my selfe yet is that I would not be and which I labour not to be and therefore striue to destroy and put off as being without it to liue for euer c Ibid Mens regit caro regitur magis sum ego in eo quo rego quà m in eò in quoregor I may rather say I in that wherein I rule then in that wherein I am ouerruled therefore I say it is not I that do it and yet it is I in both M. Bishop therefore by his first circumstance proueth iust nothing and euen as little proueth he by the second Which he taketh out of those words d Ver. 18. I know that in me that is in my flesh dwelleth no good thing and after I see another law in my members resisting the law of my mind Hereof he argueth thus Sinne properly taken is seated in the soule but that was seated in the flesh ergo it was not sinne properly Which is the same as if a man would argue thus that the true Pope hath his consistorie chaire in Rome but the Pope that now is hath his consistorie in the Laterane Church therefore he that now is is not the true Pope For what is flesh as the Apostle speaketh thereof but a part of the soule the soule it selfe so farre as yet in part it is not regenerate What is M. Bishop so absurd as to thinke concupiscence to be seated in the flesh as the flesh is diuided against the soule Nay the soule it selfe hauing cast off the yoke of obedience to God and betrayed it selfe to the temptations of the diuell for the gratifying and pleasing of the flesh is become a seruant to that that should haue bene a seruant vnto it and being abiected to sensuall and carnall and earthly desires is wholy called by the name of flesh to whose seruice it doth addict it selfe Thus saith Origen that e Origen de princip lib. 3. cap. 4. Anima cùm crassioris sensus fuerit
one poore circumstance to that purpose I would haue him to examine these First that by the law the Apostle saith he knew concupiscence to be sinne For it is sinne properly whatsoeuer by the law is conuicted to be sinne Secondly that it wrought death vnto him and nothing but sinne could make him to find himselfe thereby in case of death Thirdly that he saith sinne that it might appeare sinne wrought death in me thereby affirming that by working death it did appeare to be that indeed which in name it is called as Oecumenius expresseth those words q Oecumen in Rom. cap 7. vt quod est totum in toto fiat manifestum that all in all it might be made manifest to be that that it is Fourthly he saith that r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this sinne was exceedingly a sinner by the commandement for so the words are according to the originall and so saith Irenaeus by allusion to that place that Å¿ Iren. lib. 3. cap. 20. Lex testificans de peccato quoniam peccator est the law did testifie of sinne that it was a sinner Now sinne is not a person in it selfe that it should be sayd to be a sinner but hereby is signified what man is by this sinne namely of concupiscence and that is exceedingly a sinner But a man cannot be a sinner but by that that is properly sinne therefore concupiscence making a man a sinner by the first motions thereof euen without consent is properly a sinne And thus much for circumstances of the place 4. W. BISHOP Now to M. Perkins Argument in forme as he proposeth it That which was once sinne properly and still remaining in man maketh him to sinne and intangleth him in the punishment of sinne and makes him miserable that is sinne properly But Originall sinne doth all these Ergo. The Maior which as the learned know should consist of three words containes foure seuerall points and which is worst of all not one of them true To the first that which remaineth in man after Baptisme commonly called Concupiscence was neuer a sinne properly but onely the materiall part of sinne the formall and principall part of it consisting in the depriuation of Originall iustice and a voluntarie auersion from the law of God the which is cured by the Grace of God giuen to the baptised and so that which was principall in Originall sinne doth not remaine in the regenerate neither doth that which remaineth make the person to sinne which was the second point vnlesse he willingly consent vnto it as hath bene proued heretofore it allureth and intiseth him to sinne but hath not power to constraine him to it as M. Perkins also himselfe before confessed Now to the third and intangleth him in the punishment of sinne how doth Originall sinne intangle the regenerate in the punishment of sinne if all the guiltinesse of it be remoued from his person as you taught before in our Consent Mendacem memorem esse oportet Either confesse that the guilt of Originall sinne is not taken away from the regenerate or else you must vnsay this that it intangleth him in the punishment of sinne Now to the last clause that the reliques of Originall sinne make a man miserable a man may be called wretched and miserable in that he is in disgrace with God and so subiect to his heauie displeasure that which maketh him miserable in this sence is sinne but S. Paul taketh not the word so here but for an vnhappie man exposed to the danger of sinne and to all the miseries of this world from which we should haue bene exempted had it not bene for Originall sinne after which sort he vseth the same word â— Cor. 15. If in this life onely we were hoping in Christ we were more miserable then all men not that the good Christians were farthest out of Gods fauour and more sinfull then other men but that they had fewest wordly comforts and the greatest crosses and thus much in confutation of that formall argument R. ABBOT M. Perkins his proposition consisteth of foure points M. Bishop saith that of those foure points there is not one true Which if it be so it was M. Perkins good hap to light vpon such an aduersarie as of foure seuerall points all as he saith vntrue is not able to disproue one The first point is that Concupiscence was once properly sinne which M. Perkins presumed as agreed and granted because the question betwixt vs and them is of Concupiscence after baptisme as if in the vnbaptised there were no question but that concupiscence is sinne But M. Bishop here altereth the state of the question telling vs that Concupiscence was neuer properly sinne and thereby shewing that he doth but colorably alledge and meerely abuse S. Austin who before Baptisme in no sence denieth but that Concupiscence is truly sinne and continually affirmeth it to be so And thus he maketh the Apostle wholy to dally in naming sinne sinne where there is no sinne indeed neither after Baptisme nor before But that which hath bene sayd both of the nature of sinne and of the circumstances of the Apostles text to proue that Concupiscence after Baptisme is sinne doth much more proue that the same is sinne before Baptisme and it shall yet further appeare if God will in that that followeth In the meane time here we are to obserue how M. Bishop falsly charging M. Perkins with foure vntruths in his argument in declaring the first of those foure doth himselfe deliuer foure vntruths indeed Concupiscence saith he was neuer properly sinne but onely the materiall part of sinne the formall and principall part of it consisting in the depriuation of Originall iustice and a voluntarie auersion from the law of God Where first he erreth in that he maketh Originall iustice to consist onely in the integritie of the will and the forme of sinne to stand onely in the auersion of the will from God by the losse of the same Originall iustice whereas Originall iustice was in truth the integritie of all the parts of man not subiecting the flesh to the mind and the mind to God but the whole man to God the image whereof is set forth vnto vs in the commandement a Mat. 12.30 Luk. 10 27. Thou shalt loue the Lord thy God with all thy heart with all thy mind with all thy soule with all thy thought and strength The forme of sinne therefore is not onely in the auersion of the will but in the auersion of any part or power or facultie of the soule if in any of these there be a declining from the law of God it is the sinne of man Now because b August de perfect iustis Rat. 17. Cùm est aliquid concupiscentiae carnalis quod velcoÌ„tinendo fraenâ—tur non omnimodo ex tota anima diligitur Deus so long as there is any matter of concupiscence to be yet bridled and restrained God cannot be loued with all the
haue profited by the words of Christ and haue taken occasion thereby to come to Christ for the obtaining of eternall life the true meanes whereof he directeth when he saith n Iohn 17.3 This is life eternall to know thee the onely true God and Iesus Christ whom thou hast sent Which knowledge of Christ seeing this man had not without which M. Bishop himselfe I hope will say there is no eternall life surely euen by his owne grounds it must be absurd to say that Christ by these words did simply intend to direct him a way for the obtaining of eternall life And if he will say that he was indeed first to beleeue and then by faith to keepe the commandements thereby to enter into life the Apostle taketh exception against that when citing the words of the Prophet The iust shall liue by faith he inferreth o Gal. 3.11 Now the law is not of faith but saith He that doth these things shall liue in them For if the law saying He that doth these things shall liue in them do not accord with the faith of Christ then it is not for them that professe the faith of Christ in the doing of these things that is in the keeping of the commandements to expect the obtaining of eternall life Yea p Tertull. de praescript Euaetuatur gratiae Euangelica si ad legem Christum redigit the grace of the Gospell is made void if it bring Christ to the law saith Tertullian which he learned of the Apostle saying q Gal. 5 4. Ye are voided of Christ ye are fallen from grace that will be iustified by the law Therefore he saith r Rom. 4.14 If they which be of the law be heires then faith is made void and the promise is made of none effect ſ Gal. 3.18 If the inheritance be by the law it is no longer by promise But God hath giuen it by promise and therefore faith beleeueth t 1. Ioh 5.10.11 that God hath giuen vnto vs eternall life and this life is not in our keeping the commandements but in his sonne and in him only we are to expect it that from the beginning to the end we may still confesse that u Rom. 6.23 eternall life is the gift of God through Iesus Christ our Lord. The commandements of God therefore are now laid before vs not as the condition for obtaining of eternall life but as the way to walke in vnto eternall life assured vnto vs by the free promise and gift of God And of this promise and gift of God the keeping of Gods commandements is a part who hath said x Ierem. 31.33 I will put my law in their hearts and in their minds will I write them y Ezech. 36.27 I will put my spirit into them and will cause them to walke in my statutes and to keepe my iudgements and do them Whereto agree the words of the Apostle z Ephe. 2.10 We are his workmanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good works which God hath prepared for vs to walke in Which workmanship when by the grace of God it is begun in vs albeit by reason of many imperfections it be not such as that by the vertue thereof we may expect eternall life yet our faith receiueth further confirmation and assurance thereby that he that hath wrought this beginning of life will go forward therewith to the end and hauing made vs partakers of one part of his promise will make vs also partakers of the other taking these first fruites of sanctification as an earnest and pledge from him of the performance of the whole Therefore albeit we well know that we do not keep the cōmandements of God as we ought to do yet we do not for that cause stand in doubt of eternall life but finding our hearts truly affected towards God a Mat. 5.6 hungring and thirsting after righteousnesse vnfainedly hating sinne and groning vnder the burden of it b Heb. 12.1 hanging so fast on we comfort our selues that God hath made the light of his Saluation to shine vnto vs resoluing according to his promise that this Sunne-rising though it be not yet fully cleare and may haply sometimes be ouercast with clouds yet shall neuer haue any night but that accepting our godly indeauours pardoning our defects and wants forgiuing vs all our sinnes he will c Phil. 1.6 perfect the good worke which he hath so graciously begun in vs so that the true faithfull soule may alwaies boldly say d Psal 23.6 Thy louing kindnesse and mercy shall follow me all the daies of my life and I shall dwell in the house of the Lord for euer Now because M. Bishop laieth no other but a rotten foundation no maruell if he build no other but a tottering and shaking house because he looketh to haue life grow out of his keeping of the commandements which is as a reed continually shaken with the wind no maruell if he deny to himselfe any stedfast assurance and trust of attaining thereunto But yet it is a falshood of his to charge the Protestants with affirming that no man by any helpe of Gods grace can keepe Gods commandements The Protestants onely say that God giueth vs not that fulnesse of grace whilest here we liue as that we can fully and perfectly keepe the commandements of God so as to be iustified thereby but they deny not but that all the faithfull according to the degrees and measure of grace receiued do in a measure keepe Gods commandements and as grace is increased so they increase in the keeping of the commandements and that this grace shal yet further renew and sanctifie them in such sort as that in the end corruption sin being wholly abolished for euer they shall be fully conformed to that image of righteousnesse that God hath described in the law But of this hereafter In the meane time we see by that that M. Bishop hath told vs of faith that the Church of Rome indeed teacheth no other faith but the same that deuils haue Which being obiected by M. Perkins he laboureth to cleare but saith nothing to serue the turne but by ouerthrowing that which he buildeth otherwhere He saith that the deuils know all to be true which we beleeue but yet do want a necessary condition of faith which is a godly and deuout submission of their vnderstanding to the obedience of faith and so haue no faith to speake properly But if godly and deuout submission of the vnderstanding to the obedience of faith be a necessary condition of faith as he telleth vs here so as that that which is called faith without this is not properly so called how then standeth it which elsewhere he determineth that faith truly and properly so called may be without charity and good works For what godlinesse what deuotion what submission or obedience can there be where charity is not Godlinesse deuotion submission obedience what are they but good works If then
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
Righteousnesse in the sight of God that through the imputation of the merit and satisfaction of Iesus Christ our sinnes are forgiuen vs and thereby no accusation is liable against vs either as hauing done what we ought not to do or not done what we ought to do according to the words of the Apostle d Rom. 8.33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect If we respect inherent qualitie there is inough to charge him with but by forgiuenesse of sinnes the same becommeth as if it had neuer bene In a word therefore we are not formally iust in qualitie if God iudge vs thereby being stained and defiled in all the Righteousnesse that we haue but we are formally iust in law by the imputation of the Righteousnesse of Christ for that thereby a satisfaction is interposed and our sinnes are remitted and pardoned so that there is no let but that God mercifully for his sake accepteth vs vnto euerlasting life 10. W. BISHOP 2. Obiect If we be righteous or iust by the Righteousnesse of Christ imputed vnto vs then is euerie iust man as righteous as Christ himselfe hauing the same iustice his which is Christs but that is too too absurd Ergo M. Perkins answer Christs Righteousnesse is not applied vnto vs in the same measure as it is in Christ in him it is infinite but of it so much is applied to this or that man as will serue for his iustification And to helpe this answer forward I will adde his marginall note euen as any starre partakes the whole light of the Sunne with the rest so far forth as the light makes it to shine Reply That which is applied of Christs iustice to this or that man is either infinite and then the man is as iust as Christ for there can be no greater then infinite in the same kind Or it is not infinit but in a certaine measure as he seemeth to graunt and then it is no part of Christs infinit iustice for all the parts of an infinite thing are infinite according vnto true Philosophie It remaineth then that a certaine limited portion of iustice is deriued out of Christs infinit iustice and powred into this or that man as in his owne example The light of euerie starre is receiued from the Sunne beames yet is not the light in the starre the same which is in the Sunne for one accident cannot be in two subiects so farre distant neither is it of like vertue to lighten the skies as it is euident but is a farre dimmer light somewhat like vnto that of the Sunne from whence it came Euen so in our iustification from the Sonne of iustice Christ Iesus certaine beames of particular iustice are conueyed into this or that mans soule wherby it is both lightned by faith and inflamed by charitie but there is exceeding difference betweene their two iustices more then there is betweene the light of the Sunne and the light of a starre which Saint Augustine in expresse tearmes deliuereth saying Lib. 12. conf cap. 15. How much difference there is betweene the light that doth lighten and that which is lightened that is the Sunne and the starre light so much difference is there betweene the iustice that doth iustifie and that iustice which is made by that iustification to wit betweene the iustice of Christ and that which is in euerie good Christian R. ABBOT M. Bishops learning might here haue informed him but that his will outranne his wit that the Righteousnesse of Christ as he is man is not infinite because it is the Righteousnesse of a finite creature which is not capable of that that is infinite True diuinitie distinguisheth the things of the manhood from the things of the godhead the one finite the other infinite thereby to vphold the integritie of two natures in the one person of Iesus Christ Yea and the Righteousnesse of the manhood of Christ as I conceiue may two wayes be considered either absolutely as in himselfe or respectiuely as for vs. The absolute Righteousnesse of Christ though it be finite yet is next to that that is infinite being aboue all the Righteousnesse of men and Angels in that the a Ioh. 3.34 spirit was giuen him without measure and therefore his perfections were the vttermost that a creature in any sort can be capable of But the respectiue or dispensatiue Righteousnesse of Christ is that whereby he is b Bernard in Cant. ser 70. Iustus pro hominibus iust for men as S. Bernard speaketh the righteousnesse which he performed for vs in fulfilling the law c Gal. 4.4 being made vnder the law to redeeme vs. According to this Righteousnesse therefore it is true that by the imputation of the Righteousnesse of Christ we are as righteous as Christ not absolutely but as Christ was for vs in fulfilling the law The infinite value and force of which Righteousnesse in Christ arose not from any infinitenesse of it selfe being but the Righteousnesse of the law which is but the description of that image of God to which man was first created and ought to be in man but it arose from the infinitenesse of the person of him by whom it was performed being both God and man and thereby is of that large extent to iustifie all and to purchase euerlasting life to all that do beleeue in him Rightly the refore doth M. Perkins say that the Righteousnesse of Christ is not applied to euerie particular man according to the infinite value of it selfe because that infinitenesse proceeded not of the nature of it selfe but according to that measure whereby it appertaineth to vs which is described in the law Neither is his comparison of the Sunne and the starres further to be strained but onely to shew that euerie thing that receiueth from another receiueth according to the stint and measure of it selfe he neuer meant that the Righteousnesse of Christ which is imputed vnto vs is deriued to vs to be actually inherent in vs as the light of the Sunne is deriued from it to be actually inherent in the starres Yet we denie not but that the beames of inherent Righteousnesse are deriued vnto vs by regeneration and new birth through the spirit of Iesus Christ but that is not the Righteousnesse here spoken of and M. Bishop might take occasion out of his owne words to call it a dimme light as indeed it is more dimme and darke then that by it we can find the way to God and euerlasting life 11. W. BISHOP The third reason for the Catholike partie If men be made truly and really iust by Christs iustice imputed vnto them in like manner Christ should be made really vniust by the iniquitie and sinnes of men imputed vnto him For there is no reason to the contrarie but one may as well be made vniust by imputation as iust especially considering that euill is made more easily and more wayes then good M. Perkins answer is that we may say Christ was a sinner
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
may be a difference in vs but Christ cannot be diuided neither is there in him any difference from himselfe Where he goeth he goeth whole and therefore what he is to the strong the same is he to the faint and feeble soule There is greater assurance and lesse assurance but the matter wherof each doth take assurance is the whole mercie of God in Christ 38. W. BISHOP Whether it be possible for a man in grace to fulfill Gods law Pag. 95. MAster Perkins argueth that it is vnpossible first for that Paule tooke it for his ground that the law could not be fulfilled Admit it were so Gal. 5. I then wold answer that he meant that a man helped onely with the knowledge of the lawe cannot fulfill the law but by the ayde of Gods grace Rom. 8. he might be able to do it Which I gather out of S. Paule where he saith that that which was vnpossible to the lawe is made by the grace of Christ possible 2 Obiect The liues and workes of most righteous men are imperfect and stayned with sinne ergo quid Of this there shall be a seuerall Article 3 Obiect Our knowledge is imperfect and therefore our faith repentance and sanctification is answerable I would to God all our workes were answerable to our knowledge then would they be much more perfect then they are but this argument is also impertinent and doth rather proue it possible to fulfill the law because it is possible to know all the law Then if our workes be answerable to our knowledge we may also fulfill it 4 Obiect A man regenerate is partly flesh and partly spirit and therefore his best workes are partly from the flesh Rom. 8.13 Not so if we mortifie the deedes of the flesh by the spirit as the Apostle exhorteth R. ABBOT The deniall of the possibility of keeping Gods commandement or of fulfilling the law is not absolutely meant God forbid that we should say that God hath commanded any thing vnpossible to be done We beleeue that Adam was created in state to fulfill all the righteousnesse of the law We beleeue that Christ in our nature hath fulfilled the same for vs and that we by Christ in the end shall fully be restored to the perfection thereof In the meane time also we keepe the commandements of God and frame our liues according to the line and rule thereof and herein we labour and trauell to grow and increase from day to day but we attaine not to perfection here that which we do is more in will then in worke more in desire then in deede In the midst of our righteousnesse we condemne our selues of sin we carry our vncleannesse in our hands and thereby do yeeld confession thereof to the Lord if we will say that we fulfill the law our owne mouth shall condemne vs who accordingly as we are taught do daily aske forgiuenes for our transgressions of the lawe There is no man so long as he liueth but must confesse that he is too weake to the bearing of that burthen and cometh much short euery manner of way of that that is required by the law And this S. Paule tooke indeed for the ground of his whole disputation against iustification by the law For rightly he saith a Gal. 3.21 If there had bene a lawe giuen which could haue giuen life then righteousnes shold haue bene by the law He taketh it for granted that the law could not giue life not because it was defectiue in it selfe but because by our defect we were not capable of the life that was offered thereby euen as the Sunne cannot giue light to the blind not for any want that is in it but because the blind hath not meanes to make benefit and vse of the light that most clearely shineth from the Sunne Which reason the Apostle more plainely declareth otherwhere when he saith that b Rom. 8.3 it was impossible for the law namely to iustifie and saue vs because it was weakened by the flesh Wherby he signifieth that the default resteth vpon our weaknesse and the corruption of our sinfull flesh whereby we are vnable in any sort to attaine to that righteousnesse and perfect integritie and innocencie that the law requireth of vs. Now if flesh do hinder the law from being able to iustifie vs then so long as flesh continueth there must needes be still a weaknesse of the law in that behalfe But so long as here we liue there is still c Gal. 5.17 the flesh lusting against the spirit and d Rom. 7.23 rebelling against the law of the mind We can neuer therefore whilest we liue attaine to the fulfilling of the law to be iustified thereby This remainder of flesh doth argue that we haue yet receiued the grace of God but onely in part It hath begun to heale vs but a great part of our disease and weaknesse continueth still We are therefore as yet but in part onely enabled thereby to fulfill the law and if we keepe it but in part we keepe it not so as to be iustified by the law because by the sentence of the law e â—al 3.10 cursed is euery man that continueth not in all things that are written therin This meaning the Apostle plainely deliuereth neither doth M. Bishop gather any other meaning from him but by the corrupting of his words alledging him as if he had said That that was impossible to the law is made by the grace of Christ possible But why doth he put in that vnder the Apostles name which the Apostle doth not say he neither saith nor meant to say that to fulfill the law is made possible by the grace of Christ but rather that in Christ that iustification is supplied vnto vs which it is vnpossible should be yeelded vnto vs by the law And how could he gather that meaning from him when he could not but know that notwithstanding the grace of Christ he affirmeth still in part a remainder of that impediment by which it was vnpossible before to fulfill the lawe But of this text there will be further occasion to speake in the three and fortieth section The second reason alledged by M. Perkins against the opinion of fulfilling the law is that the liues and workes of the most righteous men are vnperfect and stained with sinne M. Bishop very quipperly demandeth Ergo quid he knew the ergo well inough Ergo no man can fulfill the law For if the most righteous faile in that behalfe then it followeth that generally all are excluded from that power If all must confesse themselues to be vnperfect if all must acknowledge themselues to be sinners then all must confesse as I said before that they faile of the performance of the law The connexion would haue bene considered here but M. Bishop pretily passeth it ouer vnder pretence of a seuerall article for the handling of the proposition what he saith of that we shal see anone M. Perkins
third reason is taken from the imperfection of our knowledge for it cannot be but our faith our loue our repentance our sanctification must be vnperfect so long as we haue but vnperfect knowledge to direct vs in all these things M. Bishops answer to this consisteth of two parts the one whereof is an acknowledgement against himselfe the other an assertion of apparent and manifest vntruth I would to God saith he our workes were answerable to our knowledge 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.
15.10 the law was a yoke which saith he neither we nor our fathers were able to beare Whence euen by the very words it must needs follow that we are not able to fulfill the law M. Bishops answer is that that law could not be fulfilled by the onely helpe of the same law without further ayde of Gods grace As though they had not the grace of God who notwithstanding complained of the law as of a yoke too heauie for them to beare euen in that state of grace Therefore we will say to M. Bishop as Orosius did to the Pelagian hereticke b Oros Apolog. de arbit libert Samuel Elias c. Patres sine dubio nostri sunt eâ—â—neminem Patrum Petrus affirmat sed neque semel ipsos hoc est Apostolos cuÌ„ essent Judaei â—nus legis ferre potuisse sed fide Christi secundum spem gratiae fuisse saluatos An fortè secundum te omnes isti sansti Patres Dei adiutorium non habebant Samuel Elias Elizeus Esay Ieremie Daniel Zachary all those holy ones either Iudges or Kings or Prophets were vndoubtedly our Fathers and Peter affirmeth that none of the Fathers no nor themselues that is the Apostles being Iewes could beare the burden of the lawe but were saued by the faith of Christ according to the help of grace What had not all these holy Fathers thinkest thou the hope of grace Hauing then the helpe of the grace of God yet they still acknowledged the law to be a heauier burthen then that they were able to stand vnder the waight thereof To this purpose he vrgeth the hereticke with that which is written in the law c Deut. 6.5 Thou shalt loue the Lord thy God with all thy heart c. d Oros ibid. Responde non mihi sed Deo non vâ—co sed conscientia si ita ex toto corde Deum diligis vt nullam vn quam in eo cogitationem quae absque timore dilectione Dei intelligi possit admittas ita in tota anima sequeris vt suscepta semel cruce in nullam penitus oblectationem habita ad tempus iâ—cunditatu succedas c. Answer saith he not to me but to God not with thy voyce but with thy conscience whether thou so loue God with all thy heart as that thou neuer admit any thought therein that may be conceiued to be without the feare and loue of God whether thou so follow him with all thy soule as that hauing once vndertaken the crosse thou be neuer caried for the time to fall into any delight or contentment of pleasure c. Where as he sheweth how farre it is beyond our power to keep our selues within the lists bounds of this commandement so he taketh away M. Bishops second exception that the law was thus called a yoke c. in respect of the sacrifices sacraments and ceremonies by the multitude whereof he saith that it was so burdensome and comberous as that it could hardly be kept by the helpe of ordinary grace For if the law be there vnderstood which saith Thou shalt loue the Lord thy God c. as Orosius declareth then it is false which M. Bishop saith that that speech is to be referred to the ceremonies of the law But the reader is well to obserue the manner of his speech It could hardly be kept It could then or might be kept though hardly be kept No question then but some did keepe it if it might be kept But the yoke of which S. Peter speaketh is such as none was able to beare It is not then to be vnderstood of the ceremonies of the law And indeed there is no doubt but that the ceremoniall law by ordinary grace of God as touching the outward practise thereof might exactly be performed The multitude of those obseruations is equalled in the Romish Church and yet they haue nimble fellowes that can attaine to all But out of M. Bishops words we will argue à minori ad maius if the law of ceremonies were so heauie a yoke which consisted only in outward obseruations how much heauier is that that giueth law to the whole man to all his thoughts and words and deedes taking exception against any thing either inwardly or outwardly whereby we step aside from the rule thereof And yet he as a man void of sence conscience saith of the ceremonies that they could very hardly be obserued but of the rest of the commaundements that they are very possible and easie to be kept as we shall see anon In the meane time to proue it he bringeth exaÌ„ple of diuers who he saith did fulfill all the lawe but he is preuented and bereaued of those examples by Cyprian who saith of all those excellent men and Priests and Prophets before Christ that e Cyprian de Ieiun tent Christi Fuerant ante Christum viri insignes Prophetae Sacerdotes sed in peccatis concepti nati nec originali nec personali caruere delicto inuenta est in omnibus vel ignorantia vel insufficientia in quibus erronei peccauerunt egu erunt misericor dia Dei per quaÌ„ edocti restituti gratias egeruâ—t Deo ad plenitudinem iustitiae multùm sibi de esse confessi sunt sperantes in Deo nullam sibi soliditatem attri buere praesumpserunt being conceiued and borne in sinnes they were neither without originall nor personall fault and there was found in them all either ignorance or vnsufficiencie by which going astray they sinned and stood in need of the mercy of God by which being instructed and restored they gaue thankes to God and confessed that much was wanting vnto them to perfection of righteousnesse and trusting in God presumed not to attribute any soundnesse to themselues As touching them all we must answer the same that Saint Austine answered the Pelagian hereticks f August de pec mer. remiss lib. 2. cap. 14. Scripturarum testimonijs quibus de illorum laudibus credimus hoc etiam credimus non iustificari in conspectu Dei omnem vinentem ideo rogari ne inireâ— in iudicium cum seruis suis By the testimonies of the Scripture which we beleeue as touching their commendations we beleeue this also that no man liuing shall be found iust in the sight of God and that therefore he is requested not to enter into iudgement with his seruants Whereby what we meane when we request it the same S. Austin sheweth g Jdem de Tem. Ser 49. Nestes micum in iudicio exigendo à me omnia quae praece pisti omnia quae iussisiâ— NaÌ„ me inuenies reuÌ„ si in iudicium iniraueris mecuÌ„ c. Stand not with me in iudgement by exacting of me all that thou hast commanded and all that thou hast charged vs. For thou shalt find me guiltie if thou enter into iudgement with me This S. Austine maketh the common confession of all the seruants of God that
M. Bishop to presume but for God himselfe to determine who hath not thought fit to bring vs to perfection in this life that he may haue the whole glorie of our saluation in the life to come The words of Dauid are as little helpfull vnto him i Psal 119. I will runne the way of thy commaundements when thou hast set my heart at liberty So farre as we are at liberty so farre we runne and so fast we runne But we attaine not to that liberty yet but that being k Rom. 7.23 holden captiue to the law of sinne which is in our members we haue still cause to cry l 24. Who shall deliuer vs or set vs at liberty from this body of death m 2. Cor. 3.17 Where the spirit of the Lord is there is liberty We haue receiued as yet onely n Rom. 8.23 the first fruites of the spirit We haue yet therefore but the first fruites of liberty and there is still remaining somewhat o Heb. 12.1 that presseth downe and sinne hanging fast on so that we cannot runne without much hinderance and many falls and the p Mat. 26.41 willingnesse of the spirit findeth alwaies a let by the infirmitie and weaknesse of the flesh 43. W. BISHOP Hauing now confuted all that is commonly proposed to prooue the impossibility of keeping Gods commaundements let vs now see what we can say in proofe of the possibility of it First S. Paul is very plainly for it saying That which was impossible to the law in that is weakened by the flesh God sending his Sonne in the similitude of flesh of sinne damned sinne in the flesh that the iustification of the law might be fulfilled in vs who walke not according to the flesh but according vnto the spirit See how formally he teacheth that Christ dying to redeeme vs from sinne purchased vs grace to fulfill the law which before was impossible vnto our weake flesh Againe how farre S. Iohn was from that opinion of thinking Gods commaundements to be impossible Cap. 5. may appeare by that Epistle And his commaundements be not heauie Which is taken out of our Sauiours owne words My yoke is sweet Math. 11. and my burthen is light The reason of this is that although to our corrupt frailty they be very heauie yet when the vertue of charity is powred into our hearts by the holy Ghost then loe do we with delight fulfill them For as the Apostle witnesseth Charity is the fulnesse of the law Rom. 13. And He that doth loue his neighbour hath fulfilled the law Math. 22. Which Christ himselfe teacheth when he affirmeth That the whole law and Prophets depend vpon these two commaundements of louing God and our neighbour Now both according vnto our opinion and the Protestants a man regenerate and in the state of grace hath in him the vertue of Charity we hold it to be the principall part of inherent iustice they say that their iustifying faith can neuer be seperated from it so that a righteous man being also indued with charity is able thereby to fulfill the whole law Let vs adioyne vnto these Authorities of holy write the testimonie of one auncient Father or two S. Basil affirmeth That it is impious and vngodly Serm. in illud Attende tibi to say that the commaundements of the spirit be vnpossible S. Augustine defineth That we must beleeue firmely De nat gra cap. 69. that God being iust and good could not command things that be impossible for vs to fulfill The reason may be that it is the part of a tyrant and no true lawmaker to commaâ—â—d his subiects to do that vnder paine of death which he knowes them no way able to performe for those were not to be called lawes which are to direct men to that which is iust but snares to catch the most diligent in and to bind them vp to most assured perdition Wherefore it was afterward decreed in an approoued Councell of Aransican as an article of faith in these words 2. Can. vlt. This also we beleeue according to the Catholike faith that all men baptized by grace there receiued with the helpe and cooperation of Christ can and ought to keepe and fulfill those things which belong to saluation The principall whereof are after our Sauiours owne determination to keepe the commaundements If thou wilt enter into life Math. 1â— keepe the commaundements This by the way concerning the possibility of fulfilling the law R. ABBOT M. Bishop hath a good opinion of that that he hath done and if his fellowes do not accept it accordingly no doubt but he will thinke they do him great wrong As for vs we may by his leaue thinke that that we see that he hath babled much and said as good as nothing and that he is farre from being a man to take vpon him the confuting of any thing that is defended on our part But now leauing his confutation he goeth in hand with proofe of a possibility in vs to fulfill the law And first he alledgeth to that purpose the words of S. Paul in some part handled before a Rom. 8.3 That that was vnpossible to the law inasmuch as it was weake because of the flesh God sending his owne Sonne in the similitude of sinfull flesh and for sinne condemned sinne in the flesh that the iustification or righteousnesse of the law might be fulfilled in vs who walke not after the flesh but after the spirit Now of this place he saith that it formally teacheth that Christ dying to redeeme vs from sinne did purchase vs grace to fulfill the law which before was impossible to our weake flesh But he is still so full of formality that we can finde little matter in any thing that he saith How hath Christ purchased grace for vs to fulfill the law in that sence as here we speake of fulfilling the law when as the grace of Christ doth still leaue remaining in vs a weakenesse of flesh to which the Apostle saith it is a thing vnpossible to fulfill the law All M. Bishops teeth cannot vntie this knot If weakenesse of flesh hinder the fulfilling of the law then so long as we liue here the grace of Christ neuer putteth vs in state to fulfill the law because it neuer taketh from vs the weakenesse of the flesh His commentarie therefore is nothing woorth and because it is but his owne we make very small account or reckoning of it The cause of our not fulfilling the law continueth still and therefore we must referre the benefit here expressed to some other thing then our fulfilling of the law That the Apostle noteth first in saying that Christ condemned sinne comparing it thereby to a prisoner a robber or murtherer brought to the barre and there receiuing sentence of condemnation and death that thenceforth it should be bereaued of all action or accusation of all plea or power against vs. This Christ hath done for
vs by purchasing for vs the forgiuenesse of sinnes whereby b Rom. 4.6 the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without workes because as S. Austine saith c Aug. Retraâ—t lib. 1. ca. 19. Omnia Dei mandaâ—a facta deputaÌ„tur quando quicquid non fit ignoscitur All the commaundements of God are reputed to be done when that that is not done is pardoned Now when all the commaundements of God are reputed to be done the iustification of the law is fulfilled in vs. For what is the iustification of the law but the iustification which the law might seeme to intend and propound vnto it selfe that we might be acquitted of sinne and accepted vnto life Thus the auncient Fathers expound it for d Theophylact. in Rom. ca. 8. Iustificatio laegis id est exitus ipse destinatio the scope the end the thing destinated by the law which when the law could not attaine vnto Christ performed it vnto vs by the forgiuenesse of our sinnes e Theodoret. ibid. Nostrum debitum exoluit legis scopum perfecit He paid our debt saith Theodoret and performed that which was the scope of the law f Oecumen ibid. Quis est finis legu Vt non essemuâ— maledictioâ—â— obnoxij Per Christum quideÌ„ in effectuÌ„ deductus est in nobis legis scopus What was the end of the law saith Oecumius That we should not be subiect to the curse By Christ then that which was the scope of the law was brought to effect in vs. So Chrysostome g Chrysost ibid. hom 13. Quae legis erat â—ustificacio non esse execrationi obnoxium id tibi perfecit Christus That which was the iustification of the law not to be subiect to the curse Christ hath effected vnto vs. Last of all Ambrose saith h Ambros ibid. Quomodo impletur in nobis iustificatio nisi cuÌ„ datur remissio omnium peccatorum How is the iustification of the law fulfilled in vs but when there is giuen vnto vs forgiuenesse of all our sinnes The Apostle therefore by the iustification of the law vnderstandeth not inherent righteousnesse but signifieth that that iustification which the law intended but through our default could not make good vnto vs by inherent righteousnesse Christ hath performed in purchasing for vs forgiuenesse of sinnes by which we are reputed iust and blamelesse in Gods sight and accepted to be inheritours of euerlasting life Now S. Ambrose to the former words addeth i Ibid. Vt sublatis peccatis iustificatus appareat mente seruiens legi Deâ— That a man being iustified by the taking away of his sinnes may appeare in his minde seruing the law of God whereby he noteth that to iustification by forgiuenesse of sinnes is adioined regeneration to inherent righteousnesse which he calleth afterwards k Ibid. SignuÌ„ iustificationâ— hoc est in homine vt per id quod inhabitat in eo iustificatus appareat esse filius Dei a signe of iustification And this we denie not but do alwaies most religiously teach the same onely we denie that this is that wherein consisteth our iustification before God but it is a sequell and signe thereof and we neuer attaine to the perfection of it whilest we liue here And if we will either directly or vndirectly vnderstand it in these words we must take thereof that which S. Austine saith that l Aug. de sp lit ca. 36. Sic operatur iustificationem in sanctis suis in huius vita tentatione laborantibus vt tameÌ„ sit quod peteÌ„tibus largitèr adâ—ciat et quod coÌ„fitentibus clemeÌ„ter ignoscat God so worketh in his Saints labouring in the temptation of this life as that there is yet for him largely to adde vnto them asking or crauing of him and mercifully to pardon them when they confesse it vnto him yea so as the same S. Austine elsewhere saith m Idem de ciu Dei li. 19. cap. 27. Ipsa iustitia nostra tanta est in hac vita vt potius remissione peccatorum constet quà m perfectione virtutum as that our righteousnesse in this life rather consisteth in forgiuenesse of sinnes then in perfection of vertues Now therefore though the place be vnderstood of inherent righteousnesse yet it maketh not for M. Bishops turne because it prooueth onely that Christ shall restore vs to the perfect righteousnes of the law which we affirme that he beginneth in this life and shall fully accomplish in the life to come but it prooueth not that which he desireth that in this life we are enabled by the grace of Christ to the perfect fulfilling of the righteousnesse of the law To the other places that he alledgeth that the commaundements of God are not heauie that the yoke of Christ is easie and his burden light he himselfe in effect setteth downe the answer To our corrupt frailty saith he they be very heauie True and therefore so long and so farre as this corrupt frailty continueth so long and so farre the commaundements of God are still heauie vnto vs which must needs be till that which n 1. Cor. 15.42 43. shall be sowed in corruption and weakenesse shall be raised againe in incorruption and power When the vertue of charity saith he is powred into our soules then we do with delight fulfill them True so farre forth as charity is powred into our soules But so long as there is carnall concupiscence there cannot be perfect charity to take full delight in the law of God because o Aug. cont Iuliâ—n lib 4. cap. 2. InquaÌ„â—m inest nocet aâ— minuendam spiritualeÌ„ deleâ—â—ationem sanctaruÌ„ mâ—ntium illam scilicet de qua dicit Apostolus Condelector legi Dei c. carnall coÌ„cupiscence euen by very being in vs as S. Austine saith doth abridge or diminish that spirituall delight of holy minds of which the Apostle saith I delight in the law of God as touching the inner man p Jdem de perfect iustit Rat. 8. Tunc erit plena iustitia quaÌ„do plena sanitas tunc plena saenitas quendo plena charitas tunc plena charitas quando videbi mus sicuti est Then shall be perfect righteousnesse saith he againe that is perfect keeping of the commaundements of God when there shall be perfect health then perfect health when perfect charity then perfect charity when we shall see him as he is In the meane time loue keepeth the commaundements of God but yet vnperfectly because it selfe is but vnperfect euen as a lame man goeth but yet halteth â—n his going To be short the same S. Austine well obserueth that q IdeÌ„ de nat grat cap. 69. CoÌ„sideret noÌ„ potuisse diuinitus dici grauia non sunt nisi quia potest esse cordis affectus cui grauiae non sunt God could not haue said that his commaundements are not heauie but that there may be an affection of heart to which they are not heauie Therefore r
shall perfectly restore vs to our spirituall health and strength it shall be easie and delightfull vnto vs to keepe all the righteousnesse which God hath commanded but so long as we continue in this weakenesse and frailety we can by no meanes be said to attaine to the perfection of the law But here M. Bishop vnstringeth his tongue against God and faith that it is the part of a tyrant not of a true lawmaker to commaund his subiects to do that vpon paine of death which he knowes them no way able to performe A silly foolish man that by his brainsicke fancies measureth the wisedome and righteousnesse of God and taketh vpon him presumptuously to giue law vnto God in what sort he shall make lawes for men But God is able in this behalfe to acquit himselfe z Rom. 3.4 that he may be iustified in his sayings and found cleare when he is iudged For the iust God was not in making of lawes to regard mans ablenesse but his owne righteousnesse and therefore to forbid all sinne that he might not seeme to approoue any and to commaund all righteousnesse that he might not seeme to neglect any It should not haue bene knowne to be sinne which he had not regarded to forbid nor taken for righteousnesse which he had not vouchsafed to commaund Was it fit that the rule of righteousnesse should haue bene abridged in fauour of mans sinne when the want of power to fulfill the law was not by Gods default in creating man but by mans disabling himselfe in turning away from God But M. Bishops folly and ignorance appeareth herein very plainly for that the Scripture teacheth vs that the vse of the law we not being able to fulfill it was to be a Gal. 3.24 our Schoolemaister to traine vs vnto Christ God had not any opinion in giuing the law of our performance thereof but he intended it to be as a glasse for vs to see our selues and to conceiue thereby our owne estate that finding our selues to be miserable and vtterly lost in our selues we might the more readily accept of the saluation that is freely offered vnto vs by Iesus Christ Thus saith the Apostle againe b Rom. 10.4 Christ is the end of the law for righteousnesse to euery one that beleeueth Therefore S. Austine saith that c Aug. de nat grat cap. 12. Haec est intentio legis arguentu vt propter ea quae perperà m fiuâ—t confugiatur ad gratiam Domini miseraÌ„tis c. vbi et remittantur quae malè fiunt eadeÌ„ gratia iuuante noÌ„ fiant the intent of the law reproouing vs is this to make vs for our misdoings to flie to the grace of the mercifull God where what we do amisse may be pardoned and by the helpe of the same grace may not be done To some part whereof we are come already by repentance and amendment of life and mortification of fleshly lusts but yet not so but that still we do many things amisse and stand in neede of pardon The law in the meane time serueth vs for a patterne of true righteousnesse teaching vs what we are to striue vnto what the purity is whereunto God hath called vs that though in the prison of corruptible flesh we cannot fully answer the same yet we may still be labouring towards it sighing groaning at that infirmity and disease that hindereth vs from it praying instantly vnto God to bring vs to it that his grace and mercy may in the end make vs partakers of our desire and thenceforth we may neuer do amisse d Jdem de perfect iustit Rat. 17. Cur non praeciperetur homini ista perfectio quamuis eam in hac vita nemo habeat NoÌ„ enim rectè curritur si quò currendum est nesciatur Quomodo auteÌ„ sciretur si nullis praeceptis ostenderetur Why should not this perfection be commaunded to man saith Austine although no man haue it in this life For we cannot runne aright if we know not to what to runne And how should we know if by no commaundements it were declared vnto vs Againe he saith e De grat lib. arbit cap. 16. MagnuÌ„ aliquid Pelagians se scire putant quaÌ„dâ— dicunt Non iuberet Deuâ— quod sciret ab homine non posse fieri The Pelagians he might haue said the Papists thinke they know some great matter when they say God would not commaund that which he knew could not be done by man Let M. Bishop take knowledge of his obiection vsed of old by the Pelagian heretikes S. Austine answereth f Quis hoc nesciat sed ideò iubet aliqua quae non possumus vt sciamus quid ab illo petere debeamus Ipsa est fides quae orando impetrat quod lex imperat Who knoweth not so much But therefore doth he commaund some things which we cannot do that we may know what we are to aske of him It is faith which by praier obtaineth that which the law commaundeth The commaundements of God then are not vnpossible for if they were vnpossible we could neuer hope to attaine to the keeping of them But now we pray vnto God that he will and according to his promise we beleeue that he will bring vs to that state of innocencie and perfection wherein we shall fully answer the image of perfect righteousnesse which is set before vs in the law In the meane time there is a let that hindereth vs and holdeth vs backe that it is not possible for vs so long as it continueth to do those things which yet are possible to be done The Arausican Councell saith nothing of fulfilling the law but speaketh generally of doing those things which belong to saluation Now to our saluation it belongeth to know and confesse that g Rom. 3.20 by the workes of the law no flesh shall be iustified in the sight of God To our saluation belongeth an humble acknowledgement of our vnablenesse to satisfie the law true repentance of our sinnes the faith of Iesus Christ that by him and in him we may haue supply of that wherein we are found defectiue by the law In a word it is the way to exclude vs from saluation to place our affiance and trust of obtaining the same in our fulfilling of the law the Apostle telling vs that h Gal. 3.10 so many as are of the works of the law are vnder the curse because it is written Cursed is euery one that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law to do them whereas i Eccles 7.22 there is not a man iust vpon earth that doth good and sinneth not The words of Christ k Mat. 19.17 If thou wilt enter into life keepe the commaundements were spoken to the young man to the same end to which the law generally was giuen to giue him occasion to measure and know himselfe by the commaundements that so he might seeke the way of
saluation in Christ which in the law being a transgressour thereof he could not finde But of these words enough hath bene said before in the question of l Cha. 3. Sect. 3. the Certaintie of Saluation For conclusion of this point to quit M. Bishop I will alledge the words of S. Bernard m Bernard in Cant. ser 50. Non latuit praeceptoreÌ„ praecepti ponduâ— humanas excedere viâ—es sed iudicauit vtile ex hoc ipso suae ipsos insufficientiae admoneri et vt scirent sanè ad queÌ„ iustitiae fineÌ„ niti pro viribâ—s oporteret Ergo mandando impossibilia non praeuaricatores fecit sed humiles vt omne os obstruatur subditus fiat to tus mundus Deo AccipieÌ„tes quippe mandâ—tum sentientes defectum clamabimus in coelum miserebitur nostri Deus sâ—temus in die illa quia non ex operibus iustitiae quae fecimus nos sed secundum miserecordiam suam saluos nos fecit It was not vnknowne to the commaunder that the waight of the commaundement doth exceede the strength of man but he held it expedient that hereby men should be aduertized of their owne vnsufficiencie and that they should know to what end of righteousnesse they should labour to their vtteâ—most Therefore by commaunding things vnpossible to vs he hath not made vs trespassers but humbled vs that euery mouth may be stopped and all the world may be made subiect to God For receiuing the commaundement and feeling our owne defect and want we shall cry to heauen and God will haue mercy vpon vs and we shall know at that day that not for the workes of righteousnesse which we haue done but of his owne mercy he hath saued vs. In which words he giueth vs to vnderstand that God had reason sufficient to giue the law though he knew it vnpossible for vs in this state of mortality and weakenesse perfectly to fulfill the law 44. W. BISHOP Now that iust mens workes be not sinnes which I prooue first That good works be not stained with sinne by some workes of that patterne of patience Iob Of whom it is written that notwithstanding all the diuels power and craft in tempting of him He continued still a single hearted and an vpright man Cap. 2. departing from euill and preseruing his innocencie If he continued an innocent he sinned not Againe if in all these instigations to impatience he remained patient these his workes were perfect For S. Iames saith Esteeme it my brethren all ioy Cap. 1. when you shal fall into diuers temptations knowing that the probation of your faith worketh patience And let patience haue a perfect worke that you may be perfect and entire failing in nothing 2. King Dauid thus by the inspiration of the holy Ghost speaketh of himselfe Thou hast O Lord prooued my heart Psal 16. thou hast visited me in the night thou hast tried me in fire and there was no iniquity found in me It must needes then be graunted that some of his workes at least were free from all sinne and iniquity And that the most of them were such if you heare the holy Ghost testifying it I hope you will beleeue it reade then where it is of record 3. Reg. 15. That Dauid did that which was right in the sight of our Lord and not onely in the sight of men and turned from nothing that hee commaunded him all the dayes of his life except onely the matter of Vrias the Hethite 3. The Apostle affirmeth 1. Cor. 3. That some men do build vpon the onely foundation Christ Iesus gold siluer and pretious stones that is being choise members of Christes Catholike Church doe manie perfect good workes such as being tried in the fornace of Gods iudgement will suffer no losse or detriment as he there saith expresly Wherefore they must needes be pure and free from all drosse of sinne otherwise hauing bene so prooued in fire it would haue beene found out 4. Many workes of righteous men please God Rom. 12. 1. Pet. 2. Make your bodies a quick sacrifice holy acceptable to God the same offering spirituall sacrifices acceptable to God Phil. 4. And S. Paul calleth almes bestowed on him in prison an acceptable sacrifice of sweet sauour and pleasing God But nothing infected with sinne all which he hateth deadly can please God and be acceptable in his sight God of his mercy through Christ doth pardon sin or as the Protestants speake not impute it to the person but to say that a sinfull worke is of sweet sauour before him and a gratefull sacrifice to him were blasphemie wherefore we must needs confesse that such workes which so well pleased him were not defiled with any kind of sinne Mat. 5. 1 Tim. 6. Ephes 2. Finally many workes in holy writ be called good as That they may see your good workes To be rich in good works We are created in Christ Iesus to good workes but they could not truly be called good workes if they were infected with sinne For according to the iudgment of all learned Diuines it can be no good worke that faileth either in substance or circumstance that hath any one fault in it for bonum ex integra causa malum ex quolibet defectu Wherefore we must either say that the holy Ghost calleth euill good which were blasphemie or else acknowledge that there be many good workes free from all infection of sinne R. ABBOT The wise man hauing prefixed this title That good workes be not stained with sinne which we say they be taketh vpon him in his text to proue that iust mens workes be no sinnes which no man saith they be We must beare with him because his vnderstanding doth not serue him to take that for gold wherein there is any drosse for if it did he would easily conceiue that the staine of mans sinne doth not destroy or take away the nature of the good worke which in man by man is wrought by the grace of God But leauing that peece of his folly let vs examine his proofes that good workes be stained with sinne And first he will proue it by the example of Iob because it is said of him that a Iob. 2.3 he continued still a single hearted and an vpright man departing from euill and preseruing his innocencie But it were very hard to say how M. Bishops purpose should be made good out of these words We find here a relation of Iobs goodnesse but we find nothing to proue that that goodnesse of his was no way touched or stained with sin Now the reader is to vnderstand that this coÌ„mendation of Iob set down in the 1. Chapter after repeated in the 2. chapter to shew his constancy therin was of old vrged by the Pelagian heretikes as now by M. Bishop to prooue the perfection of the righteousnesse of man But S. Austine well waighing the circumstance of the text how it is withall said There
u Percurie Ecclesias Apostolicaâ— apud quas ipsae adâ—uc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesideÌ„tur apud quas ipsae authenticae literae eorum recitantur c. Proxima est tibi Achaia habes Corinthum Si non longe es à Macedonia habes Philippos c. si Italiae adiaceâ— hâ—bes Romanam c. Cum Aphricanis quoque Ecclesijs contestatur vnum Deum nouit Creatorem vniuâ—sitaâ—â—â— Iesum Christum ex Virgine Maria filium Creatoris carnis resurrectionem legem Prophetâ—s cum Euangelicis Apostolicis literis miscet inde fidem portat eam c. where were still Bishops in the seates of the Apostles and their authenticall Epistles were still read as of the Corinthians the Philippians the Thessalonians the Ephesians the Romanes which together with the Aphricane Churches acknowledged one God the Creatour of the whole world and Iesus Christ of the Virgin Mary the Sonne of the Creator and the resurrection of the flesh ioyning the lawe and the Prophets with the writings of the Euangelists and Apostles and thence deriuing that faith Thus had he before set downe the doctrine and faith which in all this treatise he thus laboureth to vphold and maintaine x Regula est autem fidei illa scilicet qua creditur vâ—um omninò Deum esse nec alium quà m mundi Creatorem qui vniuersa produxerit de nihilo per verbum suum primò omnium omissum c. Superest vt demonstremus an haec nostra doctrina cuius regulam supra edidimus de Apostolerum traditione censcatur The rule of faith is this to beleeue that there is one onely God and the same no other but the Creator of the world who by his word first of all sent foorth made all things of nothing The same word called his Son was vnder the name of God diuersly seen of the Patriarkes euermore heard in the Prophets last of all by the spirit and power of the Father was brought into the Virgin Mary made flesh in her wombe and being borne of her did the part of Iesus Christ preached thencefoorth the new law and the new promise of the kingdome of heauen wrought miracles and being nailed to a crosse rose againe the third day and so forth according to the articles of Christian beleefe VpoÌ„ the assertion of this rule he inferreth that y Si haec ita se habent vt veritas nobis adiudicetur quicunque in ea regula incedimus quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis Apostoli à Christo Christus à Deo tradidit constat ratio pro positi nostri definientis non esse admittendos haereticos ad eanâ—è de Scripturis prouocationem quos sine Scripturis probamus ad Scripturas non pertiâ—ere sith the truth must be adiudged to them who walke in that rule which the Church had deliuered from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God it was hereby assured which he had before propounded that the heretikes were not to be admitted to disputation by the Scriptures who without the Scriptures were proued to haue no title to the Scriptures Therefore for conclusion of all this he saith that z Illic igitur ScripturaruÌ„ expositionum adulteratio deputanda est vbi diuersitas muenitur doctrinae Quibus fuit propositum aliter doceÌ„di necessitas institit aliter disponendi instrumenta doctrinae Alias enim non potuissent alitèr docere nisi alitèr haberent per quae decerent Sicut illis non potuisset succedere corrup tela doctrinae sine corruptela instrumentorum eius ita nobis integritas doctrinae non compentisset sine integritate eorum per quae doctrina tractatur Etenim quid contrarium nobis in nostris quid de proprio iâ—tulimus vt aliquid contrarium ei in Scripturis deprehensum detractione vel adiectione vel transmutatione remediaremus Quod sumus hoc suntinde Scripturae ab initio suo Ex illis sumus antequam nihil aliter fuit quà m sumus the corrupting of the Scriptures and of the meaning thereof must be reckoned to be there where there was found diuersitie of doctrine from the Scriptures For they saith he who intended to teach otherwise had need otherwise to dispose of the instruments of doctrine and teaching For they could not teach otherwise except they had somewhat otherwise whereby to teach But on the contrarie side he saith As their corrupting of doctrine could not haue successe without corrupting of the instruments thereof so neither could integritie or soundnesse of doctrine haue stood with vs without the integritie of those instrumeÌ„ts by which doctrine is handled For in our Scriptures what is there contrarie to vs What haue we brought in of our owne that somewhat being found in the Scriptures thereto contrarie we should remedie by adding or taking away or changing any thing What we are the same are the Scriptures euen from their beginning From theÌ„ we are euer since there was nothing otherwise then we are This is the briefe summe of all that Tertullian in that booke saith pertinent to the matter here in hand wherein as there is nothing in fauour of the cause which M. Bishop maintaineth so there is much to be obserued for the oppugning and conuincing thereof First it is apparent that Tertullian here saith not a word for the auouching of any doctrine beside the Scripture but onely for iustifying the doctrine that is contained in the Scripture The heretikes oppugned the maine and fundamentall grounds of Christian faith concerning the vnitie of the Godhead the creation of the world the Godhead and incarnation of Christ the resurrection of the dead the coming of the holy Ghost and sundry other such like They reiected such whole bookes and razed such testimonies of Scripture as euidently made against them affirming the same not to haue bene written by the Apostles or by any diuine inspiration a Contra Marc. lib. 4 Contraria quaeque sententiae suae erasit conspirantia cum Creatore quaesi ab assertoribus eius intexta but foisted in yea sometimes that they were to correct and reforme those things which the Apostles had written Therefore albeit the points in question were manifestly decided by cleare testimony of Scripture yet the authoritie of Scripture being reiected and refused it was necessarie for many mens satisfaction to take some other course for the conuicting of them b Ibid Haeresis sic semper emendat Euangelia dum vitiat Iren. lib. 3 cap. 1. EmeÌ„datores Apostolorum Hereupon he referred men to the consideration of the Apostolicke Churches where the doctrine of the faith of Christ was most renowmedly planted and had successiuely continued from the time of the Apostles that by the testimonie of those Churches it might appeare both that the Scriptures were authenticall and true and that the doctrine auouched against the Heretickes was no other but what the Apostles themselues by the institution of Christ had in those Scriptures
found all things belonging to our faith and conuersation of life and thereby leaueth no place to M. Bishops matters of faith that are not contained in the written word 13. W. BISHOP M. Perkins his last testimonie is taken out of Vincentius Lyrinensis who saith as he reporteth that the canon of the Scripture is perfect and fully sufficient for all things Answ I think that there is no such sentence to be found in him the says by way of obiection What need we make recourse vnto the authoritie of the Ecclesiasticall vnderstanding if the Canon of the Scripture be perfect He affirmeth not that they be fully sufficient to determine all controuersies in religion but through all his booke he proues out the cleane contrary that no heresie can be certainly confuted and suppressed by onely Scriptures without we take with it the sence and interpretation of the Catholike Church R. ABBOT The words of Vincentius are vttered first by way of obiection thus a Vincen. Lyrin Hic forsitan requirat aliquis cum sit perfectus Scripturarum canon sibique ad omnia satis supèrque sufficiat quid opus est vt et Ecclesiasticae intelligentiae â—ungatur authoritas Some man happely may ask seeing the Canon of Scriptures is perfect and in it selfe abundantly sufficient for all matters what needeth it that the authority of Ecclesiastical vnderstanding shold be ioyned vnto it He hath taught a man in the words before to ground and settle his faith b Duplici modo fidem munire primo diuinae legis authoritate tum deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae traditione first by the authoritie of the law of God and then by the tradition of the Catholike Church meaning by tradition as appeareth the interpretation or exposition of Scripture deliuered by the Church not any matters of doctrine to be receiued beside the Scripture Hereupon he asketh the question seeing the Scripture is abundantly sufficient what need is there to adde the tradition of the Church taking it for a thing receiued and by all men approued that the Scripture in it selfe is abundantly sufficient to instruct vs euery way and in all things belonging to faith and godlinesse and therefore making it a doubt why the other should be needfull And that we may vnderstand that he meant it not only by way of obiection but positiuely in the repeating of the same points afterwards he setteth downe this exception and reason c Jbid. Non quia canon solas non sibi ad vniuersa sufficiat sed quia verba diuina plerique pro suo arbitratis interpretantes varias opiniones erroresque concipiant Not but that the Canon alone is in it selfe sufficient for all things but because many interpreting the words of God as they list do conceiue diuers opinions and errors there from M. Bishops answer then is false that Vincentius affirmeth not that the Scriptures be fully sufficient to determine all controuersies in religion for Vincentius affirmeth it peremptorily and therefore teacheth vs to shun them who after the Scriptures and interpretation thereof teach vs that there are yet other matters of Christian doctrine and faith that are not contained in the Scriptures M. Bishop telleth vs that through all his booke he proues the contrary But what is that contrary Marry that no heresie can be certainly confuted and suppressed by onely Scriptures without we take with it the sense and interpretation of the Catholike Church Whereby we see that either he hath not read that booke of Vincentius or doth impudently falsifie that which he hath read True it is that Vincentius in respect that heretikes do often very guilefully alledge the Scriptures and wrest them to the maintenance and defence of their new deuices doth referre a man for his safetie to the iudgement and resolution of the Catholicke church not as they loudly beare vs in hand of the church of Rome as if by it the Catholike Church were to be vnderstood but so as d Vt id teneamus quod vbique quod semper quod a omnibus credituÌ„ est hoc est etenim verè proprièque CatholicuÌ„ quod ipsa vis nominis raâ—ieque declarat quae omnia verè vniuersaliter comprebendit that we hold that which hath bene beleeued euery where and alwaies and of all for this saith he is truly and properly Catholike as the nature and signification of the word declareth which indeed comprehendeth vniuersally all Hereto he frameth those rules of antiquitie vniuersalitie and consent idlely bragged of many times by the Papists when as according to the declarations of Vincentius they are not able to make good any one point of their doctrine oppugned by vs but in diuers and sundry points are conuicted thereby But the matter that toucheth M. Bishop very neerly is the restraint and limitation of this rule which he saith is e Quae tamen antiquae sanctorum Patrum consensio non in omnibus diuinae legis quaestiunculis sed solùm certè praecipuè in fidei regula mag no nobis studio inuestigandae sequenda est not to be followed in all questions of the word of God but onely or chiefly in the rule of faith whereby he meaneth those things that concerne the articles of the Creed f In ijs duntaxat praecipuè quaestionibus quibus tetius Catholici dogmatis fundamenta nituntur in those questions as he repeateth afterwards vpon which the foundations of the whole Catholike faith do rest It is vntrue then which M. Bishop saith that Vincentius holdeth no heresie to be suppressed or confuted but by the tradition of the Catholike Church when as he applieth his rule only or at least chiefly to those heresies which touch the maine pillars foundations of Christian faith And it is yet further vntrue because Vincentius further addeth that g Sed neque semper neque omnes haereses hoc modo impugnandae sunt sed nouitiae recentesquè tantummodo cùm primum scilitet exoriuntur antequam infalsarint vetustae fidei regulas ipsius temporis vetentur augustijs ac priusquam mananie latùs veneno maiorum volumina vitiare conentur Caeterùm si dilatatae inueteratae hareses nequaquam hac via aggrediendae sunt eò quòd prolixo ten porum tractu longa ijs furandae veritatis patuerit occasio Atque ideo quascunque illas antiquiores vel schismatum vel haereseoÌ„n prophanitatet nullo modâ— nos oportet nisi aut sola si opus est Scripturarum authoritate conuincere aut certè iam antiquitùs vniuersalibus sacerdotum Catholicorum Concilijs conuictas damnatásque vitare neither alwayes nor yet all heresies are to be impugned in that sort but onely those that are new and fresh namely when as they first spring vp before they haue falsified the rules of auncient faith and are therein hindered by the straitnesse of the time and before the poison spreading further abroad they labor to corrupt the bookes of the auncient Fathers But heresies
any thing but by Scripture they mention nothing fulfilled that was taught by Tradition but only by Scripture Tell vs M. Bishop how could this be if there were Tradition beside the Scripture We aske you not whence the Euangelists had the history of those times whereof they wrote but how it commeth to passe that they neuer mention anything deliuered by tradition in former times But these are the iuggling tricks of shifting companions deluding the eyes of the simple with shadows and empty colours maliciously oppugning the truth when as they haue nothing to say against it In that that we say is nothing but what S. Hierom said long ago r Hieron in Mat. 13. Quicquid in Euangelio praedicabant legis prophetarū vocibus comprobarūt Whatsoeuer the Apostles preached in the Gospell they preached it by the words of the law and the Prophets wherof it followeth against M. Bishop that they taught no doctrine by tradition but only by the scriptures As for his questions wheras he demandeth where S. Mathew had the adoring of the Sages and Iohn Baptists peaching c. I answer him first with the like question where had Moses the story of the creation of the world and the knowledge of those things which God in * Gen. 11.6 18.17.20 sundry places is brought in speaking as with himselfe I suppose he wil answer that he receiued the same from him that made the world from him that was the author of those speeches So say we that Mathew learned the worshipping of Christ by the Sages of Christ himself whom they worshipped he learned Iohn Baptists preaching of him whō Iohn Baptist preached He learned his Gospell as Paul did who saith of himself ſ Gal. 1.12 Neither receiued I it of man neither was I taught it but by the reuelation of Iesus Christ As touching the Gospel of S. Mark Eusebius reporteth that the faithfull t Euseb hist lib. 2. cap. 15. Non suffecran◠illis semel audita nec contenti fuerunt non scripta diuinae praedicationis doctrina sed Marcum omnigena obsecratione obtestati sunt vt commentarios ipsis doctrinae eius quam verbo traditā accepissent literis comprehensos relinquerent nec destiterunt donec viro persuaserint c. Aiunt autem Petrum cùm ex instinctu spiritus sancti factum hoc cognonisset delectatū esse virorum istorū voluntate scriptum hoc Euangelium Ecclesius ad legendū authoritate suae confirmasse who had heard the preaching of S. Peter not thinking that sufficient nor contented with the doctrine of that diuine preaching vnwritten most earnestly intreated Marke that he would leaue them in writing the commentaries or records of the doctrine which they had deliuered vnto them by word and ceased not till they had perswaded him thereto Now they say saith he that the Apostle when he vnderstood this to haue bene done by the instinct of the holy Ghost ioyed much in the desire of those men and by his authoritie warranted this Gospell in writing to the reading of the Church Now this story is well worthy to be obserued The faithfull had heard the preaching of Peter they thought Tradition to be a very vncertaine keeper of the doctrine which they had heard they desire to haue the same left vnto them in writing to that purpose they intreate Mark the scholer and follower of Peter the thing is done by the instinct of the holy Ghost Peter acknowledgeth so much and by his testimonie approueth the Gospell thus written to the reading of the Church Who would not here wonder that M. Bishop should alledge this story for patronage of his traditions which shewes that the church from the beginning was so iealous and fearfull of resting vpon tradition S. Luke wrote his storie u Luke 1.2 as they deliuered who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word they x 2. Cor. 13.3 in whom Christ spake and whose word was y 1. Thess 2 13. the word of God the word of the preaching of God Yea and what he wrote he wrote also as S. Marke did by the instinct of the holy Ghost because as S. Paul telleth vs z 2. Tim. 3.16 all Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God and as of prophecie so of the Gospell also we must vnderstand that a 2. Pet. 1.21 it came not by the will of man but holy men of God spake as they were moued by the holy Ghost b August de consens Euangel lib. 1. cap. 35. Cum ille scripserunt quae ille ostendit dixit nequaquam dicendum est quôd ipse no scripserit quandoquidem membra eius id operata sunt quod dictante capite cognonerunt Quicquid enira ille de suis factis dictis nos legere volun hoc scribendum illis tanquam suis manibus imperauit When the disciples wrote saith S. Austin what Christ shewed said vnto thē it is not to be said that he did not write because the members wrought that which they learned by the inditing of the head For whatsoeuer he would haue vs to reade of the things which he did and said he gaue in charge to them as his hands to write the same Now therefore the Euangelists grounded not their Gospels vpon Traditions that is vpon report from man to man but vpon the immediate oracle and instinct of God himselfe But the absurd Sophister dallieth by an equiuocation of the word tradition and whereas it is questioned betwixt vs in one meaning he bringeth proofe for it in another meaning The word originally may import any thing that is deliuered howsoeuer either by word or writing Whatsoeuer God saith vnto vs it may in this sort be called Gods tradition because he hath so deliuered vnto vs. Thus doth Cyprian call that which we reade in the written gospell c Cyprian lib. 2. epist 3. Adradicem atque originem traditionis Dominicae reuertatur In calice dominico offerendo custodire tradiotionis dominicae veritatem the originall of the Lords tradition and willeth in the Lords cup to keepe the truth of the Lords tradition Thus whatsoeuer we haue receiued in the Scriptures was first Tradition as deliuered by word and still is Tradition because it is deliuered in writing tradition signifying whatsoeuer is deliuered as before was said But though the word in it selfe haue this generall and indifferent signification of any thing that is deliuered yet in our disputation it is restrained to one onely maner of deliuering by word and relation onely and not by Scripture and therefore where Irenaeus saith d Jren. lib. 3. cap. 1. Euangeliū nobis in Scripturis tradiderunt he that should translate as M. Bishop doth they deliuered the Gospell by tradition in the Scriptures should shew himselfe as absurd a man as M. Bishop is because he setteth downe two opposite members of a distinction and confoundeth them both in one Now then the question
mentall reseruations to lye to periure forsweare theÌ„selues As for our own country we must tell him that the dissension betwixt Protestants Puritanes was neuer so mortall and deadly amongst vs as was the dissention of the secular Priests Iesuites amongst them the one in no sort to be coÌ„pared to the other If there might be such a garboile more then hellish or diuellish amongst them without preiudice of their religion what preiudice should it be to vs that there is some matter of difference amongst vs He wil say that the maine matter amongst them was but a matter of circumstance of gouernment and so his wisedome knoweth if he list that the matters of controuersie amongst vs are onely matters of ceremonie and forme He will say that they all accorded in the religion established by the councell of Trent and so let him know that we on both parts subscribe to the same articles of religion established amongst vs. He vvill say that there is some controuersie about the meaning of some of those articles amongst vs and so let him remember that there is great question of the meaning of some of the articles of the Trent religion amongst them In a word wee are able alwaies to iustifie that in substantiall points of faith there is no so great difference amongst vs but that there is greater to be proued to haue bene continually amongst them But now M. Bishop hauing lightly passed ouer those obseruations of M. Perkins commeth himselfe to set vs downe a course for the attaining of the true and right sence of holy Scripture For the first part whereof he bestirreth his Rhetoricall stumpes by way of declamation to shew vs how necessary it is that in the Christian Church there should be a Iudge for the deciding and determining of controuersies and questions that arise about the Scriptures and if in matters of temporall iustice Iudges be appointed and euery law-maker do ordaine gouernours and Iudges for the declaring and executing of his lawes and God tooke this course amongst the people of Israel in the old testament he telleth vs that surely Christ in the new testament would not leaue his Church vnprouided in this behalfe Where we will seeme for a time not to know his meaning but will simply answer him that Christ in this behalfe hath prouided for his Church hauing giuen thereto f Ephe. 4.11.12 Pastours and teachers for the gathering together of the Saints for the worke of the ministery and for the building vp of the body of Christ till we all meete together in the vnity of faith and knowledge of the sonne of God vnto a persit man As in ciuill states there are appointed magistrates and gouernours in townes and cities for the resoluing and deciding of causes and questions of ciuil affaires so hath God appointed the ministers of his word euery one according to the portion of the Lords flocke committed vnto him to deliuer what the law of God is and to answer and resolue cases and doubts as touching faith and duty towards God g Tit. 1.9 to be able to exhort with wholsome doctrine and to improue them that speake against it to be the same to the people as God of old required the Priests to be h Malach. 2.7 The Priests lippes should preserue knowledge and men should seeke the law at his mouth for he is the messenger of the Lord of hostes If of these i Acts. 20.30 any arise speaking peruerse things to draw Disciples after them the rest are warned k Ver. 28. to take heede to the Lords flocke and therfore are by common sentence iudgement to condemne such that thereby the people of God may take knowledge to beware of theÌ„ But if in the Church any controuersie or question depend parts being taken this way that way so that the vnity of faith and peace of the Church is endangered therby the example of the Apostles is to be imitated and in solemne assembly councel the matter is to be discussed and determined the Bishops and Pastors gathering themselues together either in lesser or greater companie as the occasion doth require and applying themselues to do that that may be for the peace and edification of the Church And this hath bene the care of godly Christian Princes that l 〈◊〉 17.8 9. 2. â—â—â—on 1â— 8 as amongst the Iews there was a high court of iudgement established for the matters of the Lord to the sentence whereof they were appointed to stand yea and he that did presumptuously oppose himselfe was to die for his contempt so there should be in their Christian States consistories of iudgement assemblies and meetings of Bishops for considering and aduising of the causes of the Church and what could not be determined in a lesser meeting should be referred to a greater to a Councell prouinciall or nationall or general By their authoritie they haue gathered them together they haue sometimes bin themselues present and sitten with them as moderators and after as princes haue by their edicts ratified and confirmed what hath bene agreed vpon as we may see in m Euseb de vit Constant li 3. ca. 13. Prolatas sententias sensiâ—â— excipete vitissim ferre openi virique parit c. quid ipse sentiret eloquâ— Constantine the great in the Councel of Nice in n Synod in Trullo per tot Praesidente eodem piâ—ssimo Impeâ—tore c. Conueniente Synodo secu dum Imperialem sanctioneÌ„ Constantine the fourth in the sixt Synod at Constantinople in Trullo in o Toletaâ— concil 3. Princips omnes regâ—raâ—â—â— sui pontifiâ—es in vnuÌ„ conuenire mandauit c. pâ—â—tet Reccaredus the King of Spaine in the third Councell of Toledo Now therefore albeit the Empire being diuided and many Princes of diuers dispositions possessing their seuerall kingdomes and states there be no expectation or hope of a generall councel yet M. Bishop seeth that we hold it necessary that in euery Christian state there should be Iudges appointed for the causes and matters of the Lord of the Church euen as in our church of England we haue our soueraigne Synods prouincial or national the sentence whereof we account so waighty as that no man may dare vpon peril of his soule presumptuously to gainsay the same But yet with all for the excluding of his issue he must vnderstand that in causes matters of faith and of the worship of God we make these to whom this iudgement is coÌ„mitted not lawgiuers at all but Iudges only As therfore the Iudge is not his owne mouth but the mouth of the law not to speak what he liketh but what the law directeth nor to make any other construction of the law but what is warranted by the law euen so the Iudge ecclesiasticall is to be the mouth of God not p Ezech. 13.3 to follow his owne spirit nor q Ierem. 23.16 to speake the vision of his own hart but out of
the mouth of the Lord neither to make other interpretation of the laws of God then by the same lawes can be iustified and made good Thus we see that as God tied the Iewes to the sentence of the Priests so he required the sentence of the Priests to be according to the law r Deut. 17.11 According to the law which law they shall teach thee thou shalt do thou shalt not decline from the thing which they shall shew thee Å¿ Lyra. ibid. Hic dicit glossa Hebraica si dixerint tibi quòd dextera sit sinistra vel sinistra dextera talis sententia est tenenda quod pataet manifestè falsuÌ„ esse quòd senteÌ„tia nullius hominis cuiuscunque sit authoritatis est tenenda si contineat manifestè falsitatem vel errorem hoc patet per hoc quod praemittitur in textu Indicalunt tibi iudicij veritateÌ„ postea subditur Et docuerint te iuxta legem eius Ex quo patet quòd si dicunt falsum vel declinem à lege Dei manifestè non sunt audiendi The Hebrew glose saith Lyra here teacheth that if they say to thee that the right hand is the left or the left the right this sentence is to be holden which appeareth to be manifestly false saith he because the sentence of no man is to be holden of what authoritie so-euer he be if it do manifestly containe falshood and errour and this is plaine by that that is put before in the text They shall shew thee the truth of iudgement is afterwards added They shall teach thee according to the law whereby it is plaine that if they say any thing false or decline manifestly from the law of God they are not to be hearkened vnto It is not then so to be conceiued as that obedience should be absolutely due vnto them because as in the ciuill state there may be corrupt Iudges that wrest the law and giue sentence against law so there may be corrupt men also in places of ecclesiasticall iudgement men more affected to their owne will then to the word of God seeking rather themselues then Iesus Christ It is therefore to be obserued that as in matters of ciuill iustice some things there are in the law so cleare that if the sentence of the Iudge be contrary thereto euery man may discerne and see that he swarueth from the truth neither will a man take it to be law which the Iudge pronounceth because his owne eies perceiue the contrary so those things that concerne faith and religion towards God some things by the Scripture it selfe are so apparent and plaine as that it is manifest that not for any ambiguity in themselues but by the iniquity and frowardnesse of men they are called into question and that to question the exposition is nothing else but to seeke collusion In which cases the Iudge hath no more to do but to deliuer the peremptory sentence of God himselfe t Aug. ac bapt cont Donat lib. 2. ca. 6. Ass ramuâ— fraâ—eram diuinam in scripturis sanctis in illa quid sit grauius appendamus immâ— non appendamus sed à Domino appensa recognoscamus not to weigh as S. Austine saith but to recognize and acknowledge what the Lord hath already weighed Sometimes matters are more hard and doubtfull not so much haply of themselues as by meanes of opposition and contradiction and therfore are not so readily plaine vntill they be made plaine For the explaning and declaring whereof the Church as the Iudge is to vse the help of the law it selfe that is of the holy Scripture and to that purpose to apply the rules before expressed and so not by meere authority but by testimonie and warrant to approue to the conscience of euery man the sentence that shall be giuen for determining the thing in doubt u Oâ—â—gen in Leâ—â—â— hâ—â— 5. Inductus testaâ—entâ—s lâ—â—â—t omne veâ—â—uÌ„ quod ad Deaâ—â—â—â—tinet requiri disâ—uti atque ex â—â—sis omnim rerum scientiâ—m capi Siquid auteÌ„ superficerit quod non diuina scriptura decernat nulla alia tertia scriptura debet ad authoritatem scientia suscipi sed quod superest Deo reserueniâ— By the two testaments saith Origen euery word that pertaineth to God may be seaâ—ched out and discussed and all knowledge of things may be taken from them and if there be any thing further which the holy Scripture determineth not there ought no other writing be receiued for authority of knowledge but what remaineth we must reserue to God x IdeÌ„ in Ierem. ho. â— Necesse est nobis Scripturas sanctas in testimonium vocare Sensus quippe nostri enarrationes siâ—e his testibus non habent fidem It is necessary for vs saith he that we call the holy Scriptures to witnesse for our sences and expositions without these witnesses haue no credit y Idem in Math. tr 25. Dibemus ad testimonium omnium verboruÌ„ quae proferimus in doctrina proferre sâ—â—sum Scripturae quâ—si confirm entera queâ— expâ—â—â—mus sensum Sicut enim omne aurum quod-quod fuerit extra templum non est sancti fiâ—arum sic omnis sensus qui â—uerit extra diuinam Scripturam quâ—muis adâ—â—rabâ—lis videatur quibusdam non est sanctus quia non continetur à sensu Scripturae quae solâ—â— cum solum sensum santifiâ—are quâ—â— in se habet We must saith he again for witnesse of all the words which we vtter in teaching bring forth the sence of Scripture as coÌ„firming the sence which we deliuer for as all the gold which was without the temple was vnholy so euery sence which is without the holy Scripture though to some it may seeme admirable is vnholy because it is not contained of the sence of Scripture which is wont to make holy only that sence which it hath in it selfe By this rule the iudgment of the Church is to proceed so to vse the gift of interpretation as that he that gainsaieth may be conuicted as by the testimony of God himselfe and they who haue not the gift of interpretation may yet see perceiue that their constructions and expositions are according to the Scripture Now if the Church in their affirming or expounding shall contrary that which the Scripture hath manifestly taught vnder pretence of being the Iudge in the causes of God shall iudge against God what shall we then do Surely as a priuate man may by ordinary knowledge of the law be able to accuse a Iudge of high treason against his Prince eueÌ„ so in this case a priuate man by ordinary knowledge of the law of God may be able to accuse the Church of high treasoÌ„ against God And as it is ridiculous in case of treasoÌ„ to alledge that it belongeth to the Iudge to giue the meaning of the law and to leaue him at liberty to expound it that it may rest therupon whether his own fact be treason or
not so it is in like sort ridiculous to alledge that it belongeth to the Church to make the meaning of the Scriptures that the Church is Iudge it must rest in the power therof by expounding the scriptures to determine whether that which it selfe coÌ„mandeth be offence to God or not The Church indeede is Iudge but tied to bounds of law if the Church iudge against the euidence of the law then God himselfe by his owne word is to be the Iudge For what an absurditie shall it be further to require a Iudge where God himselfe hath pronounced a sentence or to enquire after a meaning where the law speaketh as plainely as the Iudge can deuise to speake When the Iudges of the people of the Iewes said z Eâ— 8.12 A confederacie and Esay the Prophet cried out say not A confederacie that is follow not them that leade you to leagues and couenants with idolatrous nations who was to be the Iudge betwixt them Esay saith to the people a Ver 20. To the law and to the testimonie if they speake not according to this word it is because there is no light in them Who was to be the Iudge when the Prophet Ieremie said one thing and b Ierem 26 1â— the Priests and Prophets who were the Iudges said another They said c Ver. 15. This man is worthy to die he saith If ye put me to death ye shall bring innocent bloud vpon your selues Who was now to be iudge betwixt them Surely none but d Ver 4. the lawes which God had set before them to which he calleth them e Cap. 11. 3. 4. the couenant which he commaunded their Fathers when he brought them out of the land of Egypt When our Sauiour Christ stood on the one side and the Iudges namely the high Priests and Scribes and Elders of the people on the other side where was the Iudge f Iohn 5.39 Search the Scriptures saith our Sauiour Christ for they are they that testifie of me We see the highest court of iudgement vnder heauen pronounceth sentence against the Sonne of God God indeed had appointed them for Iudges the righteousnesse of the cause of Christ was not to be discerned but only by the Scriptures Thus it hath bene in the Church of Christ the Donatists on the one side affirmed theÌ„selues to be the Church the Catholike and godly Bishops affirmed the Church to be with them whom did these godly Fathers make the Iudge Optatus speaking of a maine question betwixt them whether he that was already baptized though by an heretike might be baptized againe saith g Optat. contra Parmenian li. 5. Vos dicuis licèt nos dicimus Non liâ—et Jnter licâ—t vestrum non licet nestrum â—â—tant remigrant animae populoruÌ„ Nemo vobis credat nemo nobis omnes contentiosi homines sumus Quaerendi sunt iudices Si Christiani te viraque parte dari nosessâ—nt quia siudijs veritas impeditur Dâ—foris quaerenâ—us est iudixisi Paganus non potesi nosse secreta Christianâ—â— si liâ—â—◠〈◊〉 est Chriâ—tuâ—i baptisâ—atâ— Ergo ni â—â—rrâ—s dâ— hac reâ—ulâ—â—â— poterit reperâ—ri iudiciuÌ„ de 〈◊〉 quareâ—dus est iudex Sed vt quid pâ—â—â—sanus ad coelâ— â—â—â—m habemus hic in EuaÌ„gelio Testamentâ—m â—â—quâ—â— c. Ergo voluntas câ—â—â—vilut in Testamento sic in Euangelio inquiratur You say it is lawful and we say it is not lawfull Betweene your it is lawful and our it is not lawful the peoples soules do wauer Let none beleeue you nor vs we are all contentious men Iudges must be sought for if Christians they cannot be giuen of both sides for truth is hindred by affections A iudge without must be sought for if a Pagan he cannot know the Christian mysteries if a Iew he is an enemy of Christian baptisme No iudgement of this matter can be found on earth but froÌ„ heaueÌ„ But why knock we at heaueÌ„ wheÌ„ here we haue the testameÌ„t of Christ in the Gospell In the Gospell as in his Testament we are to enquire and search what his will is To the like effect Austin speaketh as touching a question betwixt him and the Pelagians whether there be sinne in infants from their birth or not h Aug. de nupt concupis lib. 2. cap. 33. Ista controuersia iudicem quaerit Iudicet ergo Christus cui reâ— mors eius profecerit ipse dicat Hic est inquit sanguis c. Judicet cum illo Apostolus quia in Apostolo ipse loquitur Christus c. This controuersie requireth a iudge let Christ therefore be Iudge let himselfe say what his death serued for This is my bloud saith he which shall be shed for many for remission of sinnes Together with him let the Apostle iudge because Christ himselfe speaketh also in the Apostle Thus they made no doubt to make the Scripture the Iudge or Christ himselfe in the Scripture knowing well that the iudgement of the Church in such cases is no other but only the pronouncing of a sentence already giuen by the highest Iudge To this purpose therefore he requireth of the Donatists the bringing foorth of such things as are euident and plaine because Christ somewhere or other hath plainely spoken whatsoeuer is necessarie for vs to know i Idem de vnit Eccles cap. 5. Hoc praedico atque propono vt quaeque aeperta manifesta deligamus c. This I say before hand and propound that we make choyce of such speeches as are open and manifest We are to set aside such things as are obscurely set downe and wrapped vp in couers of figures and may be interpreted both for our part and for theirs It belongeth to acute men to iudge and discerne who doth more probably interpret those things but we will not in a cause which the people are interested in commit our disputation to such contentions of wit but let the manifest truth cry and shine foorth Reade to vs those things that are as plaine as those are that we reade to you Bring somewhat that needeth not any man to expound it This is the course of Ecclesiastical iudgement by this meanes they are to stoppe the mouths of contentious men and to satisfie the people that are interested in the cause By all this then it appeareth that God hath not left his Church destitute of authoritie of iudgement but hath both appointed Iudges and prescribed them lawes whereby to iudge onely that we remeÌ„ber that k Psal 82.1 he is the Iudge amongst the Iudges and the sentence must be his But now we know what it is that M. Bishop aymeth at for he would faine haue it conceiued that there should be some one to be iudge and that one must be the Pope They name sometimes the Church and somtimes the Councell but the Church is but the cloake-bagge and the Councell the capcase to cary the Pope whither it pleaseth them because neither
the Epistles in generall if any thing in Paules Epistles sound to him as contrary to the doctrine of the Catholike Church it is vnknowne what Church they meane he faileth of the right sense Thus howsoeuer clearely the scripture soundeth yet it meaneth not that which it saith if it be contrarie to that which they affirme To this impudent deuise they are driuen because they see that the scripture condemneth them vnlesse they themselues haue the managing of the scripture that if the scripture be admitted for iudge it peremptorily pronounceth sentence against them so that they haue no meanes to colour their abhominations but by challenging to themselues to be iudges of the scripture As for vs we hang the doctrine of faith not vpon our expositions but vpon the very words of God himselfe we make the holy scripture the iudge not in ambiguous and doubtfull speeches but in cleare and euident sentences where the very words declare what the meaning is It is a question betwixt vs and them whether Saints images be to be worshipped or not they say they are we say they are not Let the Iudge speake x Exod. 20.4 Deut. 5.8 Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any likenesse of any thing in heauen aboue or in the earth beneath or in the waters vnder the earth thou shalt not now down to them nor worship them It is a question whether there be now any sacrifice to be offered for the forgiuenesse of sins They say there is so in their Masse we say there is none Let the Iudge speake y Mat. 26.28 This is my bloud of the new Testament which is shed for you for many for remission of sins z Heb. 10.18 Now where remission of sins is there is no more offering for sin It is a question betwixt vs whether the Saints be our Mediators vnto God or not They say they are we say they are not Let the Iudge determine it a 1 Tim. 2.5 There is one God saith he and one Mediatour betwixt God and man euen the man Iesus Christ It is a question whether a man be iustified before God by workes or not They say it must be so we say it cannot be Let the Iudge answer it b Rom. 3.20 By the workes of the lawe shall no flesh be iustified in his sight c Gal. 3.11.12 That no man is iustified by the law in the sight of God it is euident for the iust shall liue by faith and the law is not of faith but the man that shall do those things shall liue in them They alledge that the Iudge saith that d Iam. 2.24 a man is iustified by workes and not by faith onely we say that that is onely in the sight of men or with men they say that it is in the sight of God Let the iudge end it e Rom. 4.2 If Abraham were iustified by workes he had to reioyce but not with God It is a question whether the crosses and sufferings of the Saints do yeeld vs any helpe with God or any part of satisfaction for our sinnes They say they do we say they do not let the iudge tell vs whether they do or not f 1. Cor. 1.13 Was Paul crucified for you g Gal 6.14 God forbid that I should reioyce but in the crosse of our Lord Iesus Christ It is a question whether the people ought to be partakers of the Lords cup they say no we say yea Let the iudge decide it h Mat. 26.27 Drinke ye all of this Thus in all matters betwixt them and vs the iudge speaketh clearely on our side his words are so plaine as nothing can be more plaine Yet notwithstanding they tell vs that all these things haue another meaning which we must take vpon the Popes word The commādement forsooth is meant of the idols of the Gentiles not of the images of Saints As if a whore-monger should say that the lawe forbiddeth whoredome of Christians with heathens not one with another The Scripture they say intendeth there is no other Mediator of redemption but one but Mediators of intercession there are many As if an adulterous woman should say that she may haue but one husband of this or that sort but of another sort she may haue many And yet they make them mediators of redemption also because they make them mediators of satisfaction and redemption is nothing else but the paiment of a price of satisfaction Thus they dally in the rest and shew themselues impudent and shameles men let them for their meanings reade to vs as plaine words of the iudge as those are that we reade to them and we will admit of them If not they must giue vs leaue to stand to the sentence of the iudge of heauen and earth and to account the Pope as he is a corrupt and wicked iudge although were he what he should be yet void of all title of being iudge to vs. 22. W. BISHOP Giue me leaue gentle Reader to stay somewhat longer in this matter because there is nothing of more importance and it is not handled any where else in all this Booke Consider then with your selfe that our coelestiall Law-maker gaue his law not written in Inke and Paper but in the hearts of his most faithfull subiects * Ierem. 31. 2. Cor. 3. endowing them with the blessed spirit of truth * Iohn 16. and with a most diligent care of instrusting others that all their posteritie might learne of them all the points of Christian doctrine and giue credit to them aswell for the written as vnwritten word and more for the true meaning of the word then for the word it selfe These and their true successors be liuely Oracles of the true and liuing God them must we consult in all doubtfull questions of Religion and submit our selues wholy to their decree S. Paule that vessell of election may serue vs for a singular modell and patterne of the whole who hauing receiued the true knowledge of the Gospell from God yet went vp to Hierusalem with Barnaby to conferre with the chiefe Apostles the Gospell which he preached lest perhaps he might runne in vaine and had runne as in expresse words he witnesseth himselfe * Gal. 2. Vpon which fact and words of S. Paule the auncient Fathers do gather that the faithful would not haue giuen any credit vnto the Apostles doctrine vnlesse by S. Peter and the other Apostles it had bene first examined and approued * Tertul lib. 4. in Marc. Hier. Ep. 89 quae est 11. inter Ep. Augustini August lib. 28. contra Faustū cap. 4. Againe when there arose a most dangerous question of abrogating Moses lawe was it left to euery Christian to decide by the written word or would many of the faithfull beleeue S. Paule that worthy Apostle in the matter Not so but vp they went to Hierusalem to heare what the pillars of the Church would say where by the decree of the Apostles
for the doing of it but the other not only teacheth by writing or by preaching but ministreth also grace to worke in the heart obedience to that that it teacheth g August de sp lit cap. 20. Propter veteru hominis noxam quae per literam rubeâ—rem minantem minimè fanabitur dicitur illud testamentuÌ„ vitas hoc verò nonum propter nouitatem spiritus qua hominem nouum sanâ—tà vitio vetustatis The old Testament saith S. Austin is so called because of the corruption of the old man which was not healed by the commanding and threatening letter but the other the new because of the newnesse of the spirit which healeth the new man from the old corruption But we would gladly know of M. Bishop how it is true which the Apostle saith that h 2. Tim. 3.16 all Scripture is inspired of God if it be true which he saith that God did not giue his lawes written with inke and paper If the Gospell might well enough haue bene kept in mens hearts without writing why were the faithfull so instant with S. Marke first after with S. Iohn as we haue seene before for the writing of their Gospels Why doth the Apostle tell the Philippians that i Phil. 3.1 it was necessary for them that he should write vnto them the same things that he had preached vnto them if there were no such necessitie Why is S. Iohn in the Reuelation so often commaunded k Reuel 1.11 cap. 2.1 c cap. 14.13 to write to write if tradition might serue as well as writing Surely Irenaeus telleth vs that it was l Jren. â—ib 3 c. 1. Euangelium per voluntatem Dei in Scripturu nobâ—s tradiderunt by the will of God that the Apostles deliuered vnto vs the Gospell in writing as we haue shewed before So likewise we haue heard S. Austin saying that m Aug. supra sect 14. Christ commanded his disciples to write what he would haue vs to reade of his sayings and doings The same S. Austine saith againe that n Idem in epist Ioan. tract 2. Contra insidiosos errores Deus voluit pouere firmamentum in scripturis sanctis contra quas nullus audet loqui qui quoquo modo se vult videri Christianum God would place a bulwarke against deceiptfull errors in the holy Scriptures against which no man dare speake that will in any sort be taken for a Christian man Do these Fathers tell vs that it was the will of God the commaundement of Christ that his lawes should be deliuered vnto vs written with inke and paper and will M. Bishop perswade vs that it was not the will of God But I would further question with him What are they all so perfect in the Gospell at Rome as that they neede no written Gospell Is it so setled in their hearts remembrances by tradition only as that without any Scriptures it might be preserued amoÌ„gst them If M. Bishop say yea he knoweth himselfe to be a lyer If he say no what is the reason that he setteth thus lightly by inke and paper Fie vpon this wilfull blindnesse how strange a thing is it that any man should thus cast a veile ouer his owne eyes He telleth vs further that Christ endowed his Apostles with the blessed spirit of truth with a most diligeÌ„t care of instructing others that all their posteritie might learne of them al the points of Christian doctrin Now thus far he saith true but his purpose is with a little truth to colour a great lye For he addeth that we should giue credit to them aswell for the written as vnwritten word Sycophant what haue we here to do with the vnwritten word The vnwritten word is the matter in question and must it here be presumed before it be proued Let it first be made good that the Apostles meant to leaue behind them any vnwritten word We say that because they had care that all posteritie by them should learne all the points of Christian doctrine therefore they had care that all the points of Christian doctrine should be committed to writing that as S. Luke professeth to haue written to the intent that Theophilus o Luk. 1.4 might thereby acknowledge the certainty of those things wherof he had bene instructed so by his writings and the rest we should acknowledge the certaintie and assured truth of their doctrine and not lye open to the illusions of such impostors and cosiners as M. Bishop is who vnder the names of the Apostles should broach those things which the Apostles neuer thought Whereof we haue a notable example in p Euseb hist lib. 3. ca. 36. Papias who succeeded immediatly after the time of the Apostles who whilest he was not contented with those things which were left in writing but was still hearkening after euery one that tooke vpon him to haue bin a follower of any of the Apostles and enquiring what any of them had said or done swallowed manie gudgeons giuen him by such deceiuers and deliuered * Alia taÌ„quam ex viua trad tione ad se relata et peregrâ—naâ— quasdam seruatoris parabolas doctrinas cum non nullis fobâ—losis adijcit c. Apostolicas dâ—sputationes non rectè accepit c. Quamplurimis â—os se ecclesiasticis viris ciroris causam dedit quiad antiquitatem ipsius respexerunt c. as reported to him by tradition many fabulous things and strange doctrines conceiuing himselfe by that meanes amisse of the Apostles speeches and giuing occasion to many other to erre as he did whilest for his antiquitie they respected him very much This is the end of M. Bishops vnwritteÌ„ word they wil teach vs what pleaseth their Lord god the Pope theÌ„ make vs beleeue it is a part of the vnwritten word But yet he addeth again that our crediting the Apostles shold be more for the meaning of the word then for the word it self Where it is not in any good meaning that he thus nicely distinguisheth betwixt the word it self the meaning of the word leauing it forsooth to be vnderstood that they left the word one way and the meaning of the word another way the one in writing and the other by tradition But what will M. Bishop haue vs thinke that the Apostles would write words and not meane by their words to signifie their meaning Is it likely that they would write one thing and in meaning intend another Did they not write to that very end that in their writing it should appeare to all ages what doctrine they taught Surely they were honest and plaine dealing men they wold not beguile vs they wold not mock vs they haue simply told vs what their mind is There are manie difficulties in their writings and in the whole Scriptures it is true but yet there are perspicuities also so farre as is needful for the clearing of them There is to exercise the strong but yet there
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
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
all Christians but voluntarily to be followed as a matter of speciall perfection by such as will so as that without this a man may be saued and come to eternall life but by the doing of it he meriteth a release of his owne and other mens sins and an eminent and more then ordinary degree of glory in euerlasting life But the text plainly sheweth that this cannot be there meant and that the lesson that Christ taught him did concerne a dutie necessary for the obtaining of eternall life The question that he moueth to Christ is l Mat. 19.16 Good master what shall I do to obtaine eternall life Our Sauiour answereth If thou wilt enter into lift keepe the commaundements He professeth himselfe so to haue done from his youth and addeth what lacke I yet What is it whereto he supposeth somewhat yet to be lacking Euery man seeth whereto it is to be referred What lacke I yet to the obtaining of eternal life Accordingly then the answer of Christ is to be construed If thou wilt be perfect that is lacking nothing to the obtaining of eternall life go sell all that thou hast and giue to the poore and thou shalt haue treasure in heauen and come and follow me That this is the meaning of the perfection here spoken of appeareth by the two other Euangelists who thus set downe the answer of Christ m Mark 10.21 One thing is lacking vnto thee n Luke 18.22 Yet lackest thou one thing sel all that thou hast c. Wherto did he lacke one thing but to that whereof he made the question to the obtaining of eternal life Christs words then in effect are Thou hast not yet all that is needfull to the obtaining of eternall life but if thou wilt be perfect lacking nothing thereto go sel all that thou hast c. Now if we vnderstand it as M. Bishop would haue vs then there was no cause why the man should go away so sorowful at that that Christ said For the thing that he desired was to haue eternal life and if he might haue had eternall life without the forgoing of his riches it would haue fully satisfied him But by M. Bishops doctrine it might be said to him that he troubled himselfe in vaine for the words of Christ were but a counsell and not a commaundement and that there was not any necessitie of doing that that was sayd vnto him They that wold be of a high degree of perfection aboue others must so do but if he would rest in a lower degree he might continue as he was and yet obtaine eternall life But the yong man conceiued not so he knew that Christs words imported a conditiō of obtaining eternal life according to the question that he had moued to him and therefore was very sorowfull And hereto accord the words of Christ ensuing Verily I say vnto you that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdome of heauen It is easier for a camell to go through the eie of a needle then for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God Why doth Christ vse these words but that the yong mans respect of his riches did hinder him not from a state of perfection aboue others as M. Bishop dreameth but wholly from entring into the kingdome of God Furthermore it is to be considered how improbable a thing it is that to a man who knew as yet only the Iewish religion had no knowledge of the faith of Christ our Sauior wold giue at first a direction of perfection aboue others in Christian profession He was as yet no disciple of Christ he beleeued not in him and is it credible that he would teach him at the first dash of a ruler according to M. Bishops vnderstanding to become a Monke Nay it appeareth plainly that whereas the man had a zeale of God and no doubt in true meaning did walk according to the Law so farre as he had the true vnderstanding thereof our Sauior Christ wold instruct him that that was not sufficient for the obtaining of eternal life but he must be content vpō his calling and commandement to renounce all that he had to cast off al vaine loue and confidence of worldly things and to become one of his disciples and followers In a word he teacheth him to be of the same mind that the Apostle S. Paul professeth as touching himself o Philip. 36.8 As touching the righteousnes of the law I was vnrebukable but I think all things but losse for the excellent knowledge sake of Christ Iesus my Lord for whom I haue counted all things losse and do iudge them to be dung that I might win Christ. For so it is that morall workes whether of Iewes or of Gentiles are not auailable in the sight of God they want their forme and life and perfection vntill the same be giuen vnto them by the faith of Christ p Ambr. in psal 1 Virtutes sine fide folia sunt videntur virere sed 〈◊〉 non 〈◊〉 Vertues without faith are bu◠leaues saith S. Ambrose they shew greene but they cannot profite vs. Therefore the faith of Christ teacheth vs to renounce all trust and confidence thereof and to trust onely vpon him This is the perfection whereto Christ calleth this yong man as if he should haue said vnto him Thou doest well in that which thou doest but that is not enough if thou wilt haue good of it become my disciple and to that end be content to forgo all that thou hast and come and follow me Where to know how these words do belong to vs it must be considered that this man was called to a corporall and outward following of Christ according to the flesh by meanes whereof he must necessarily forgo the vse of those great possessions that he had Thus the Apostles had partly done already and were afterwards fully and wholly to do being to be corporally employed to preach the Gospell through the world thus Christ calleth this yong rich man to do the same But our following of Christ now cōsisteth not in changing of our places but in giuing him our affections neither is performed by the foote but by the heart neither is it a matter of speciall dutie belonging onely to some but vniuersally concerneth all that belong to him As is then our following of Christ so is our selling of all that we haue a matter of the heart and affection whilest in the midst of all that we haue we haue our minds so vntied free from the loue and respect of worldly things as that we are ready to forgo all when the cause of Christ and his Gospell shall require vs so to do And this M. Bishop out of their owne grounds must be forced to confesse whether he will or not For by Bellarmine we vnderstand that to be a Monk is q Bellar. de Monach cap. 2. Status Episcoporum est status perfectionis adeptae status religiosorum est status
his owne Rhemish translation and tell vs which way he can make good that which he saith a Acts. 4.34 As many as were owners of lands or houses sold and brought the prices of those things which they sold and laid it before the feete of the Apostles The text saith they sold and brought the price of that they sold it saith not that they sold all and brought the price of all Philip was one of them and yet Philip had his b Cap. 21.8 house still and I hope M. Bishop will not thinke but that he had something in his house also wherewith hee gaue entertainment to Saint Paul and those that were with him And who doubteth but that the rest kept their dwelling houses furnished for their owne vse and for the vse of other godly and faithfull brethren as occasion should serue So it is said of Barnabas that c Cap. 4 37. whereas he had a field or a peece of land he sold it but it is not said that he sold all So Ananias and Saphira d Cap. 5.1 sold a possession or a peece of land but they are not said to haue sold all that they possessed And whereas Maister Bishop saith that the same Ananias and his wife made a vow because it is said that e Ver. 4. they lied vnto God he talketh idlely They lied vnto God because they pretended to bring the whole price of that which they sold when they brought but a part thereof But those other faithfull Christians did that which the common state and necessitie of the Church did then require Many poore doubtlesse were then conuerted to the faith of Christ who being now ioined to the Church could expect no reliefe but from the Church They therefore who had wherewith to relieue the necessity of such were to testifie their faith and loue by communicating imparting to them of that they had Here was no matter of Monkery it was an example of the common fruit that should be of true Christianity and piety whensoeuer like occasion should require He sheweth not himselfe a liuely and feeling member of the body of Christ who in the publike want of the Church cannot find in his heart to dispossesse himselfe of somewhat for the succour and comfort of other members Letting these things briefely passe as M. Bishop doth let vs see what argument he collecteth of these examples That which was commended by our Sauiours own both example and doctrine and was practised by the Apostles and most holy Christians may be vowed very laudably But to sell all and giue it to the poore is such We denie his second proposition because it pronounceth that absolutely and simply which in the other proposition is vnderstood respectiuely onely and with exception f Hieron adâ— Iouin lib. 2. Antisthenes venditis quae habebat publicè distributis nihil sibi quà m palliolum reseruauit Antisthenes the Philosopher who was maister to Diogenes sold all that he had as Hierome mentioneth and made publike distribution thereof So doth the same Hierome mention a sect of Philosophers called g Idem in Math. cap. 10. Bactroperitae contempâ—ores seculi omnia pro nihilo duceÌ„tes cellariuÌ„ secum vehebant Bactroperitae who were contemners of the world and set all things at nought onely carying a bagge or wallet with them and yet these did not that which Christ commended or the Apostles practised Christ hath commended it and the Apostles and faithfull Christians by their practise haue taught it when it concerneth vs necessarily for the following of Christ when the commandement of Christ and his cause and Gospell doth require it But to do it voluntarily and of our owne heads when no such cause requireth it it is not a matter of commendation with Christ but of our owne superstitious and fond presumption The former way we may lawfully and laudably vow it yea and we do all vow it in our baptisme to forsake all rather then to forsake Christ to keepe nothing the keeping whereof should keepe vs away from Christ But when the hauing of our wealth hindereth not but that in mind and affection we may follow Christ and keepe our selues faithfull vnto him then to vow the relinquishing thereof is a superfluous and rash vow no seruice of God but a pleasing of our owne fancie and no where commended by Iesus Christ 24. W. BISHOP Now one word of obedience before we end this question This vow saith M. Perkins is against Christian liberty whereby we haue granted vs a free vse of all things indifferent and therefore to be bound to certaine meates and apparell is intollerable but this reason hath bene reproued already * Gal. 5.10 he addeth Stand fast in the liberty wherein Christ hath made you free Doth your breath or heart faile you Sir that you stop thus in the middest of a sentence the rest belike discouereth the fraud of it And wrap not your selues againe in the yoke of bondage to wit bind not your selues to the obseruation of Moses law as yee shall do if ye be circumcised All this is good but doth it follow hereof that in the law of grace we should not obey our superiours nor obserue such good orders as holy Church hath approued nothing lesse but happy is that necessitie as Saint Augustine witnesseth which holdeth vs close to those things which be better to do than to leaue vndone otherwise our weaknesse would quickly shrinke backe And againe if Christes sufferings without his obedience as M. Perkins himselfe testifieth Pag. 61. had not bene auaileable for our iustification no doubt but those workes which are garnished with the vertue of obedience are more acceptable in Gods sight Finally M. Perkins saith that wee magnifie these three vowes of chastitie pouertie and obedience And good reason haue we so to do as hath bene shewed but saith he for the vow of Baptisme we haue made no such account of it as they do which is not so We hold indeede that the couenant which we make in Baptisme is no vow but a full and assured promise to beleeue in God to renounce the diuell and all his workes and to keepe all Gods commandements which we keepe or do our best indeuour to keepe at least wee teach not as the Protestants do that they are impossible to be kept for that is enough to discourage any man from endeuouring to keepe them And as touching the vow which he saith we made in our creation wee remember nothing of it nor neuer heard speake of it by any good author not that we make or meane we any vowes when we receiue the B. Sacrament These be but nouelties of words and the rauing of some decayed wits R. ABBOT Christian liberty hath not onely set vs free from the rigour and curse of the law but also from the yoke of externall obseruations that is from placing religion and holinesse the worship and seruice of God and from reputing cleannesse or
and pregnant examples of all Churches for the same which they now do Many carts are not able to beare the Legends that might be written of Images and their miracles since the Church of Rome first vndertooke the patronage of them and shall we beleeue that the ancient Church was of their mind when there is so scant and silly shew of any authority or testimony for warrant thereof We may therefore see what a speciall faculty M. Bishop hath in making a conclusion and how workmanlike he can build a large house vpon a little ground But out of that wit which he hath shewed therein he telleth vs that no man in his right wits can denie but that it is and alwaies hath bene reputed a great honour to the deceased to erect him an Image to eternize the memory of his noble acts Where if his owne wits had bene right he would haue remembred that this of old was a heathenish reputation but no such honour done to the deceased amongst the people of God There was no such honor done to Abrahā and Isaac Iacob to eternize the memorie of their noble acts not to Moses nor Iosuah nor Dauid nor any other of those holy men And what shall we think that Solomon had not his right wits who in the building of the Temple neglected to set vp Images for all these to eternize the memorie of their noble acts This conceipt of Maister Bishops is prophane and foolish and sauouring wholy of Paganisme neither do we finde that the holy men of God haue euer reputed this as an honour to be done vnto dead men Nay he herein pointeth to the very roote from whence idolatry first sprung Men being by death depriued of them whom they loued would comfort themselues by making their pictures and images thereby to keepe some kind of sight and memoriall of them Thus the father did by his deceased sonne and men to them at whose hands they had receiued great benefits or whom they would seeme in speciall manner to admire From humane affection they proceeded to opinion and exercise of religion and whilest they doated vpon the Images of the dead they would thereby doe some honour and seruice to them The heart of man being gone astray from God grew more and more in the liking of this deuice and the diuell ceased not by all meanes to further the same vntill he had brought it to the height of all abhominable idolatry and found meanes to haue deuotion done to himselfe thereby vnder the name of God Thus S. Austine noteth that p August cont Faust lib. 22. cap. 17. Ex desiderio mortuotum constitutae sunt imagines vnde simulachrorum vsus exortus est maiore adulatione diuini honores deferebantur tanquam in coelum receptis pro quibus se in terris daemoniae colenda supposuerunt sibi sacrificari à deceptis per diti◠flagitarunt of desire or loue to the dead images were set vp whence the vse of Idols began and by greater flattery diuine honours were done to them as being taken vp into heauen in steed of whom the diuels here on the earth did substitute themselues and required of deceiued and wretched men to haue sacrifice done vnto them Here of the booke of Wisedome saith q Wised 14 13 The vaine-glorie of men brought in Idols into the world When a father mourned for his sonne that was taken away sodainly he made an image for him that was once dead whom now he worshippeth as a God and ordained to his seruants ceremonies and sacrifices Here is the originall and effect of that fantasticall deuice which Maister Bishop mentioneth of eternizing the memorie of men and of their noble acts by making Images and pictures of them As for that which he addeth of great incouragement hereby giuen to all beholders of such pourtraites to indeauour to imitate their glorious examples they are the glorious words of a vaine man babling his owne conceipts If God had seene this to be a fit meanes for incouragement to vertue he would not haue failed to giue to his people a commaundement thereof neither would he by speciall law haue taken away from them all vse and practise of this incouragement He telleth vs a tale out of their second Nicene Councell of a lewd woman reclaimed by the sight of Polemons picture but hee must bring vs a better authoritie if he will haue vs to beleeue him because we know it to haue bene the practise of that Councell to tell their owne lyes vnder the Fathers names Surely wee must thinke that shee was well prepared before that by the sight of a picture could be moued to leaue her vitious and vnchast life Out of doubt amongst all the pictures and Images of their Romish Church Maister Bishop cannot giue vs one example of the like But he telleth vs that the manifold commodities of Images stand in the discreete and holy practise of them and it is likely that that discretion and holinesse is worne out from amongst them and for that cause not one Curtizan learneth by the Image of our Lady that which that vnchast woman learned by the Image of Polemon and so much the lesse for that sometimes some gallant Curtizan is chosen to make our Ladies Image to her likenesse Foolish vaine man what discretion can there be in that in the practise whereof God hath pronounced men to be r Esa 44.19 voide of vnderstanding What holinesse can be in that which he affirmeth to be ſ Ibid. an abhomination what profit in that which he hath taught vs to be t Ver. 10. profitable for nothing what teaching by that which he calleth u Ierem. 10.8 the doctrine of vanity concerning which he hath said x Habac. 2.19 Woe vnto him that saith to the dumbe stone Rise vp it shall teach thee Which things considered the Superintendent of Hereford saith he but good manners would haue taught him to say the Lord Bishop of Hereford did iustly that which he did to take away crosses and pictures from such as make Idols of them and openly to burne them not transported therein with blind zeale but led thereto with mature iudgement and discretion not being like the Trent and Romish Bishops who for the most part are like the Idols which they worship carying a name of that they are not but a man of learning and grauity and wisedome giuing honour to the place wherein he is as the place hath done to him 4. W. BISHOP The difference Now to the points in controuersie which are three as M. Perkins deliuereth The first is in that the Church of Rome holds it lawfull to make Images to resemble God though not in respect of his diuine nature yet in respect of some properties and actions We contrarily saith M. Perkins hold it vnlawfull to make Images any way to represent the true God For the second commandement saith plainly * Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen Image nor
the likenesse of any thing in heauen c. The Papists say that the commandement is meant of the Images of false Gods but it must needs be vnderstood by the Image of the true Iehouah and it forbids to resemble God either in his nature or in his properties and works for so saith the Romane Catechisme vpon the second commandement Answer This passeth all kind of impudencie to quote the Romane Catechisme in defence of that opinion which it doth of set purpose disproue It teacheth indeede that the very nature and substance of God which is wholy spirituall cannot be expressed and figured by corporall lineaments and colours and alledgeth the places produced by M. Perkins to proue that vnlawfull yet by and by annexeth these words Let no man therefore thinke it to be against religion and the law of God when any person of the most holy Trinitie is purtraited in such sort as they haue appeared either in the old or new Testament c. But let the Pastor teach that not the nature of God but certaine properties and actions appertaining to God are represented in such pictures If the man be not past grace he will surely blush at such a foule error His texts of Scripture are taken out of the same place of the Catechisme and do proue only that Gods proper nature cannot nor may not be resembled in any corporall shape or likenesse Then Master Perkins returnes to confute the answer made him that Idols are there only prohibited and saith that we then confound the first and second commandement For in the first was forbidden all false Gods which man frames vnto himselfe by giuing his heart and the principall affections thereof vnto them Good and in the second admitting it to be the second is forbidden to draw into any materiall likenesse that Idoll which the heart had before framed vnto it selfe and to giue it any bodily worship which is distinction good enough to make two seuerall commandements Now the Romane Catechisme following Clement of Alexandria Lib. 6. Stromat and Saint Augustine Quest 71. super Exod and Ep. 119. cap. 11. and the Schoole-doctors in 3. Sent. distinct 37. doth make two commaundements of the Protestants last distinguishing desiring thy neighbours wife from coueting thy neighbours goods as they do Thou shalt not commit adulterie from Thou shalt not steale and make but one of the first two because the former doth forbid inward and the second outward Idolatry and the outward and inward actions about the said obiect are not so distinct as the desiring of so diuerse things as a mans wife for lecherie and his goods of couetousnesse And yet besides adde another reason very probable that the reward and punishment belonging alike to all the Commandements cannot in good order be thrust into the middle of them but must be placed either with the first or last Now comprehending the two former in one the reward is annexed conueniently to the first whereas if you make them two it is out of order and without any good reason put after the second This I say not to condemne the other diuision which many of the auncient writers follow but to shew how little reason Maister Perkins had to trust to that answer of his that we should confound the first and second which he saw the very Catechisme cited by himselfe doth make but one of both R. ABBOT M. Bishop doth much amisse here to put M. Perkins to the blush for an ouer-sight as touching the Romaine Catechisme and therin very ill prouideth for himselfe who in his owne booke hath scarcely written one leafe wherein there is not cause for himselfe to blush Verily he hath little cause to be so angry with M. Perkins for thinking better of the Romaine Catechisme then it doth 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
vident et audiuÌ„t vniuersa supernacua ergo sunt simulachra illis vbique praesentibus cuÌ„ satis sit audientiuÌ„ nomina precibus aduocare To what end are images which are the tokens either of them that are dead or of them that are absent Now if the Gods cannot be absent who because they are Gods or of diuine nature in whatsoeuer part of the world they be do heare and see all things then are their images vaine they being euery where because it is sufficient in their hearing to pray vnto them by their names And to this purpose do they obiect vnto them out of their owne bookes the sentences of their owne writers condemning the worshipping of their Gods by images as Austin bringeth in Varro acknowledging that l Aug de ciuit Dei lib. 4 ca. 31. Dicit Varro antiquos Romanos plusquam annot centum septuaginia Deos sine simulachro coluisse quod si adhuc inquit mansisset castius dij obseruarentur c Dicit qui primi simulachra Deorum populis posuerunt meâ—uÌ„ dempsisse errorem addidisse prudenter existimanâ— Deos facilè posse in simulachrorum stoliâ—itate contemnâ— the Romanes for aboue a hundred and seuenty yeares worshipped their Gods without images and that if they had still so done the Gods should haue bene more holily and purely serued or regarded and that they who first set vp the images of the Gods for the people did both take away feare and added error wisely esteeming saith S. Austine that the Gods in that blockish senselesnesse of images might easily be contemned Much more might be said to like effect out of Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Cyprian Athanasius and others in their tracts against the Pagans but by these it is sufficiently to be vnderstood that the coÌ„deÌ„nation of their idols ariseth not only of being the images of false Gods but of that being images they were worshipped howsoeuer the Gods might be supposed to be true Gods which they worshipped therby And who wold doubt but that the CarpocratiaÌ„ heretiks m Epiphan haer 27 Carpocrat Habent imagines Pythagorae Platâ—nis Aristotelis c cum quibus etiam imagines Iesu collocant collocatasque adorant gentium mysteria perficiunt c. sacrificium atque alia c. August de haeres Colobant adorando incensumque ponendo Iren. li. 1 ca. 24. setting vp the images of Iesus and Paul withall of Pythagoras Homer Plato Aristotle and doing worship offering sacrifice burning incense vnto theÌ„ did coÌ„mit idolatry make idols of these images albeit they were so far froÌ„ taking theÌ„ to be Gods or images of Gods as that it was one part of that heresie to deny n August ibid. Iesum hominem tantummodo putasse perhibetur the godhead of Christ Thus the name of Idols and Idolatry are sometimes metaphorically applied to those creatures which are vnlawfully worshipped albeit they be either not supposed or expresly denied to be Gods In which sort the Councell of Laodicea o Theodoret. in Col cap. 2 Laodicenae synodus lege cauit ne precarentur Angelos forbidding to pray to Angels as Theodoret briefly expresseth the effect of that Canon addeth p Laodic Concil ca. 35. Quicunque autem inuentus fuerit occultè huic idololatriae vacanâ— anathema sit quoniam derelinqueÌ„s Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum filium Dei accessit ad idola Whosoeuer shall be found giuing himselfe secretly to this idolatry accursed be he because forsaking our Lord Iesus Christ the Son of God he hath made accesse to Idols By which words it is plain that by praying to Angels men make Idols of theÌ„ though they do not think theÌ„ to be Gods because praier is a deuotion that belongeth only to God The like M. Bishop must confesse according to the opinion of Arius euen of Christ himselfe For if the first commandement forbid onely Idols as M. Bishop will haue it and Arius in impugning the diuinitie of Christ and yet acknowledging to worship him did breake the first coÌ„mandement then it cannot be denied but that by the doctrine of Arius Christ must become an Idol That Arius therin brake the first commandement appeareth by Theodoret q Theodoret. in Exod. q 37. Qui Trinitatis vnam substantiam coÌ„fitentur diuinae vocis legem obseruant nihil enim aliud pro Deo coli permittunt excepta diuina naturae Qui vero erroreÌ„ sequuntur Arij atque Eunomij manifestè in diuinam legem committunt confitentes quidem vnum filium sed creatum esse asserentes à diuina substantia alienuÌ„ CuÌ„ auteÌ„ Deus dicat Non erunt tibi dâ— alij praeter me isti profectò Deum aliuÌ„ introducuÌ„t They saith he who confesse one substance of the Trinitie do obserue the law of the word of God for they permit nothing to be worshipped for God saue only the nature of God But they which follow the error of Arius and Eunomius do manifestly trespasse against the law of God coÌ„fessing that the Son is one but affirming him to be created a straÌ„ger froÌ„ the substance of God Whereas God then saith Thou shalt haue no other Gods but me these verily bring in another God M. Bishop therfore must necessarily graunt that Arius made an Idoll of Christ whom notwithstanding he denied to be God and therefore that the name of an Idoll may belong to that which yet is not taken to be a God Therfore doth Athanasius say of them that by their opinion r Athan. cont Arian orat 4. Cur sese non adnumerant gentilibus siquidem ambo Creatore omisso creaturae inseruiant they were to be reckoned with the Gentiles because together with them in steed of the Creator they worshipped the treasure which as it was idolatry in the Gentiles so it must be in them also The like we haue heard before of the Nestorian heresie condemned of idolatry for worshipping the manhood of Christ without acknowledging the personall vniting thereof to the Godhead To be short S. Austine saith of the works of the flesh reckoned vp by the Apostle fornication vncleannesse c. Å¿ Aug. de verb. Apost ser 3. ista in nobis taÌ„quam idela frangenda sunt These are we to breake in our selues as Idols again telleth the Manichees t IdeÌ„ cont Faust lib. 14. ca. 11 In phantasmatibus fabularuÌ„ suaruÌ„ idola colunt that in their fabulous fancies they worship Idols and Hierome generally saith of heretikes that u Hieron in Zachar. ca 13. HaereticeruÌ„ peruersa doctrina quodcunque simulauerit vertit in Idolum whatsoeuer they deuise or feigne they turne it to an Idoll not for that men haue any opinion of Godhead in their lusts and fancies but because they yeeld them that affection and seruice which they owe to God By all this then it appeareth that because the name of Idols is metaphorically applied to things for being worshipped or deuoutly and affectionately embraced
not abide Images at all and as afterwards he speaketh againe g Lib. 8. Celsus ait nos ararum statuarum templorumque dedicationes fugere did shun the dedicating of altars Images and temples and the verie words here alledged do plainly expresse that they wholly abhorred Images as an impious defiling of religion condemned by the law of God And therfore by and by after he saith h Li. 7. Impossibi le est vt qui Deū norit supplex fiat statuis stulium est siquis preces simulachris offerat Nos ideo qucque non honoramus simulachra quia quantum possumus caueamus ne in eā credulitatem incidamus vt his tribuamus diuinitatis aliquid It is impossible that he that knoweth God should make supplication to Images it is a foolish thing that a man should offer prayers to Images we honour not Images because we take heed so much as we can lest we fall into any such conceipt as to attribute any diuine matter vnto them It is euident then that Origen wholly condemneth Images as touching all vses of religion to which M. Bishop would approoue them 7. W. BISHOP Hauing confuted the Protestants arguments against the making of Images to represent some propertie or action of God I now come vnto Catholike proofe of thē The first reason set downe by M. Perkins I reserue to the next point the second is God appeared in the forme of a man to Abraham * Genes 18. and to Daniel Who saw the ancient of daies sitting on a throne * Dan. 9. Now as God hath appeared so may he be purtraited drawn M. Perkins his answer is Not so vnlesse it be expresly cōmanded by God Reply This first is flat against his owne second conclusion where he holdeth it lawfull to represent to the eye in Pictures any histories of the Bible in priuate places both the foresaid apparitions be in the old Testament and therefore may be painted in priuate places which cannot be truly done without you do represent God in the same likenes as there he appeared And what reason leadeth in words to represent those actions of God the same serueth to expresse them in liuely colours Not so sayth M. Perkins because when God appeared in the forme of man it was a signe of Gods presence for that time onely and for no longer Be it so it might notwithstanding be recorded in writing that the memory of such maiestie ioyned with louing kindnesse might endure longer And if it pleased God that this short presence of his should be written to be perpetually remembred euen so the same might be ingrauen in brasse to recommend it to vs so much the more effectually For as the famous Poet doth by the light of nature sing Segnius irritant animos demissa per aures Quam quae sunt oculis subiecta fidelibus Such worthy acts as by the eares are to the mind conueyde Do moue vs lesse then that which is by faithfull eye descryde This argument may be confirmed by the pictures of Angels of Vertues and other such like spiritual or accidentall nature for if such things as haue no bodily proportion or shape may notwithstanding be counterfetted and resembled in some qualities why may not some propertie or actiō of God be in like manner represented That thou mayest Reader vnderstand the better what we meane obserue that pictures represent after three sorts Some expresse to the quicke the very shape proportion and colour of the patterne as the liuely picture of man or of any such corporall thing others represent things as they did appeare and were acted as if the Painter should expresse the meeting of God with Abraham and his entertainment he must then resemble God in the same likenesse of a man in which he shewed himselfe to Abraham Thirdly an Image of a spirituall thing may be drawne not to resemble the nature of it but to leade our vnderstanding by such a similitude into some better knowledge of that thing so are Angels painted like goodly yong men with wings to teach vs that they be of an excellent pure nature euer flourishing and most readie to dispatch with all expedition any employment to which God sends them and so may God the Father be pourtraited as a goodly old graue man sitting in his throne of maiestie attended vpon by millions of Angels as he is described in Daniel 9. to instruct vs how he is eternall infinite wise and of most redoubtable maiestie In either of these two latter sorts we hold that God may be represented and so in the seuenth generall Councell the drawing of the holy Ghost in forme of a Doue as he appeared Mat. 3. is approoued R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop telleth vs what they hold but as for proofe of that that they hold which in so weightie a matter should specially haue bene regarded he bringeth none nothing out of the old or new Testament no example of anie Patriarch Prophet Apostle Euangelist not of any of the godly Princes or righteous and faithfull seruants of God there being not one of them found to haue made an Image to represent God since the world began Yea he bringeth vs neither Father nor Councell for the space almost of eight hundred yeares after Christ and that which he bringeth then so vncertaine vnsufficient as that we may iustly wonder at their wilfulnesse who will affirme or hold so important a matter vpon so small ground Their allegation is that God appeared in the forme of a man to Abraham and to Daniel and as he hath appeared so he may be pourtraited and drawne Now albeit we approoue a ciuill and historicall vse of Images as he alledgeth yet we denie that the same extendeth so farre as to warrant an Image of God because howsoeuer it hath pleased God to appeare at anie time yet he hath giuē to vs an expresse charge that we presume not to set vp an image in any sort or meaning to represent him Therfore albeit God had appeared to Abraham in the forme of a man whence the Israelites might take occasion to figure him in that sort yet to preuent their so doing Moses telleth them as before hath bene shewed that a Deut 4.15 they saw no Image in the day when the Lord spake vnto them in Horeb out of the midst of the fire that they might not corrupt themselues and make them a grauen image the representation of any figure the likenesse of male or female c. b Vers 23. Take heed saith he lest ye forget the couenant of the Lord your God which he made with you and make you any grauen Image the likenesse of any thing as the Lord thy God hath charged thee Where if the Israelites had bene skilled in M. Bishops distinction of making Images this had hindered them nothing at all but that at the first they might carue or graue or paint God in the likenesse of a man because he had so appeared
them in these words Thou shalt not bow downe to them Answ If it be onely forbidden to make the image of God and to adore it then the making and worshipping of the image of Christ or of any other creature is not there prohibited and so this second commandement more then thrise alledged will not serue the turne against any other Image but God onely And in plaine reason according also to M. Perkins his owne confession the commandements of the first table touch onely our dutie towards God that we giue him all his due honour and do not giue any part thereof vnto any thing else whatsoeuer Wherefore diuine and godly worship is onely there spoken of and not such worship as we giue vnto any creature or to the picture of it And consequently there is nothing there against the worshipping of our holy images Obserue that there is a soueraigne worship due to God as to the creator and gouernor of all the world and to giue this to any creature is idolatry Another honour by infinite degrees inferiour yet absolute in it self is ascribed vnto Angels and men as creatures endued with reason and made after the likenesse of God and to exhibite this to whom it is due is ciuilitie and not idolatry This honour may be deuided into two parts because these creatures are like to God as wel in their naturall powers and qualities as in their supernatural And that honor which is giuen to man or Angel in respect of any natural qualitie may be called morall or ciuil but that which is attributed vnto them in regard of their supernaturall gifts may wel be called religious and spirituall because it is due vnto theÌ„ onely for their spirituall and religious qualities There is a third kind of worship yet meaner then the other which is a kind of dependant and respectiue worship as when a seruant is honoured or cherished not for his owne but for his masters sake And this is that worship which we allow vnto images which for the Saints sake whom it doth represent we do either reuerently regard or take off our hat or bow our knee vnto it This third kind of worship being all we allow vnto pictures were he not that vnderstands it more then halfe franticke that should thinke it a great desparagement vnto the incomprehensible worship of God that to one of his seruants pictures I should yeeld some such pettie reuerence or that God should forbid this in the forefront of his ten commaundements nothing lesse R. ABBOT It is true that the commaundements of the first table do touch onely our duty towards God requiring that we giue him all his due honor and do not giue any part thereof to any thing else whatsoeuer Therefore the second commandement for preseruing entirely the honour of God forbiddeth the making of any image whereby to represent or resemble him and not onely so but any image whatsoeuer to bow downe to it or to worship it yea not only the making and worshipping of Images but also the worshipping of the creatures themselues any whatsoeuer either in heauen or earth Both the words of the commaundement and the Scriptures of particular lawes that are referred vnto it do plainly shew that all these things are to be vnderstood therein Now then seeing the law saith both of images and of creatures Thou shalt not bow downe to them nor worship them it must follow that they who make the images of Saints and doe bow downe to them and worship them do trespasse against this commandement and therefore the commandement is by M. Perkins rightly and well applied against Popish Images But M. Bishop telleth vs that onely diuine or godly worship is there spoken of and not such worship as they giue to any creature or to the picture of it And we acknowledge that onely diuine and godly worship is there spoken of but diuine or godly worship we say is all manner worship pertaining to godlinesse and religion and therfore that they in giuing religious worship to Saints and to their images do contrary to the commaundement giue vnto them diuine and godly worship But M. Bishop with a distinction of worship taketh vpon him as do his fellows to mock God and albeit they commit all absurdity of idolatry yet by a school-trick will make him beleeue that they do him no wrong at all He telleth vs of a soueraigne worship due to God and of ae religious or spirituall worship due to Angels and Saints and of a dependent and respectiue worship due to Images But what is not the soueraigne worship of God a religious and spirituall worship or what do they make of their worship of images is there no religion therein and do they account it onely a profane and carnall seruice If on all parts there be religious and spiritual worship as he wil not deny what a wise part doth he play to giue vs a distinction of three members whereof one comprehendeth all Well howsoeuer he fumble in his termes yet we must take vpon vs to vnderstand his meaning well enough namely that they make three kinds of worship one belonging to God another to Angels and Saints and a third to Images They are wont to make but two kinds latria to God and doulia to Angels and Saints and both these seuerally to be performed to their images and we can hardly take M. Bishops word for any warrant that they are now minded otherwise It hath bene their common rule that a Thom. Aquin. p. 3. q. 25. art 3. ex Damascen Honor imaginis ad prototypum peruenit the honor of the image redoundeth to him whose image it is Therefore Thomas Aquinas resolueth that b Jbid. in corp EadeÌ„ reuerentia exhibetur imagini Christi ipsi Christo Cum ergo Christus adoretur adoratione latriae consequens est quòd eius imago sit adoratione latriae adoranda the same reuerence is giuen to the image of Christ and to Christ himselfe and because Christ is to be worshipped with the worship of latria that is diuine and godly worship it followeth that his image also is to be worshipped with the same worship of latria Therefore Andradius saith as hath bene c Sect. 1. before shewed We denie not but that we worship the crosse of Christ with this worship of latria So then inasmuch as the Saints are to be worshipped with the worship of doulia therefore they hold that their Images are in like sort to be worshipped Bellarmine simpereth somewhat at the matter and telleth vs that d Bellarmin de Imag. sanct c. 23 Admitti potest imagines posse coli impropriè per accidens eodem genere cultus quo exemplar ipsuÌ„ colitur it may be admitted that improperly and accidentally images may be worshipped with the same kinde of worship wherewith their principals are worshipped but one of his fellow Iesuites affirmeth simply and plainely that e Azor. Inâ—â—itut lib. 9 cap. 6.
doing of it therfore we must not adore images True if the Image were M. Bezaes ensigne or of their master the diuell or any of his hel-hounds R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop was disposed to play the Sycophants part or else he might haue seene that M. Perkins meaning was otherwise then to frame any such argument as he hath hewed his words to The point in question is the worshipping of Images M. Perkins for our principall ground against it alledgeth the second commaundement To declare the meaning of the commandement he alledgeth the example of our Sauiour Christ who when the diuell requireth him a Mat. 4.9 to fall downe and worship him vpon promise to giue him the whole world taketh exception against him not by the indignitie of his person but by the commaundement of the law Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely thou shalt serue importing thereby that the law doth forbid the doing of that which the diuel required to any saue to God onely He reiecteth him I say not in the name of a diuell but generally in the name and condition of a creature teaching by the law that no creature none but only God is to be holden capable of that which he demaunded to himselfe Now then if M. Bishops wits stand right the argument standeth good that sith Christ by the law challengeth to God onely that which the diuel required of him which was to fall downe and worship him we are thereby to learne that we are not to fall downe and to worship any creature not the Saints themselues much lesse the vile idols that are set vp in their names Here I know what they are ready to except that Christ saith not there Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God onely but Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and leaueth only to the other part Him only thou shalt serue as not denying but that other things may be worshipped beside God but only denying vnto thē the seruice of latria the word there being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence latria is deriued which they say is the seruice peculiar vnto God But how vaine this exception is appeareth by considering the originall words of the law which saith in like sort of both b Deut. 10.20 Thou shalt feare the Lord thy God and thou shalt serue him adding the word onely to neither part The name of feare is more generall and containeth all religion and deuotion towards God but in steed thereof our Sauiour Christ nameth worship which is a part of that feare fitting the words to the present occasion and yet not forcing the law because the challenge that God maketh to the whole must necessarily be vnderstood of euery part Now whereas the sentences in the law are set downe without the limitation of the word onely our Sauiour Christ to shew the meaning of the Scripture in such speeches concerning God addeth that limitation to the latter part not as to make that onely peculiar to God and to leaue the former in common to others but in the one teaching vs what we are to vnderstand in both because by what reason the one is appropriated to God by the same is the other also and leauing vs to conceiue that whatsoeuer God challengeth as a part of his worship and glory the same is to be giuen to no other beside him To which purpose Tertullian very wel saith c Tertull aduer Hermog Veritas sic vnum Deum exigit defendēdo vt solius sit quicquid ipsius est ita eum ipsius erit si fuerit solius Truth so requireth in the defending of one God that what is his be his alone for so shall it be his if it be onely his And so did Ambrose vnderstand the words of Christ when he sayth d Ambros de Spir sanct lib. 2. cap. 12. Neque adorandum quic quam praeter Deū legimus quia scriptum est Dominū Deum c. We reade that nothing beside God is to be worshipped because it is written Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely thou shalt serue And to take it otherwise taketh away the force of Christs exception against the diuell for it is no sufficient reason to say I will not worship thee because it is said Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God if other things may be worshipped beside God If to make good the answer of Christ they will rest the strength thereof vpon the latter part of the words they confound themselues and make our assertion good For if in the words of the law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Him onely thou shalt serue be an exception against that which the diuell requireth of Christ to fall downe and worship him it must necessarily be granted that to fall downe and worship is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to performe a seruice of latria to do that seruice which belongeth to God only Wherefore wil they nill they they must confesse that the law intendeth to say Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God only and thereof we rightly gather that because God only is to be worshipped therefore we may not worship any creature whatsoeuer but least of all dead and senslesse blocks M. Perkins wits therefore were not wilde in the propounding of the argument but M. Bishops honestie failed in the collecting of it and that because his wits failed for the answering of it As for his other terms I wil briefly answer him that M. Beza is there now where he is free from being touched with the barking of such dogs and that they haue the diuell for their master to whō that belongeth which S. Iohn saith e Reuel 9.20 They worshipped diuels and idols of gold of siluer and of brasse and of stone and of wood which neither can see nor heare nor go which hath no where to be verified but in the Popish Church and lastly that they are to be accounted the diuels hel-hounds who haue giuen themselues wholy to the diuell as many of M. Bishops holy fathers haue done and namely for the present f Platin. in Syluest 2. Totum se diabolo tradiderat Pontificatū adiuuāte diabolo cōsecutus est hac lege vt post mortē totus illius esset Syluester the second for the gaining of the Popedome 14. W. BISHOP M. Perkins his fourth reason A man saith he may be worshipped with ciuill honor not with religious which is wholy prescribed in the first table and yet the meanest man is a more excellent image of God then any painted one Answ A man may be worshipped with religious honor in respect of his supernaturall gifts as well as with ciuill honor of his naturall properties as hath bene before declared and no other religious honor is either prescribed or proscribed in the first table then such onely as is proper to God But saith he Thomas of Watering * 3. Part. qu. 25. art 3. holds that the Crucifixe is to be adored with the same honor
that are far spred and are growne old are not to be set vpon in this sort because by long tract and continuance of time they haue had great oportunitie to steale the truth And therefore as touching all prophane heresies and schismes that are growne old we are in no sort to do otherwise but either to conuince them if need be by onely authoritie of Scripture or else to auoyde them being aunciently conuicted and condemned by generall Councell of Catholike Bishops Where we see that Vincentius affirmeth directly contrary to that that M. Bishop reporteth of him that heresies are not alwayes to be dealt with by those rules that he hath before set downe yea that heresies that haue continued long and haue bene farre spread are no otherwise to be conuicted but by onely authoritie of Scripture And thereof he giueth reason for that they haue had time and oportunitie to falsifie the rules of faith and to corrupt the bookes and writings of the auncient Fathers which heretikes alwaies labour to do so that the doctrine of faith cannot safely be ieoparded vpon their consent Now whatsoeuer M. Bishop and his fellowes dreame of this booke this rule doth so fit vs as if Vincentius had purposely studied to instruct vs in what sort we ought to deale against them and to iustifie the course that we haue vsed in that behalfe Antichrist hath set vp his kingdome aloft in the Church and the whoore of Babylon hath sitten like a Queene for many ages past She hath fulfilled that that was prophesied of her that h Apoc. 14.8 she should make all nations to drinke of the wine of the wrath of her fornications i Chap. 17.2 The Kings of the earth haue committed fornication with her and the inhabitants of the earth haue bene drunke with the wine of her fornications She hath had k Gregor lib. 4. epist. 38 Rex superbiae propè est quod dici nefas est sacordotum est praeparatus exercitus c. an armie of Priests according to the saying of Gregorie an armie of Monkes and Friers of Schoolemen and Canonists who haue bin her agents and factors for the vttering of her merchandize and the vpholding of her state They haue vsed their endeuour to the vttermost for the corrupting l Erasm Epist ad Warram Archiepis Caniuar apud Hieron of the auncient monuments of the Church They haue made away many of the writings of the Fathers they haue falsified those that remaine they haue foisted in bastards and counterfeits vnder their names Most lewdly and shamefully m Ludou Viues de caus corrupt art Adscripta sunt Origeni Cypriavo Hieronymo Augustino quae ipsis nunquam ne per quiâ—tem quidem in mentem venerant indigna non solùm tantia ingenijs atque illa eruditione sed etiam seruis corâ— siquos Scythas habuerunt aut Seres they haue fathered vpon Origen Hierom Cyprian Austin the rest such things as they neuer dreamed of vnworthy not only of their conceit and learning but euen of their slaues if they had any that were Scythians and Barbarians By the names of such renowmed authors they haue sought to gaine credite to deuices of their owne such as the auncient Church was neuer acquainted with Now therefore Vincentius his rule standeth good on our part that inasmch as they haue had so long time and oportunitie to steale away the truth and to falsifie the Fathers writings therefore we are to conuict them by authoritie of Scripture onely knowing it to be true which Chrysostome saith that n Chrysost oper imperf in Math. hom 49. Ex quâ— heresis obtinuit Ecclesias nulla probatio potest esse verae Christianitatis neque refugium potest esse Christianorum aliud volentium cognoscere fidei veritatem nisi Scripturae diuine c Nullo modo cognoscitur volentibus cognoscere quae sit vera Ecclesia Christi nisi tantummodo per Scripturas c. Sciens Dominus tantam confusionem rerum in nouissimis diebus esse futuram ideo mandat vt Christiani volentes firmitatem accipere fidei verae ad nullam rem fugiant nisi ad Scripturas Alioqui si ad alia respexerint scandalizabuntur peribunt non intelligentes qua sit vera Ecclesia per hoc incident in abhominationem desolationis qua stabit in sanctis Ecclesiae locis since heresies haue gotten foote in the Church there is no proofe of true Christianitie nor other refuge for Christians desirous to know the truth of faith but onely the Scriptures of God no way for them that are desirous to know which is the true Church of Christ but onely by the Scriptures Our Lord saith he knowing that there should be so great confusion of things in the last dayes doth therefore wil that Christians desirous to receiue assurance of true faith should flie to nothing but onely to the Scriptures Otherwise if they looke to any thing else they shall stumble and perish not vnderstanding which is the true Church and thereby shall light vpon the abhomination of desolation which shall stand in the holy places of the Church Now therfore we haue done nothing but that that in the course of Christianitie is iust and right to call the triall of the controuersies and questions of religion to the authoritie of the Scriptures onely and to teach men therein onely to repose the certaintie and assurance of their faith Albeit by the singular prouidence of almightie God it hath come to passe that in antiquitie as we haue the same remaining vnto vs there is yet light sufficient to discouer the apostasies abhominations of the Church of Rome to iustifie the truth of God against their falshood and lies and to make it appeare that we do rightly and truly apply the Scriptures to the reproouing and conuincing thereof as through this whole worke is most plainly and cleerly to be seene And this is so much the more manifest for that they themselues haue bene forced to complaine that they are faine o Index Expur in castig BertraÌ„ CuÌ„ in Catholicis veteribus alijs plurimos feramus errores extenuemus ex cusemus excogitato commento persaepe negemus et commodumijs sensuÌ„ affingamus dum opponuntur in disputationibus aut in conflictionibus cum aduersarijs c. to beare with very many errors as they call them in the old Catholike writers and to extenuate them to excuse them by some deuised shift to denie them and to set some conuenient meaning on them when they are opposed in disputations or in conflicts with their aduersaries In many questions we shew the antiquitie the vniuersalitie the vniforme consent and agreement of the auncient church for vs and against them and it is strange to see what poore and miserable shifts yea what impudent and shamelesse deuices they are driuen to and yet cannot auaile to suppresse the light thereof In a word it is plainly found that they haue no cause to bragge of
words among all when they should translate in all and the Adiectiue being put without a Substantiue must in true construction haue this word things ioyned with it and not men wherefore the text being sincerely put into English it would carry no colour of their error For the Apostles saying is Let mariage be honorable in all things and the bed vndefiled Here is no willing of any man to marry but onely a commaundement to them that be married to liue honestly in marriage to keepe as elsewhere he saith their vessels in sanctification and not in dishonor and then shall their mariage be honorable in all things that is in all points appertaining to matrimonie so that now you see that M. Perkins is not able to bring any one place out of Scripture to disproue the vow of chastitie R. ABBOT A double corruption saith M. Bishop and yet there is neither of them to be seene and vnlesse we wil take his simple word he is able to proue none First he blameth vs for saying Mariage is honorable telling vs that we should rather say Let mariage be honorable and seeth not in the meane time that our translation is implied in his owne for why should the Apostle say Let mariage be honorable but because it is so as if he should say let it be so reckoned of as it is a thing honorable amongst all But without any implicatioÌ„ the latter part of the sentence being affirmatiue sheweth that the Apostle meant to speake affirmatiuely in the former also In this sort S. Austine conceiued the Apostles meaning who mentioning the good things that are in mariage due order of generation fidelity of chastity and the sacred bond of mariage it selfe addeth a August cont Pelag. Celest lib. 2. cap. 34. Propter haec omnia honorabiles nuptiae in omnibus thorus immaculatus In all these respects mariage is honorable in all and the bed is vndefiled So also Chrysostom vnderstandeth it as we translate it that the Apostle b Chrysostom ad Heb. hom 33. Cùm posuisset honorabile coniugium thoruÌ„ immaculatum ostendat quod meritò inferat quae sequuntur setteth downe that mariage is honorable in all So likewise Theophylact rendereth the words affirmatiuely c Theoph. in Heb. 13. Connubium honorabile est honore dignum est Mariage is honorable mariage is worthy of honor and in the very same sort d Socrat. hist lib. 1. cap. 8. Paphnutius in the Councel of Nice and the e Sext. Synod can 13. Fathers and Bishops of the sixt Synod in Trullo cite it as an affirmatiue speech Mariage is honorable in all and therfore we reiect M. Bishops assertion as childish and vaine that this cannot be the course of the Apostles speech The sentences before and after are vttered according as the matter requireth but it more fitteth here for the inferring of the latter part of the verse that the Apostle say affirmatiuely Mariage is honorable then Let it so be that fornicators and adulterers may vnderstand themselues to be without excuse in that mariage is appointed as an honorable state and remedy for the auoiding of such sinne And thus doth Chrysostome tie the two parts of the verse together f Chrys vt supra Si enim connubium concessum est iustè scortator supplicijs afficitur For if mariage be granted then the fornicator is iustly punished So Oecumenius g Oecumen in Heb. cap. 13. NaÌ„ si coniugium permissum est sine peccato licet ad explendae concupiscentiam quis erit excusationis praetextus scortatoribus adulteris For if mariage be permitted and be lawfull without sin to satisfie concupiscence what pretence of excuse shall there be for fornicators and adulterers The former part of the sentence then is an assertioÌ„ that mariage is permitted is lawful without sin Yea but then saith M. Bishop we must take him to say that the bed also is vndefiled amongst all which saith he is not true But he should haue told vs why it is not true where if he had answered that the bed of mariage is not vndefiled amoÌ„gst all because some pollute it by adultery and whoredom it would haue appeared that his vnderstanding was very short that could not conceiue that the Apostle telleth vs what the mariage bed is of it selfe not what it becometh by the vsage of it He saith elsewhere h 1. Cor. 3 17. The temple of God is holy which ye are and yet withall he saith If any man destroy the temple of God him will God destroy as giuing to vnderstand that the vncleannesse of men may defile that which God hath made holy So is it in this case the bed of mariage is holy and vndefiled God reputeth no vncleannes or pollution to it It is lawfull without sinne as Oecumenius hath before expounded it * Primaes in Heb. 13. Immaculatus lectustimmaculati illi inde surgentes hoc est maculam peccati iâ—de non trahentes They that rise from it are vndefiled saith Primasius not drawing from thence any spot of sinne but the vncleannesse is when the bed of mariage is made the bed of adultery and mans filthinesse polluteth that which God hath sanctified In a word that which the Apostle saith of all the creatures of God is to be applied to the mariage bed it is i Tit. 1.15 cleane to them that are cleane that is to them who by chast conuersation preserue in it that holinesse and honour that God hath attributed vnto it Now by that that hath bene said appeareth the vanitie of his second cauill where he saith that in steed of in all things we say amongst all or amongst al men The greek words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in all and the sentence being so read Mariage is honorable in all what else doth it sound but mariage is honorable in all men And this is indeed the true and proper translating of the words for we in reading amongst all do disaduantage our selues by not expressing literally the words of the Apostle For we know that that may be honorable amongst all which yet all are not capable of The calling of the minister and of the magistrate is honorable amongst all but yet all cannot be ministers and magistrates But the Apostle saith that mariage is honorable in all to signifie that it is a state of life which God hath instituted to be free for al men And that this is the true meaning of the Apostle appeareth by that that hath bin before said For if these words do serue to bereaue fornicators and adulterers of all pretence of excuse then they must be so taken as that fornicators and adulterers must vnderstand that they appertaine to them And how shall they vnderstand that the words do appertain to them vnles we take them in this sort that mariage is honorable in all men for otherwise they may haply say
Mariage indeed is honorable but it did not belong to vs. For suppose that Popes and Popish Priests be fornicators as their Canon law telleth vs that k Dist. 81. Maximianes in glos CoÌ„muniter dicum quòd Clericus pro simplici fornicatione deponi non debet quia pauci sine illo vitio inueniuntur few of them are found without that fault how shall they be depriued here of the excuse of their filthinesse if they may say We held marriage to be honorable but it was not lawful for vs to marry But the words do serue to take away from all adulterers and fornicators all excuse of such vncleannes They must therefore be taken to affirme indeed that which they seeme to do that mariage is honorable in all men And so doth Theophylact apparently expound it l Theoph. in Heb. 13. Non quia nuptiae aetate prouectioribus minùs conueniant adolescentulos verâ— admocuÌ„ deccant sed cunctis art honori sunt He saith not that mariage is vnfitting for the elder and fit onely for yong men but honorable for all though withall he expound those words in all as importing n Vel in omnibus hoc est quibusuit modis quouis tempore euery way and at all times But M. Bishop bringeth vs to the Grammar and telleth vs that the adiectiue being put without a substantiue must in true construction haue this word things ioyned with it Full wisely I warrant you and with great skill as though where the Apostle saith n 1. Cor. 8.7 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are not to translate there is not knowledge in all men or all men haue not knowledge but rather there is not knowledge in all things because the adiectiue is there put without a substantiue and where the Apostle saith o 2. Thess 3.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we should not say all men but all things haue not saith and where he saith p 1. Tim. 2.9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we should not translate who gaue himselfe a redemption for all men but for all things because in these places the adiectiue is put without the substantiue as in infinite other places it is where notwithstanding it must necessarily be vnderstood not of all things but of all men It is not passion then as he obiecteth to vs but plaine frenzie as it seemeth that maketh him to vse these blind and ignorant cauillations and the places of Scripture which M. Perkins hath alledged against their vow of continencie stand still firme and sure for ought that he hath bene able to say against them 10. W. BISHOP The Scripture being so barren for him he shall belike recompence it with the abundant testimonie of antiquitie in fauour of his cause but oh vnhappie chance he hath cleane forgotten in this question the record of the auncient Church what was there not one Father who with some one broken fragment of a sentence or other would releeue you in this your combat against the Vow of Chastitie I will helpe you to one but I feare me you will scarce thanke me for my paines it is such a one as is neither holy nor father but the auncient Christian Epicure Iouinian who as S. Augustine hath recorded * Haeres 82. ad Qued vult and S. Ierome * Lib. 1. contra Iouin did hold that virginitie of professed persons men and women was no better then the continencie of the married So that many professed virgins beleeuing him did marry yet himselfe did not marry as Frier Luther did not because he thought chastitie should be rewarded in the life to come with a greater crowne of glory but because it was fit for the present necessitie to auoyd the troubles of marriage see iust the very opinion of M. Perkins and our Protestants But this heresy saith S. Augustin in the same place was quickly suppressed and extinguished it was not able to deceiue any one of the Priests And in another place thus * Lib. 2. reâ—rec 22 he speaketh of Iouinian Holy Church most faithfully and valiantly resisted this monster So that no maruell if that M. Perkins could find small releefe in antiquitie for this his assertion which the best of them esteemed no better then a monstrous sacrilegious heresie R. ABBOT How simply M. Bishop hath dealt in the answering of the Scriptures alledged against him we haue very well seene already and it hath bene made appeare to him that we want not testimony of antiquitie for the applying thereof in such sort as we do Albeit we freely say to him that our faith resteth entirely vpon the word of God and where God hath spoken plainly to vs we wil not suspend our assent vpon question whether men thinke the same that God hath told vs. If men haue giuen testimony thereof we take their witnesse and vse it if not we say as in another case Cyprian doth a Cypr. lib. 2. ep 5. Non sunt expectaÌ„da testiâ—onia humana cùm praecedunt diuina suffragia We are not to looke for the testimonies of men where we haue warrant already from God himselfe and with the Apostle Saint Paul b Rom. 3.4 Let God be true and euery man a liar In the meane time we do but suffer M. Bishop here to c Prou. 7.22 go like a foole to the stockes for correction not imagining whither he goeth and like the poore fish to dally play with the baite wherein he receiueth his owne bane He sporteth himselfe with Iouinian and in the cause of Iouinian we bring not a broken fragment of a sentence of some father but in a manner a whole Church and no meane Church but euen the Church of Rome defending and maintaining that virginitie of professed persons is no better with God then the continencie of the married The old Church of Rome condemned the doctrine of Montanus which was the same in effect as before I haue said that the Church of Rome now maintaineth The old Church of Rome vpheld the doctrine of Iouinian which was the same that we now defend against the Church of Rome This matter gentle Reader hath bene declared before at large d Sect 8. in the answer to M. Bishops Epistle and thither I refer thee for the full vnderstanding of it Here I will onely briefly remember thee that the doctrine of Hierome against Iouinian found generall opposition in the Romane Church and how scandalously and offensiuely it was taken his owne words may giue vs to vnderstand when in his apologie he saith e Hieron apolog pro lib. aduer Iouin Grande piaculuÌ„ euersae sum ecclesiae orbis audire non potest si virginitatem diximus esse muÌ„diorem quà m nuptias A great offence the Churches are ouerthrowne the world cannot abide to heare it that I haue said that virginitie is more pure or holy then marriage It was no small matter that made him thus to speake to hold that virginitie is more holy then